Skip to Content

Encyclopedia of Canadian pipelines: Keystone XL and Northern Gateway

Read More:
Map of North American pipelines - from Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) website.

 

The Keystone debate:

Opponents say:

The “anti-Keystone” contingent has convinced an increasing proportion of the public that the environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline vastly outweigh the potential benefits.

The fact that the pipeline would transport oil to the U.S. from Canada’s “dirty” tar sands is perhaps most detrimental to its cause. Scientists and environmental advocates all over the world have attacked the Alberta tar sands because the process for extracting the oil has a much higher carbon footprint than other methods.

Tar sands oil is also said to be heavier and more corrosive than other types of crude, meaning it could be more likely to cause pipeline leaks. And many protesters have focused on TransCanada’s poor track record when it comes to leaks; an infographic from the Huffington Post shows at least 12 reported incidents since the first Keystone pipeline went into operation.

Environmentalists in the U.S. also note the danger that the expansion poses in crossing over 1,900 waterways, including the Ogallala Aquifer, the country’s largest freshwater source.

Widespread opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline included a signed letterto the President from the Dalai Lama and a number of other Nobel prize winners.

"What they’ve been using to force this on the American people are two lies. One of them is that it was going to create 250,000 jobs. Well, that was an industry talking point. When we started to really look into those numbers, when we started to do the work that the media should be doing before they start repeating these bogus claims, we found out that it’s really 5,000 jobs.

Mark Ruffalo; Actor

"Because this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment and because a number of concerns have been raised through a public process, we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed and the potential impacts are understood."

- U.S. President Barack Obama

"By ordering additional environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama has made it clear that he has heard the concerns of Americans about environmental protection, climate change, and the need for the United States to create a clean energy future."

- Dan Woynillowicz; Spokesperson, The Pembina Institute

Supporters say:

The most significant potential advantages of the Keystone XL project would be the thousands of union jobs it could bring to the U.S. economy. TransCanada claims the expansion would directly create more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs during construction, and up to 250,000 permanent jobs in the States due to the increase in stable oil supply. Keystone supporters also point to the $5.2 billion in property taxes that would eventually be paid to states along the route.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the Keystone decision in the U.S. should be a “no-brainer”, noting that on top of the job creation aspect, “the need for the energy in the United States is enormous.”

And that need for energy is key to another major talking point – reducing American dependence on foreign oil currently imported from outside North America. An early press release from TransCanada stated, “Once permitted and completed, the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion project will supply roughly half the amount of oil that the U.S. currently imports from the Middle East or Venezuela”.

Canadian Environmental Minister Peter Kent famously used the term “ethical oil” to describe the tar sands product, suggesting that it’s guilt-free since it comes from a friendly North American neighbour. One surprising voice coming to Keystone’s defense was Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace who later wrote the book Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout.

"There has been a demonizing of a legitimate resource. It is ethical oil.
It is regulated oil. And it’s secure oil in a world where many of the free
world’s oil sources are somewhat less secure."

- Canadian Environmental Minister Peter Kent

"I have a suggestion for the president …Take a pen and sign one order and let the Keystone XL pipeline go through. He will create 120,000 jobs. No money on the part of the taxpayers and it is private industry that will do it, and why in God’s name is he not doing that?"

- Bernie Marcus; Co-founder, Home Depot

"Our oil is probably more ethically produced than just about any other country in the world, and we are a friendly country to the United States….The reason I support it is that it’s the safest way to transport oil. It’s not like there’s going to be a blowout in the oil sands like there was in the Gulf, there’s no pressure. This oil is just on sand, and it’s being taken off the sand in a kind of steam-cleaning process."

- Patrick Moore; Co-founder, Greenpeace

(8) Comments

leoc November 29th 2011 | 12:12 PM

And her research  shows most of the money that is fighting the northern pipeline is coming from big business from United States that is funnelled up here through fronts called posing as environmental agencies.  

The US State Dept review for Keystone XL lists Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline at 550,000 initially with ability to handle 800,000 eventually. At the larger volume the pipeline would enable 150 million tonnes of new CO2 emissions to be pumped into our atmosphere every year. That is nearly triple all of BC's fossil fuel burning today. Carbon tax paid? Zero.

We are charging ourselves a carbon tax and working hard to cut CO2 emissions in BC by 10 million tonnes a year in twenty years and then we turn around and enable 150 million new tonnes to be produced that pay no carbon tax? Crazy.

It would require 365 Aframax supertankers per year to haul the oil away.

One other proposed pipeline is the Kinder Morgan Northern Leg into Kitimat as well. Another 75 million tonnes of CO2 and 183 supertankers. Carbon tax paid? Zero.

This planned expansion "twinning" will bring yet another 75 million tonnes of climate destabilizing pollution and 183 supertankers across BC wilds to our coast. It ends up right here in Vancouver. Double bonus. Carbon tax paid? Zero.

Matt November 29th 2011 | 3:15 PM

My only comment about this is that we arent really saving any C02, it will simply be produced from other sources.  Stopping supply from one region just means it will be produced from an other. I would rather see the oil refined domestically to meet our own energy demands.

On the topic of sustainability, I wasnt really aware of any sustainable way to consume a non renewable resource.  We have always been running out its just a matter of when...

Matt November 29th 2011 | 3:15 PM

Also on the subject of taxes, Im not sure how more taxes reduce the amount carbon being released into the atmosphere.

Alan November 30th 2011 | 7:07 AM
Unfortunately a well-organized and richly-funded coterie of enviro-evangelists have fastened on to the oil sands as the doorway to the apocalypse. It'd be laughable if so many people weren't duped by their campaign. In actuality, hysteria and hidden agendas aside, the oil sands produce just 0.1 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions; a much bigger culprit is coal, which is responsible for more than 20 per cent of the world's man-made GHGs. In fact, all of Canada only produces two per cent of the world's entire greenhouse gases and Alberta is responsible for just five per cent of that. Shut down the entire oil sands industry (not just the Keystone XL pipeline) – or, for that matter, Canada itself – and the global CO2 meter would hardly flicker, while the volume of fossil fuels burned in the United States would remain the same. Stepping in as the immediate beneficiaries of the oil sands demise would be Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Venezuela and Nigeria – countries whose environmental protection standards, democratic credentials and gender and human rights records fall far short of Canada’s. An unmarried woman living out of wedlock could be stoned to death in Iran. In Fort McMurray, home of the oil sands, she is the Mayor (Melissa Blake). What else do you need to know?
luc February 12th 2013 | 11:23 PM

I agree with the two comments about international interference. The U.S.A. will soon have enough oil to supply its own needs for the next 100 years. Our competion in the Asian markets is unwanted by the U.S.A.  They will make it difficult for us any way they can. Just look into the recent changes the U.S.A. implemented in the way they sell their LNG to Asia. It was a deliberate attempt to disrupt our energy exports. In the matter of energy, U.S.A. are NOT our friends.