A section of the 100-plus acres contaminated by toxic waste in northern Alberta (Credit: Nathan Vanderklippe/Dene Tha)

As the Obama administration’s decision regarding whether to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline draws nearer, the latest disaster is raising serious concerns about the safety of Canada’s rapidly expanding pipeline network.

A massive toxic waste spill from an oil and gas operation in northern Alberta is being called one of the largest recent environmental disasters in North America. First reported on June 1, the Texas-based Apache Corp. didn’t reveal the size of the spill until June 12, which is said to cover more than 1,000 acres.

Members of the Dene Tha First Nation tribe are outraged that it took several days before they were informed that 9.5 million liters of salt and heavy-metal-laced wastewater had leaked onto wetlands they use for hunting and trapping.

“Every plant and tree died” in the area touched by the spill, said James Ahnassay, chief of the Dene Tha.

As the Globe and Mail reports, the Apache disaster is not an anomaly:

The leak follows a pair of other major spills in the region, including 800,000 litres of an oil-water mixture from Pace Oil and Gas Ltd., and nearly 3.5 million litres of oil from a pipeline run by Plains Midstream Canada.

After those accidents, the Dene Tha had asked the Energy Resources Conservation Board, Alberta’s energy regulator, to require installation of pressure and volume monitors, as well as emergency shutoff devices, on aging oil and gas infrastructure. The Apache spill has renewed calls for change.

Following initial speculation that the leak stemmed from aging infrastructure, officials from Apache Corp. revealed that the pipeline was only five years old and had been designed to last for 30.

The incident comes on the heels of accusations from the provincial New Democratic Party that Alberta Energy Minister Ken Hughes is withholding the results of an internal pipeline safety report pending the U.S. government’s decision regarding Keystone XL. The report was commissioned last summer by Alberta Energy following a series of toxic spills — including the Plains Midstream Canada spill that leached 475,000 liters of oil into the Red Deer River, a major source of drinking water for central Alberta.

According to Winnipeg Free Press, “an engineering firm completed the technical report last fall and presented the findings to the government, which sent the findings to the Energy Resources Conservation Board for a review that was to be completed by March 31.”

Hughes denied delaying the report but declined to give a release date, saying only that it would come “fairly soon.”

A recent Global News investigation found that over the past 37 years, Alberta’s extensive network of pipelines has experienced 28,666 crude oil spills in total, plus another 31,453 spills of a variety of other liquids used in oil and gas production — from salt water to liquid petroleum. That averages out to two crude oil spills a day, every day.

As concerns mount over Apache’s delay in detecting and reporting its extensive toxic waste spill, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that TransCanada is not planning to use the external leak detection tools recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency for its proposed Keystone XL pipeline. As a result, the State Department concludes “Keystone XL would have to be spilling more than 12,000 barrels a day — or 1.5 percent of its 830,000 barrel capacity — before its currently planned internal spill-detection systems would trigger an alarm.”

TransCanada is going on the offensive now by attacking those pointing out the consequences of burning tons of fossil fuels transported by an unsafe pipeline that will only create 35 permanent jobs. [National Journal]

Faced with formidable opposition from environmentalists, TransCanada is redoubling its efforts to rebut claims made against its flagship project, the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline that the Canadian company is seeking President Obama’s permission to build from Alberta’s oil sands to the Gulf Coast.

This month, the company hired Matthew John as an “external communications specialist” to help feed its blog. On Monday, John wrote a particularly critical 1,400-word post responding to claims made by Tom Steyer, a billionaire venture capitalist who has become especially active opposing the pipeline in the past several months.

“Mr. Steyer continues to peddle the false dichotomy between fossil fuels and renewable energy in an attempt to stifle a pragmatic, fact-based debate,” John wrote in one of his first posts on the company’s website.

Since the company’s blog was launched last fall, about 60 entries have been posted, and almost all of them — save for a very small handful, including Monday’s entry — are positive in nature. Monday’s comments are a sign that TransCanada is ready to do some criticizing of its own.

A new study says Europe’s coal pollution costs businesses and governments billions, along with 22,300 premature deaths a year. [Guardian]

President Obama’s top climate adviser Heather Zichal said that following the agreement with China about HFCs, “we’re ripe for a few more deliverables” on the international climate agenda. [The Hill]

Chevron’s CEO said that fracking raises “legitimate concerns” over safety and environmental impacts. [LA Times]

Robert Redford urges President Obama to have the “courage of his convictions” on climate change in a new ad from the NRDC. [Washington Post]

A new bill by the House GOP would take money out of climate research funding in order to shore up spending on weather forecasting. [The Hill]

The coal lobby admitted that the “War on Coal” strategy for the 2012 election did not resonate with voters. [Huffington Post]

Interior’s Inspector General thinks the department may have underpriced priced leases for coal mining on federal lands. [Reuters]

Flooding in Germany will cost the insurance industry 3 billion Euros, and could go up to 12 billion, according to Fitch Ratings. [The Guardian]

Read more

(Source: Suncor Energy Inc., BLM)

The Canadian government has nearly doubled its spending to promote the Keystone XL pipeline to $16.5 million, up from $9 million a year ago.

This dramatic spending increase is a result of an increased lobbying effort the government is planning, which includes high-profile ad buys and dispatching a series of officials to reiterate talking points that the pipeline will increase U.S. energy security and provide us with thousands of home-grown jobs.

Their expanded lobbying efforts include Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper traveling to New York City to speak with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and participate in roundtables with American business leaders. During his Q&A session with the CFR, Mr. Harper advocated for approval of the pipeline, insisting it would add “almost nothing globally” to carbon emissions.

Harper’s claim just isn’t true — extracting crude from the oil sands is an incredibly energy intensive process that emits 3 to 4 times more greenhouse gases than producing conventional crude oil, making it one of the world’s dirtiest forms of fuels. Approving Keystone would more than double the production of carbon-intensive tar sands by 2024, leading to an increase in greenhouse gases equivalent to adding 8 million cars on the road every year. Without the pipeline, tar sands production is expected to fall flat by 2020.

Harper also said the US should not “turn up” its nose at the potential of 40,000 construction jobs nor the prospect of being able to reduce its dependence on oil shipped in from overseas.

Again, Harper is just avoiding the facts — the State Department released a draft environmental impact statement earlier this year that found the pipeline would directly only create “3,900″ temporary construction jobs. After construction is complete, the operation of the pipeline would support 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs, with “negligible socioeconomic impacts.” The State Department’s report, which was written by a private consulting firm with links to the pipeline’s owner, also made clear that at least some of Keystone’s oil will be refined and exported in response to “lower domestic gasoline demand and continued higher demand and prices in overseas markets.” The pipeline will add nothing to U.S. energy security and is simply a way for the oil industry to sell refined fuel at higher prices available overseas.

Read more

Tiffany Germain is a Senior Climate/Energy Researcher in the Think Progress War Room.

(Photo credit: David Gallagher)

Worried that the disaster-for-the-climate Keystone XL pipeline will get construction approval to pump 51 coal plants’ worth of carbon into the atmosphere? Feel free to speak your mind.

The last day that the State Department will accept public comments on what should be done about the Keystone pipeline proposal is Monday, April 22nd. This will end a 45 day period that started with the placement of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register. That draft statement becomes final on June 21st, and then in a matter of months, the State Department will issue a National Interest Determination. At that point, it would be difficult to reverse a decision, so the time for the public to tell the Administration how burning tar sands oil will impact the climate is now.

Not sure what to write in a public comment? Here are some ideas:

• 51 coal plants: Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen called Keystone the “fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” A completed pipeline would emit the CO2 equivalent of 51 carbon-polluting coal-fired power plants. The science is clear: increasing CO2 emissions is bad for the climate.
• Just 35 jobs: The Keystone Pipeline would not create 20,000-100,000 temporary jobs, as some have said. It would create 3,900 temporary ones, and only 35 permanent.
• Not a done deal: The State Department’s Draft (EIS) concludes that the tar sands oil would be extracted even if the pipeline is not constructed. This is not true: the pipeline would move 830,000 barrels of oil each day, whereas moving it by rail is not feasible.
• National security pipe dream: Some say the pipeline would be good for national security, but that is a myth. Here is the reality.
• Drill here, drill now, send abroad: Though people often make the case that more tar sands oil from Canada helps American energy security, it is clear that much of this oil would just be shipped abroad into the international petroleum market.
• Incomplete assessment: The draft EIS was completed by a consulting firm paid by the pipeline’s owner. There are more complete reviews of the full environmental, economic, and climate impact of the pipeline.
• Thank you for spilling: Tar sands oil spills onto American soil with alarming frequency. Some Representatives think Exxon spilling 200,000 gallons of tar sands oil from a pipeline into Mayflower, Arkansas is not a big deal — in fact, the corporation should be thanked for the whole ordeal.
• Think of the Canadians: Stopping the pipeline would be doing Canada a favor.
• Morality: Opposing the pipeline is the right thing to do for our generation and the ones that follow us. Allowing it to happen is a sign of “cowardice.”

Anyone can submit as many comments as they wish. Some created a compelling video about why Keystone is “all risk, no reward,” but not everyone has to do that. Some protest President Obama to let them know that this decision matters for the climate, but that tactic, while important, is not for everyone.

Making a comment is easy: the State Department asks people to address them to this mailbox: keystonecomments@state.gov. Groups like 350.org, Sierra Club, CREDO Action, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, League of Women Voters, Sum of Us, and others have made it easy to compose a letter.

Whether it is snarky or serious, weigh in below if you left a comment regarding the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet.”

By Michael Northrup, via Huffington Post (emphasis added)

Another thing about the Keystone XL pipeline: It will result in only 35 permanent jobs. – Ed.

So, why do we want President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry to approve construction of the Keystone pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico?

• Because it will allow Canada to double and then triple production of tar sands and send it to thirsty Asian consumers.

• Because it will encourage Wall Street to increase investment in tar sands mining; they’re worried now that increased amounts of tar sands can’t get out of Canada without more pipeline capacity. All the other new pipeline routes are currently being blocked by citizen campaigns in Canada and the U.S.

• Because, if we wait too much longer, Americans will realize this has nothing to do with U.S. energy security. In reality, only a small portion will be used in the United States. Oil companies can get a higher price for these fuels in Asia.

• Because it will allow Canada to say once and for all that it is no longer possible for their country to commit to a national greenhouse gas reduction target.

• Because it will create a strong incentive for Canada to continue obstructing international climate negotiations. Canada definitely doesn’t want to look like a laggard if others are moving forward. Far better to continue slowing the international process as it has been doing the last eight years.

• Because it will embolden Canadian oil industry and government representatives to continue interfering with American clean energy policymaking that offers incentives for cleaner fuels and vehicles.

Read more

By Mari Hernandez

Our neighbor to the north has an energy source that our nation has yet to fully utilize — and it’s not tar sands.

Canadian hydropower has contributed to America’s clean energy economy, and has the potential to provide our nation with more clean energy. The question is: how can Canada and the United States strengthen this trade relationship?

An event Monday titled, Power Partnerships: How Canada-U.S. Hydroelectric Partnerships Reinforce America’s Clean Energy Economy, held at the Wilson Center in Washington D.C., brought together representatives from public utilities, think tanks, and government officials to answer that question.

Canadian hydropower has been supplying baseload power to the U.S. electric grid for over 40 years. In 2010, the U.S. imported 43.8 terawatt-hours of electricity from Canada, of which about 80 percent is from hydropower. Though Canadian electricity imports make up just one percent of total U.S. annual electricity generation, hydropower imports make up about 10 percent of all U.S. renewable electricity consumption.

The event speakers discussed the barriers that currently prevent Canadian hydropower imports from becoming an even bigger part of the U.S. energy mix– including transmission capacity, low natural gas prices, the threat to domestic jobs, competition from other renewables, environmental concerns, and regulatory barriers. Overcoming some of these challenges won’t be easy, but the case for moving forward is clear: greater energy security, affordable power prices, and reliable baseload power which can help to integrate intermittent renewable energy sources.

The event panelists included Canadian Ambassador to the United States Gary Doer, Premier of Manitoba Greg Selinger, Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tony Clark, Minnesota Power Executive Vice President David McMillan, Hydro-Quebec-US Vice President Stephen Molodetz, and Richard Caperton, Director for Clean Energy Investment at the Center for American Progress — all of whom discussed their take on the benefits of imported hydropower from Canada, and offered ways to facilitate greater cross-border clean energy trade.

On building new hydropower projects and transmission lines, Molodetz put forward an option for more positive and productive stakeholder involvement. He said there is a need for a “regional venue” to talk about the benefits of any new projects, since there tends to be so much focus on transmission siting and the negative aspects of that. He also cautioned against an “either/or” mentality, noting that hydro imports are part of a clean energy strategy and shouldn’t be seen as something that would necessarily crowd out other renewables.

Another important point that was mentioned several times was the fact that most states’ renewable energy portfolio standards (RPSs) do not include imported hydropower as an eligible resource. This is partly because some states would too easily meet their RPS target, rather than encouraging the development of other renewable energy sources. However, there are opportunities for states to encourage the growth of all renewables, including imported hydropower.

Caperton stated that if Canadian hydro imports were counted in states’ RPSs, the renewable targets must be increased in order to displace dirty energy sources rather than wind or solar. These increased targets would put our nation on a path to utilize more clean energy and further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Although the Keystone XL decision has the potential to define President Obama’s climate legacy, there are cleaner energy sources that we can import from our northern neighbors that could lead us to a lower carbon future. If we can adequately address the current barriers to importing more hydro and ensure that it’s displacing coal, Canadian hydropower could become an even greater part of the United States clean energy economy and strengthen the relationship between the two nations.

Mari Hernandez is a Research Associate in Energy Policy for the Center for American Progress.