Does Gulf spill controversy stretch all the way to Canada?

June 11, 2010

OIL-SPILL/Oil and gas spewing from that broken wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico has spread at least as far as the Florida coast, and could go further. Controversy and questions about the relative safety of different kinds of fuel pipelines may have spread over an even wider area — taking in Washington DC, Alberta, Canada, and a big slice of the U.S. heartland.

Have the ripples from that BP spill reached the U.S. State Department? At least one environmental group thinks that could be the case. The State Department, which approves energy pipelines that cross international borders into U.S. territory, is considering the environmental impact of a massive pipeline that would have stretched from Canada’s oil sands fields all the way to Texas. But on Wednesday, the department extended the public comment period for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project a few weeks, from June 15 to July 2, with additional public meetings on the project on June 18 in Houston and on June 29 in Washington DC.

Fuel made from oil sands, also known as tar sands, appeals to those who favor fuel made by U.S. allies — like Canada — instead of countries that use oil revenues to oppose the United States and U.S. citizens abroad. And given the mess in the Gulf of Mexico, supporters of Canadian oil sands say that getting oil on land is less of a risk than deepwater drilling. But environmental groups argue this method is destructive to terrain and requires lots of climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions to produce.

Now, in light of the devastation caused by the BP spill, conservationists argue that the Keystone XL pipeline could cause on land what the BP blowout has done underwater. The National Wildlife Federation maintains that the pipeline’s nearly 2,000-mile path takes it under some of the most productive U.S. farmland and a huge underground fresh water reservoir called the Oglala Aquifer.

Ben Gotschall, a fourth-generation cattle rancher in Nebraska, is worried about a possible pipeline leak.

ENERGY SYNCRUDE CANADA“We don’t really know what could happen,” Gotschall said by telephone. “We could look at the Gulf BP spill as an example of what can happen when you have an oil leak in water. Obviously there is not sea life under there but it is fresh drinking water, so that’s a concern.”

Gotschall, whose family’s 10,000-acre (4,047 hectares) ranch is about 250 miles (402.3 km) from Omaha, said the Keystone XL pipeline is slated to go through Nebraska’s Sand Hills, a very porous sub-surface that could let any spill go down into the aquifer.

The National Wildlife Federation warned in a report before the State Department’s decision to push back the comment period: “This pipeline system would virtually assure the destruction of swaths of one of the world’s most important forest ecosystems, produce lake-sized reservoirs of toxic waste, import a thick, tarlike fuel that will release vast quantities of toxic chemicals into our air when it is refined in the United States, and emit significantly more global warming pollutants into the atmosphere than fuels made from conventional oil.”

NWF president Larry Schweiger said in a telephone interview, “The tar sands, like the deepwater oil in the Gulf, is a high-risk high-pollution oil development that is leading us further and further into this path of dependency on dangerous oil.”

Two oil sands pipelines have already been approved, so this wouldn’t be a first, and crude derived from oil sands has been flowing on other pipelines to the United States for decades. The oil industry is well aware of the environmentalists’ criticisms and has been working to get out the message that they are spending millions on technological fixes for issues like water use and toxic tailings ponds.

The U.S. demand for oil isn’t going to go away anytime soon. What would you tell the State Department’s meetings on this project?

Photo credits: REUTERS/Lyle W. Ratliff (Oil from BP spill dots Orange Beach, Alabama, June 10, 2010)

REUTERS/Todd Korol (Syncrude Canada Ltd.’s expansion mine, which produces synthetic crude from oil sands, north of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, May 24, 2006)

2 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Talk about dirty energy! The Tar sands were long agoabandoned as a ridiculous source of oil and are now considered lucrative… environment be damned.

It is crazy the risks to human health that we will suffer all in the name of oil. The tailings are toxic, the procedure is filthy in every regard and it takes far too much energy to extract.

We need a sustainable future and new sources of energy … not going back to abandoned ideas that were proven too costly, risky and environmentally unsafe.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

I would tell the State Department… Make no more pipelines, Make Huge Monstrous Wind and Solar farms NOW! Just like the Offshore Oil rigs, the On shore oil pipelines will leak, it’s only a matter of time. Invest in Wind and Solar, and Advertising on how to conserve, and there will be no leaks from Pipelines into our Aquifers.

If you in the State Dept. cannot do this for the American people, then you should fire yourself if you don’t have the guts to do what is right.

Let some of us do the hard things you cannot.
I swear, I could do it and I am nobody!!

Posted by rapptastic | Report as abusive