Keystone XL Pipeline Rejection a Setback for Canadian Tar Sands Development

Corbin Hiar
iWatch News / News Report
Published: Thursday 19 January 2012
“But the Obama administration’s decision to reject the project isn’t likely to end investment in controversial fuel.”
Article image
Photo: mothernature photography

The Obama administration's decision Wednesday to reject a pipeline that would have carried crude from Canada’s tar sands deposits to Texas oil refineries isn’t likely to end investment in the carbon-rich fuel, industry analysts say.

In killing the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama blamed congressional Republicans, who he said “forced this decision” by requiring an expedited 60-day review of the pipeline as a provision of the recent payroll tax extension.

Obama also reaffirmed his support for domestic oil and gas exploration and expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. “In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” he said.

But industry analysts question this rationale. “If your objective is improving our energy security, then Keystone should have been built,” said Sarah Emerson, president of Energy Security Analysis, Inc., an energy forecasting firm.

Environmentalists have reason to temper their excitement over the pipeline's defeat. They opposed pipeline builder TransCanada's project because of fears about spills and the climate-change implications of refining tar sands, which give off more carbon dixoide than traditional crude oil. But Obama threw his support behind additional U.S. drilling. And analysts say production of tar sands in Canada will continue.

“Is it a setback? Yes,” Emerson said. “Does it spell the end of the oil sands development? No.”

She predicts that America’s northern neighbor will go forward with a stalled pipeline to its Pacific coast. “I suspect that [Canada looks] at this as a rejection and they’ll say ‘OK, well, you don’t want our oil? We’ll sell it to China.’”

Investors in Canada’s tar sands, who had been closely following the Keystone battle, are not likely to pull out just yet. “I don’t know exactly what kind of message this sends, just because it’s an election year,” said Jacob Correll, a commodities analyst at Summit Energy, a consulting firm. “There’s still money to be made.”

Reprinted by permission from iWatch News



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange

Top Stories

7 comments on "Keystone XL Pipeline Rejection a Setback for Canadian Tar Sands Development"

ysbrmqkx

did

January 24, 2012 4:01am

It is really interesting and I am sure that other people thinks this too.
google

Arachne646

January 20, 2012 12:12am

I don't know what OLDHAT is smoking, but BC citizens and First Nations peoples with disputed land claims in the path of Enbridge Northern pipeline to the beautiful, but treacherous and jagged BC coast have already nixed it in the Public Hearings process. Tar Sands petrosludge is still being trucked out of Alberta to all of our gas tanks--no one knows if they are using it. Big oil is desperate to pump bitumen (tar) out of Alberta in a pipeline to a seaport somehow, so none of us can relax, because there are other routes to the Gulf of Mexico, and God only knows what their next move will be up here.

oldhat

January 21, 2012 12:20pm

i just read vancouver sun at the library

Tosh

January 20, 2012 2:51am

Arachne646,

Stay vigilant, as we are here in the US. We have experience with Enbridge, specifically, the pipeline rupture that gushed 1 million gallons of filthy bitumen oil into our Kalamazoo River last year.

This along with 79 other Enbridge spills, in other areas, in the same year!

Keep up the fight. Keep the planet clean. I'm fighting.

oldhat

January 19, 2012 5:10pm

majority of British Columbian are for enbridge pipeline the usual anti [ eco and first nation] are against just as they were against alcan and hydro energy .. it is more expensive and profit margins on exporting crude oil vs refined is less and it would reduce the number of jobs at tx refineries

Bob Huck

January 19, 2012 2:50pm

The Keystone XL pipeline was bound for China in the first place. British Columbia doesn't want those filthy toxins piped over their mountains and streams to fuel Chinese demands for oil and neither do we. We already get their tar sands from the original Keystone pipeline for domestic fuel needs.