Besides those direct impacts, these pipelines would be joined by one that would transport another 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year across North America. This carbon pipeline would cross the American Midwest and then head to the oil fields of Canada’s tar sands, which are the third-largest remaining source of oil. If built, this pipeline would push the amount of carbon going into the tar sands up to an eye-popping 5 billion metric tons a year. While the tar sands are a carbon bomb waiting to explode, there is no reason to think that the Keystone XL pipeline would be any different. And because there is no carbon capture on the horizon for tar sands, the Keystone XL is not a good idea for our climate.
The Keystone XL Pipeline Canadian oil project looks for new route as activists step up opposition
The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline project claimed it was looking at new routes to carry oil from Canada’s oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast, as environmentalists stepped up their opposition to the line.
TransCanada Corp, which proposed the $8 billion pipeline more than six years ago, said its decision was driven by regulatory hurdles, including the recent decision by the U.S. State Department to delay a final decision on the line’s fate by six months.
The U.S. project, which would carry heavy oil sands crude to Steele City, Nebraska, and on to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, has been under political and regulatory review since 2008. Environmentalists say it would contribute to climate change.
Former President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum in January to advance the project, but TransCanada said at the time it needed clarity from regulators.
“The project is now in the court and we’ll see what the court decides. In the meantime, we are evaluating our options,” TransCanada spokesman Matthew John told Reuters.
John said it was too soon to say what the project’s cost might be if TransCanada decided to build a new line instead of continuing to push ahead with the existing route.
Environmentalists have said they will step up their opposition to the line.
“They can try to put a new pipeline in the ground, but there’s a reason we had so much trouble getting it out the old one,” said Benjamin Moreland, a spokesman for the climate advocacy group 350.org. “We will keep fighting, and that fight will include blockades.”
A number of eminent scientists in February wrote a letter to Trump and the leaders of seven Canadian provinces, urging them to drop plans for new pipelines.
On Thursday, 350.org activists targeted the Canadian embassies of Japan, Germany, Britain, and France.
“It’s up to each of you to tell President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau that you don’t need new pipelines,” the group said in a video posted on YouTube
It’s hard to justify the benefits such a pipeline would bring and websites such as Oilsand.org highlight the many environmental dangers of oil sands and the governments handling of such affairs