Skip to main content

The Globe and Mail

Halting Keystone will curb emissions by stalling oil-sands growth, U.S. environmentalists’ report says

TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline.

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

Stopping the Keystone XL pipeline could put a chokehold on Canada's energy sector and ultimately slow oil-sands growth, American climate groups argue in a new report.

The Sierra Club and 13 other environmental groups released a new report following U.S. Present Barack Obama's pledge in June that Keystone will only go ahead if it doesn't "significantly exacerbate" carbon pollution. The environmentalists' report argues that since Keystone is regularly cited as a key factor in easing a pipeline bottleneck as oil production is set to soar, killing the pipeline would therefore discourage production and lead to lower emissions.

Industry officials dismissed the report and pointed to findings of the U.S. State Department, which has previously said the Keystone project, whether approved or rejected, wouldn't significantly affect production and therefore wouldn't significantly impact emissions.

Story continues below advertisement

Environmentalists, however, have seized on the Keystone XL pipeline as a watershed moment in the battle over climate-change policy. "The Obama administration's decision on a proposed Keystone XL pipeline is a test of the President's commitment to delivering on the promise he made," Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said Thursday.

The State Department has also said crude from Canada's oil sands is 18 per cent more carbon-intensive, from mining to consumption, than average oil, while some. But emissions are set to grow quickly along with production levels.

TransCanada Corp., the company behind the Keystone project, said Keystone won't substantially sway emissions. The pipeline itself would use electric motors and have "little direct emissions," a spokesman said, while arguing oil-sands bitumen will be shipped by other pipelines or by rail if Keystone is rejected.

"The people who are credited with preparing and reviewing it are paid professional activists who continue to distort and mislead the public about this pipeline," spokesman Shawn Howard said in an e-mail.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said it hadn't read the new report, but that the oil sands represent a fraction of global carbon emissions. Keystone "is not about whether the U.S. should use oil. It is about where that oil comes from. And the responsible choice is Canada," the CAPP statement said.

Mr. Brune dismissed the notion that other projects will be able to ship the oil if Keystone is rejected. "We have seen rail growth increase, but it's also clear that rail growth can't meet production forecasts," he said.

"The industry is now saying we can go either way [with rail or Keystone]. OK, if it can go either way, why are they pushing so hard for the pipeline?" added Steve Kretzmann, founder of Oil Change International, one of the groups behind the report.

Story continues below advertisement

Canada's Natural Resources Minister, Joe Oliver, wasn't available to comment on the report. A spokesman said rail and other methods would "likely deliver the crude intended for the Keystone XL market" if the pipeline were rejected. Mr. Oliver has frequently promoted the pipeline by citing strong trade ties between Canada and the U.S. His spokesman echoed that Thursday, saying in an e-mail that the U.S. will continue to need to import oil, and Keystone will deliver "stable and secure oil" that would otherwise come from Venezuela and other countries.

Documents made public this month, after being released to the Pembina Institute think-tank under access to information laws, show that Mr. Oliver's "key messages" once included that "in order for crude oil production to grow, the North American pipeline network must be expanded through initiatives, such as the Keystone XL pipeline project." Other documents don't include the same suggested message.

"The documents certainly suggest that the government saw KXL as being essential to increasing oil sands production until the State Department concluded otherwise," said Clare Demerse, Pembina's federal policy director. "I think it's quite significant that his department took the opposite view as recently as earlier this year."

Another report released this month by a Massachusetts-based consulting firm, IHS CERA, found that no "material change in oil-sands production growth" would be expected if Keystone is rejected. That report assumes that other projects will proceed, including proposed pipelines and expansions through British Columbia, and the recently announced Energy East pipeline project to New Brunswick. None of those projects have been approved, and some have faced strong opposition by environmentalists, political leaders and First Nations groups.

Report an error Licensing Options
About the Author
Parliamentary reporter

Josh is a parliamentary reporter in Ottawa. Before moving to the nation's capital in 2013, he covered provincial affairs in Edmonton and throughout Alberta. He joined the Globe in 2008 in Toronto before returning to his home province in 2010. More

Comments

The Globe invites you to share your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful to everyone. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.

We’ve made some technical updates to our commenting software. If you are experiencing any issues posting comments, simply log out and log back in.

Discussion loading… ✨

Combined Shape Created with Sketch.

Combined Shape Created with Sketch.

Thank you!

You are now subscribed to the newsletter at

You can unsubscribe from this newsletter or Globe promotions at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of the newsletter, or by emailing us at privacy@globeandmail.com.