View from the floor: Keystone XL is safe... but still a bad idea

So much has been written and broadcast about the Keystone XL pipeline project that it’s hard to avoid another repetitious rehash of the issues. I won’t, but instead I’m going to argue that the project should be abandoned, but not for the reasons the mass media report.

Environmentalists routinely seize public “mind share” when it comes to major pipeline projects and their concern is understandable. It is a disaster when oil pipelines rupture and despite monitoring and quick action, it’s very difficult to avoid spills involving large quantities of crude.

When it happens, it’s very, very bad. That however, is not the issue. Failure of any crude oil transportation system be it pipeline, rail, truck or a 55 gallon drum in an oxcart, is a bad day for the environment. Since we must move the oil, we should consider the method least likely to fail catastrophically and that method is clearly underground pipeline.

That’s not to say that crude can’t be transported safely by other means, it can, but any intelligent analysis of risk factors suggests that pipelines are the safest option. That however, doesn’t mean that the Keystone XL project is a good idea. We live in a country whose transportation links run increasingly North-South at the expense of East-West systems that are essential for a robust, independent energy distribution system.

Canada should be linked coast-to-coast by an effective trans-Canada pipeline system before we consider projects like Keystone XL, for economic and national security reasons. Unlike most advanced nations, including the U.S., Canada has no strategic

petroleum reserve; our emergency supply is in the ground.

It’s also primarily in Alberta and Saskatchewan, creating a ludicrous situation where Eastern Canadian refineries process imported oil for the markets where most Canadians live.

Issues of sovereignty and supply vulnerability aside, the cold, hard reality of oil is that the US, courtesy of fracking and the vast Bakken formation, is essentially energy independent. Even worse for the long term viability of Canadian oil, the product that Keystone XL will ship is low-grade bitumen, which like other southbound oil exports, we’ll sell at a discount to world price.

Asia on the other hand, is energy hungry and will stay that way for the foreseeable future. Northern Gateway would not only open those markets to Canadian oil, it would allow us to market that petroleum at world prices. Keystone XL makes a great deal of sense for US-based petroleum producers who have access to excess refinery capacity on the Gulf and ready export markets overseas for refined products.

If we’re going to send petroleum south, then let’s make it high-value refined goods like motor fuel, Jet A kerosene, lubricants, fertilizers and plastics. This would require a large expansion of the petrochemical industry and serious refinery construction, all of which would create jobs, strengthen our economy and protect Canada against domestic supply issues.

Yes, there are environmental issues with Pacific Coast oil shipping, but that’s an engineering problem and is definitely surmountable. There are also interprovincial and Aboriginal rights issues, again, all surmountable. So why then, do we consistently support major energy projects that work against the national interest? Conspiracy? Crony capitalism? Federal incompetence? All three?

I could go on for ages, but it’s a fundamental question that needs to be put to our politicians on the right, centre, and left. Remember it come election time.