Monday, April 13, 2015
One of the world's richest forests stretches across northern Alberta,
making the Canadian province home to a vast array of migrating birds,
diverse wildlife, and the First Nations people who once thrived on the
region’s natural bounty.
But in recent decades, mining companies have
torn up the land and polluted its waters in a quest to extract tar
sands, which yield a heavy crude oil trapped in a mixture of sand and
clay.
The fuel is dirty; the extraction and refining process is even
dirtier.
It's so energy-intensive, in fact, that tar sands oil is barely economical to bring to market.
That's why the industry is so desperate to build Keystone XL.
The
proposed $7 billion tar sands oil pipeline would run 2,000 miles across
the American heartland, crossing the country's largest freshwater
aquifer to reach the Texas Gulf Coast.
There, refineries would process a
projected 830,000 barrels of dirty crude daily, most of them bound for overseas markets, with negligible impact on U.S. energy independence or gas prices.
The new pipeline would be harmful for people, water, wildlife, and
climate.
Here are five reasons why Keystone XL is a bad idea and tar
sands oil should stay in the ground.
Studies show that tar sands pipelines are more vulnerable to leaks than those carrying traditional crude because of the oil's corrosive
nature and the chemicals necessary to make it run through the pipes.
Despite the industry's grand safety claims, we also know from recent
spills and subsequent government investigations that its leak-detection
systems are subpar and its spill containment and clean-up methods
inadequate.
Just look at the 2010 tar sands disaster in western Michigan--the site of what has become the most expensive onshore oil spill in
U.S. history.
Four years and a billion dollars later, tar sands
contamination still plagues the Kalamazoo River and nearby communities.
A pipeline spill would threaten the land and water supply of some
110,000 ranches and farms in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska that
produced more than $40 billion worth of food in 2012.
In those three
states alone, the pipeline would cross 1,073 rivers, lakes, and streams,
including the Yellowstone River in Montana and the Platte River in
Nebraska, along with tens of thousands of acres of wetlands.
It would
also run within a mile of more than 3,000 wells that provide drinking
and irrigation water in those states.
Because of its silty composition, mining and refining tar sands oil
demands an enormous amount of energy--much more than conventional
crude.
Keystone XL would ramp up tar sands production, requiring even
more energy and creating greater carbon pollution: the equivalent of
Americans driving an unthinkable 60 billion extra miles every year.
NASA scientist James Hansen estimates that the remaining tar sands
reserves contain twice the amount of carbon pollution emitted by the
entire global oil industry--in all of human history.
"If Canada
proceeds and we do nothing," Hansen wrote in a New York Times editorial, "it will be game over for the climate."
Once mined, tar sands leave behind a filthy legacy in the form of
toxic sludge stored in giant, largely unregulated "ponds," which are
leaking a combined three million gallons of toxic sludge into the
once-pristine Athabasca River--every day.
Health-care providers fear they are causing cancer and other illnesses in the native communities.
The mining operations are also tearing up Alberta's boreal forest, home to millions of migratory birds, caribou, bears, wolves, and endangered species like the whooping crane.
Advocates tout the project as a national jobs creator.
The reality is Keystone XL would likely kill more jobs than it would add.
According the State Department, it would create 1,950 construction jobs for two years.
Once complete?
Thirty-five new permanent American jobs, according to pipeline builder TransCanada.
But won't refined tar sands oil help fuel the United States and
reduce gas prices?
Think again.
Tar sands miners want Keystone XL
because it will help them ship oil overseas to an international market, where their product will fetch more money
and add billions of dollars in annual profits.
That's a losing deal for
everyone--except Big Oil.
At a moment when climate action is more urgent than ever, building
this pipeline would be a step into a past instead of a shift into a
clean energy future.
Keystone XL would represent a long-term commitment
to the expansion of dangerous tar sands oil when we need to be investing
in safe, renewable sources of energy instead.
But Keystone XL is the linchpin for further tar sands investment.
Without it, tar sands mining doesn't stand much of a future.
The pipeline must be rejected, before it's too late!
<< Home