The pipeline debate

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]Chris Henderson, the president of Lumos Energy and author of Aboriginal Power: Clean Energy & The Future of Canada’s First Peoples, notes that First Nations groups are especially concerned about potential damage to waterways and ecologically-sensitive marine environments. “When you damage a waterway,” he says, “culturally, it cuts to the heart of who they are as a people.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]Henderson believes that some of that concern could be alleviated if a new and more effective way of addressing and arbitrating the interests of those affected by pipeline activity was employed. “The old way of doing things was that the government looked at a project, felt it was okay and then went ahead with it,” he says. “But in the 21st century, indigenous and locals’ rights count. So should we not move to a process where their interests are arbitrated up front rather than determined in a legal process where no one will be happy?”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][mk_custom_box border_width=”1″ bg_color=”#d9d9d9″ bg_position=”left top” bg_repeat=”repeat” bg_stretch=”false” padding_vertical=”5″ padding_horizental=”5″ margin_bottom=”15″ min_height=”100″ el_class=”ImageBox”][mk_gallery images=”7610″ column=”1″ height=”500″ frame_style=”simple” disable_title=”false” image_quality=”1″ pagination=”false” count=”10″ pagination_style=”1″ order=”ASC” orderby=”date”][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”0″ el_class=”Image-Description”]Canadian pipelines, such as this one under construction in British Columbia, transport a combined total of about three million barrels every day.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”right” margin_bottom=”0″ el_class=”Photo-Caption”]PHOTO: ALBERT NORMANDIN/MASTERFILE[/vc_column_text][/mk_custom_box][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″][mk_dropcaps style=”simple-style”]D[/mk_dropcaps]eriving crude from the oilsands is a highly intensive process. Roughly 80 per cent of current oilsands reserves will be mined in situ, a drilling process that entails pumping steam underground to heat bitumen, so it can be pumped to the surface.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]In its 2012 report, “Oilsands, Greenhouse Gases, and U.S. Oil Supply,” global consulting firm IHS estimated that on average, from production to combustion, oil from the oilsands emits about 12 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than average crude oil that’s consumed or refined in the United States — a fact that U.S. officials will consider in deciding whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][mk_blockquote style=”line-style” font_family=”none” text_size=”19″ align=”left”]The best way to deal with safety concerns is to prevent them.[/mk_blockquote][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]Energy and environmental analysts alike recognize that purely ethical concerns over climate change will likely not limit fossil fuels development or, by extension, decisions on proposed pipeline construction. But as more countries in the world consider using carbon taxes or other financial mechanisms to limit carbon emissions, virtuous environmental arguments can easily become bottom-line economic arguments.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]In 2012, U.K.-based Carbon Tracker released a report concluding that carbon-intensive energy reserves may become a financial liability for investors over time, as governments move to control emissions and economies shift to low-carbon alternatives. According to the report, a “carbon bubble” exists in today’s financial markets, and when that bubble bursts, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels could stay in the ground.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]“Canadian oilsands aren’t easy,” says Jeff Rubin. “If we do it, it’s only in a world of increasing oil prices and increasing carbon emissions.” But if you put a carbon budget into the mix, he explains, oilsands crude will trade lower in the future because it’s so carbon-intensive compared with other reserves — a situation that will obviously affect any major investment in pipeline infrastructure. “At some point people are going to connect the dots,” he says, referring to increasing carbon emissions and resulting climate impacts. “That will have an effect on valuation of these reserves, and also on how these companies should be conducting themselves.”[/vc_column_text][mk_content_box icon=”moon-reading” heading=”Security lines”][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”0″]Supporting energy independence[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”0″]While debate about pipelines typically centres on economic gain and environmental sustainability, the issue of energy security is an important consideration, too.

According to the United States Chamber of Commerce’s 2013 report International Index of Energy Security Risk, Canada is the 5th most energy-secure nation in the world, thanks principally to its large and varied resource base and energy self-sufficiency. (The report uses 29 metrics to calculate the relative security of what it calls the globe’s “larger energy user group,” which also includes the U.S., Australia, Brazil, China, Russia and Norway.) The study further indicates, however, that a primary threat to Canada’s energy security is lack of access to foreign markets, something that proposed pipeline projects such as Keystone XL and Northern Gateway could help mitigate.

Overseas, pipelines are already playing an increasingly important role in energy security. For example, about 15 to 17 million barrels of oil per day pass through the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Gulf of Oman to the Persian Gulf and separates Iran from the United Arab Emirates. However, political uncertainty between the West and Iran often leads to fear that the strait will be closed to transport. This led the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to construct the 360-kilometre Habshan-Fujairah oil pipeline in 2012 to ease their dependence on Iran and the waterway.

Here at home, proponents of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline tout its energy security benefits not only to Canada but also to the United States. Some experts believe the U.S. will reduce its dependence on foreign oil from regions of political tension, such as the Middle East, by importing more oil from Canada.[/vc_column_text][/mk_content_box][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]Most industry proponents recognize that climate change is a critical issue. CEPA’s Brenda Kenny, for example, sits on the board of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation, a non-profit that invests in technologies to reduce carbon emissions and seeks to drive Alberta “toward a stronger and more diverse lower-carbon economy.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]Climate change “is the elephant in the room,” says Kenny, and it needs to be openly and honestly acknowledged. But even if Canada shut down the oilsands today, she argues, oil demand would be met by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other countries that are less transparent and less committed than Canada to reinvesting in a clean energy future. For Kenny, the best way forward on climate is to use the wealth generated from the oilsands to elevate Canada’s influence on the world stage. “Our pipelines are as much about meeting Canadian needs in a diverse way as they are about entering a new chapter of Canadian global leadership,” she says. “We have a choice of stepping back or stepping up; stepping back has no material impact on the outcome that we’re all passionate about, but stepping up sure does. And you can only step up if you have the economic might to do it.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][mk_content_box icon=”moon-reading” heading=”Connection construction”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][mk_image src=”http://energyexchange.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Building_Pipelines.jpg” image_width=”800″ image_height=”750″ crop=”true” lightbox=”true” frame_style=”simple” target=”_self” caption_location=”outside-image” align=”right” margin_bottom=”0″ desc=”PHOTO: THE CANADIAN PRESS/LARRY MACDOUGAL”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”0″]Building pipelines[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”0″]After a pipeline is approved, there’s still the not-so-trivial matter of actually building it. That entails surveying the location ahead of time, and clearing a workspace and right-of-way over the landscape, which often means clearing trees or other vegetation. Workers then strip the layers of soil to ensure the ground is smooth and level. Pipeline sections are then laid in order — a process called “stringing” — before they are welded together on-site. Since the majority of pipelines are buried, the next step for builders is to dig the pipeline’s trench, usually about a metre deep. The pipe, which is coated with a protective film, such as epoxy and polyethylene, is then lowered into the trench, and buried with backfill and topsoil to cover it up.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/mk_content_box][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]“Going from two to five million bpd would certainly catapult Canada into the front rank of global energy producers,” says Rubin. But it would also add to Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. “On the other hand”, asks Oliver, “will constraining oilsands development significantly limit emissions, globally, if the worldwide demand for oil continues to grow?” To meaningfully address climate change, he argues, Canada needs to contribute solutions to decarbonizing the global economy, of which it’s an integral part.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text disable_pattern=”true” align=”left” margin_bottom=”15″]Regardless, the pipeline debate will continue, as it should. The nation’s use of pipelines, today and in the future, “will determine what the next century looks like for us,” says Kenny, of the debate. “The good news is that Canadians are asking important questions about energy, economy and Canada’s role in the world.”[mk_font_icons icon=”icon-stop” size=”small” padding_horizental=”4″ padding_vertical=”4″ circle=”false” align=”none”][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

5 thoughts on “The pipeline debate”

  1. Berton W. Cosman

    What Product is Energy East intended to carry ?
    I thought is was crude oil- either light or heavy.
    However George Watson Chairman of CRITICAL CONTROL was a guest on CBC BNN channel
    this afternoon around 4:25 PM Atlantic Time and he stated that” Energy East is a gas pipeline” .
    Can and will you clarify this for me?
    Thanks

    B.W. Cosman P.Eng

  2. OK . If the pipe lines start outside of the United States of America. (Canada) Mr. President what is the tax going to be on these companies bringing the product into the USA from the pipe line? Help me out . Any thoughts. Am I fishing?

  3. Sorry I made a mistake what I meant to say if oil spills in the lakes and streams where a native reserve lives and once there is an oil spill and the fish are polluted with oil from an oil spill the fish are poisoned and once a native person eats the fish with the oil poison they get sick with cancer and then they die.

  4. I do believe the pipeline will create jobs and boost our economy but the problem I have about the pipelines is oil spills for our native friends of Canada say oil spills in their lakes and streams, poisons their fist and once the native people eat the fish with oil poison in it and they start to develop cancer in their bodies and then they die. Also what about the endangered sea creatures in our ocean, if there is another oil spill we can damage the life of a whale and endanger the rest of the wild life already black bears are having problems finding fish to eat and berries to eat and they go where people have their summer cabins and the bears go through the garbage and then they get shot and killed for the bears are the threat to the Canadian public.

  5. Hoping we won’t have another incident like Standing Rock. Greedy Corporations and government that have no regard for our environment and the impact it could have on all of us Canadians.

Comments are closed.