Mt. Wonalancet, NH, not far from the route of the Portland-Montreal Pipeline (photo: Chris Schoenboem)

Fighting back against Big Oil

Fortunately, New Englanders aren’t known to let themselves get trampled on. Local conservation groups, public health experts and many others has been fighting back against Exxon, bringing widespread attention to the project — enough that we have the support of nearly the entire Congressional delegation from those three states (Senator Ayotte, we’re still waiting on ya). We even managed to get 1,500 people to a rally in Portland back in frigid January, the biggest gathering of any kind in 25 years. Suffice to say, New Englanders care, and we don’t want this dangerous substance pumped through our rivers and forests, threatening species like moose and black bears and contributing to climate change.

The problem is, the US State Department (which is tasked with overseeing the pipeline) doesn’t necessarily notice anything amiss and hasn’t the told the company it can’t proceed without a new permit. The State Department needs to make it clear: if Exxon wants to bring poisonous, climate-wrecking tar sands across Northern New England, the impacts are going to be given a hard look and approval is going to needed. It’s a common sense requirement, just making sure we know the threats and the particulars before giving the green light to Exxon, but State hasn’t gotten involved yet because the company hasn’t made a formal proposal.

And that’s the catch-22: unless the State Department tells them to formalize their plans, Exxon might never get around to filing the paperwork — and they’ve already told regional officials they don’t have to. They’re more than happy to act like the cartoon cat burping up feathers, shrugging its shoulders when you ask what happened to Tweety Bird. But this is real life, and New Englanders want to protect their region and wildlife from spills and climate change.  All risk and no reward does not interest New Hampshire, or Vermont or Maine for that matter.

Mr. Smith (and a bunch more) goes to Washington

New England and DC — culture-wise — may sometimes feel like oil and water, but when actual oil and actual water are in the mix, it’s worth a trip to the nation’s capitol. On Monday, a group from Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont came down to Washington, DC to tell their stories to State Department officials in person. It wasn’t your usual DC lobby trip: Fishermen, retired oil industry lawyers, and a handful of conservationists all made the rounds of Capitol Hill, meeting with agencies and Congressional offices with a simple request: Can someone PLEASE make sure this tar sands plan is carefully reviewed?

Our hometown lobby team at the State Department (photo: Peter LaFontaine/NWF)

Pushing toxic, spill-prone tar sands through Exxon’s pipeline across Maine is an all-risk, no-reward proposition. The health of Maine people, our economy, and our way of life, depend on clean water for drinking, tourism, our fishing industry, and recreation. - Lisa Pohlmann, Natural Resources Council of Maine

We plan to keep the heat on Exxon and the State Department, and our group also got a chance to sit down with (deep breath…) the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to talk about updating our nation’s safety standards for tar sands projects like the Northeast pipeline and Keystone XL. After Mayflower — and Kalamazoo, before that — we can’t trust the industry to operate safely, or even to tell us what they have planned for our back yards.

It can be hard to tell with federal agencies, but I think State got the message.

Tell the US State Department to protect New England’s wildlife and communities from this dangerous and polluting project. Say “NO!” to the Portland-Montreal tar sands pipeline.

fails to reflect the full environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline. We strongly encourage the State Department to reevaluate the SEIS and its assessment of the proposed pipeline’s impacts on climate change, our natural resources, our economy, and low-income and minority communities.

This is no surprise to anyone who follows this blog (I know you’re out there) and it echoes official comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), released yesterday, that cast serious doubt on the State Department’s analysis and the future of the project. EPA concluded that State had failed to meaningfully consider multiple factors, foremost among them the climate impacts and spill risks posed by the 1,700 mile tar sands pipeline.

It’s hard to ignore 50,000 protesters in your front yard — and dozens of members of Congress were obviously paying attention (Photo: Josh Lopez/350.org)

>>>Read the full letter from Congress here

A Million Voices Against KXL

It’s not just agencies and members of Congress who think the tar sands pipeline is a bad idea. Capping off the outpouring of opposition, National Wildlife Federation and other groups just delivered over a million comments from the public, telling the Obama Administration “reject the pipeline!” NWF’s Robyn Carmichael has more — and as she puts it, the comments “came from Americans from all across the country and all walks of life, but they carried one common message: that this risky and unnecessary project puts our wildlife, water, land, and communities in jeopardy.”

Thank you to the tens of thousands of NWF members (and many others) who have spoken up for people and wildlife during this rollercoaster campaign. The public comment period for the environmental review is over, but there will be more opportunities to help so stay tuned!

Your donations make a big difference in our efforts to protect wildlife from habitat loss and the effects of global warming.

To learn more about Keystone XL and how you can help, visit NWF.org/tarsands

Bike billboards are circulating in DC to show that over 1 million comments were generated against Keystone XL. Photo: League of Conservation Voters

KXL Opponents Make Voices Heard

Following the close of the 45-day public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, more than one million comments—including  nearly 100,000 from National Wildlife Federation supporters—were delivered to the U.S. State Department. These messages came from Americans from all across the country and all walks of life, but they carried one common message: that this risky and unnecessary project puts our wildlife, water, land, and communities in jeopardy, and President Obama and Secretary Kerry should reject it.

This impressive total follows hundreds of opponents that testified—including ranchers, farmers and landowners who would be directly impacted by the pipeline—at the State Department’s lone public hearing last week in Grand Island, Nebraska, despite a spring storm that brought sleet and snow. And earlier this year, more than 40,000 people descended on our nation’s capital to call for bold action by President Obama to tackle the climate crisis and reject Keystone XL.

The EPA Weighs In

Echoing these same serious concerns, yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its own comments on the DEIS, giving the project a score of 2—meaning “insufficient” – and rating the environmental impact of Keystone XL as “environmentally objectionable.” In a letter to the State Department, the EPA urged State to conduct a more thorough analysis of oil spill risks and alternative pipeline routes, as well as greenhouse gas emissions that will result from increased tar sands production.

Oiled duck from Mayflower Ark. oil spill. Photo by Lauren Ray.

Just earlier this month, the pipeline rupture in Arkansas that spilled at least 210,000 gallons of tar sands oil—forcing evacuations, and leaving wildlife coated in toxic oil and struggling to survive—raised new concerns about pipeline safety and the risks associated with transporting corrosive tar sands oil. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would carry almost nine times as much tar sands oil per day as the pipeline that burst in Arkansas.

What’s Next

Now, the State Department will incorporate comments from the public and federal agencies and release their final environmental report this summer, at which point President Obama will have 90 days to determine whether or not Keystone XL is in the national interest.

While momentum is on our side, the fight doesn’t stop here. Keep an eye out for upcoming opportunities to speak up against the Keystone XL pipeline this summer, as well as more ways you can take action to protect wildlife from dangerous tar sands oil.

Tweet it! 45 days, 1 million comments, 1 movement. The message #NoKXL couldn’t be clearer to @barackobama: Reject #KeystoneXL!

Coming on Earth Day, it’s welcome news that the agency is trying to protect Americans and wildlife from a huge mistake.

A blue heron covered in tar sands oil from the Kalamazoo River pipeline disaster (Photo: Michigan DEQ)

This isn’t a new position for EPA — at several key points during the Keystone XL saga, officials have made it clear that their colleagues at the State Department need to go back to the drawing board. Partly, this is due to the fact that State isn’t used to leading big environmental studies; it’s only a quirk of the system that put them in charge of Keystone. But with a decision this important, with so much riding on a thorough analysis, we can’t afford growing pains.

Americans speak out

In addition to the environmental review, the government is also conducting something called a “National Interest Determination,” which will help decide whether or not Keystone is a good idea, based not just on environmental factors but also on things like diplomacy, energy security, and jobs (or lack thereof). Americans are already letting the White House know what they think: on Tuesday, a coalition of conservation groups, indigenous peoples, public health advocates and landowners along the pipeline route will deliver over a million comments from the public opposing construction of this risky project.

As NWF’s Jim Murphy put it in the Los Angeles Times:

“The Environmental Protection Agency’s letter shows that despite multiple tries, the State Department is incapable of doing a proper analysis of the climate, wildlife, clean water, safety and other impacts of this disastrous and unneeded project. President Obama has more than enough information to determine the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in America’s national interest and he should reject it.”

President Obama gets to make the ultimate decision, but John Kerry (the U.S. Secretary of State) is a long-time champion against climate change, and could still sway his agency’s ultimate recognition. A million anti-Keystone comments, plus a timely assist from EPA, could tilt the balance in our favor.

Your donations make a big difference in our efforts to protect wildlife from habitat loss and the effects of global warming.

To learn more about Keystone XL and how you can help, visit NWF.org/tarsands

South Haven, Michigan – Lake Michigan by Mic Stolz

Web of Pipelines Put Wildlife, Communities at Risk

Despite major issues with pipeline safety regulations and safety regulators telling Enbridge their pipelines are not safe, Enbridge has been allowed to max out pipelines running in, around and through the Great Lakes, so they can increase profit and eventually feed international markets with tar sands. Some of the pipelines being pushed to their limits are 60 years old and run under the Great Lakes for miles!

New and existing tar sands pipelines threaten the Great Lakes. These Lakes are the economic backbone for surrounding states and the freshwater drinking source for millions.

However, Enbridge has finally hit a roadblock that requires public input for one of their lines crossing the U.S. and Canada border – known as Alberta Clipper or Line 67. Enbridge is required to obtain a presidential permit because they plan to greatly increase the amount of tar sands being imported. This permit opens up a door for public comment, which finally gives concerned citizens opportunity to have a voice and to become involved.

Stop Reckless Tar Sands Pipeline Expansion

Now is the time to stand up against these plans and tell the State Department that you strongly oppose Enbridge being allowed to expand their pipelines, which will bring the Great Lakes larger spills and more pollution from refining!

It is critical that we tell the State Department that we value our resources and communities over oil profits. The increased import of tar sands crude is not to benefit the Midwest or the U.S. – Enbridge has already started to pump tar sands south for export and has plans to do the same out east. This means that we are assuming an increased risk of much larger spills, pollution from refining and aiding in the development in Canada’s tar sands region – one of the biggest threats to our global climate.

Straits of Mackinac and location of Enbridge Line 5 – a 60 year old tar sands pipeline running below the surface of the water for almost 5 miles.

Tell the U.S. State Department you value the safety of wildlife, our resources and our communities over oil profits!

Endangered Whooping Cranes – like this adult with its chick – are one of many species threatened by tar sands pipelines. (US Fish & Wildlife Service)

National Wildlife Federation board member David Carruth, an Arkansas resident who has spent the last few weeks assisting in the response to the disastrous Pegasus pipeline spill, will be speaking at a press conference to highlight the dangers of tar sands for wildlife and public health. And David, along with Nebraska Wildlife Federation president Duane Hovorka, will testify at the hearing. adding their voices to the hundreds of attendees telling the State Department to deny the pipeline.

You can watch a live stream of the event here, and I’ll be back with a recap of the hearing later this week so stay tuned. If you haven’t already sent a message to the White House, NOW IS THE TIME! The public comment period closes on Monday, April 22 so tell the President and Secretary Kerry “NO KXL!”

Speak up for people and wildlife at risk from tar sands — Tell the White House to say NO! to Keystone XL.

President Obama is expected to make a final decision on Keystone XL this year, and right now, we have a critical opportunity to stop this project. The U.S. State Department’s public comment period for their environmental review of Keystone XL ends April 22nd, and it’s crucial they hear widespread opposition to the risks this project poses to wildlife.

Speak up for wildlife TODAY by urging President Obama to stop the Keystone XL pipeline once and for all.

 
WATCH OUR NEW VIDEO on the impacts tar sands oil poses to wildlife from Canada to the Gulf coast of Texas and beyond:

Click here to view the embedded video.

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?

Tar sands protesters at the “Forward on Climate” rally (photo: 350.org)

• 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.
• Because it will provide additional momentum to Canadian efforts to lobby Europeans against passing a clean fuels directive. If the Americans don’t take a stand, it will be harder for the Europeans to stick their necks out.
• Because it will embolden Canada’s current government to continue cracking down on Canadian civic interests and companies, who are opposed to tar sands development.
• Because it will strengthen Canada’s determined march to becoming a major petro state.
• Because once it is unstoppable, people will stop worrying about runoff into the North Canadian Athabascan watershed, or the increase in cancers in indigenous peoples living downstream; these are a small price to pay for billions in tar sands revenues.
• Because the economic benefits will overwhelm the costs of inevitable pipeline spills of nearly impossible-to-clean-up tar sands bitumen across more than 1,000 miles of American territory.
• Because it will create social license for deforesting an area the size of Florida and turning it into the globe’s largest open pit strip mine.
• Because it will provide 3,900 temporary jobsfor oil pipeline construction while undercutting electric vehicle and alternative fuels markets being developed south of the border; god forbid those industries take off before we can get the tar sands deposits out.

Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, the site of the largest inland oil spill in US history (photo: MI Department of Environmental Quality)

• Because it will take the wind out of the sails of America’s first real citizen climate movement (that demonstration on the mall was worrisome), and reduce pressure on President Obama to be bold on climate change and clean energy during his final term in office.
• Because it will dampen enthusiasm among a large number of Obama voters, supporters, and donors, who are alarmed about climate change and who have let it be known that they don’t want this pipeline built; this will further disempower pro-environment democrats contemplating clean energy and climate policy.
• Because it will put a damper on clean energy investment in general.
• Because Americans will complain less that increased imports of tar sands will increase the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions from a barrel of oil if they are all driving with tar sands in their gas tanks.
• Because it will encourage and give a green light to other countries who want to exploit their own deposits of more greenhouse intensive fossil fuels.
• Because it will support the globe’s dependency on gasoline for its automobile fleets.
• Because it will make oil companies richer and more powerful.
• Because it will make it more difficult to resist the current oil based economic system.
• Because, once approved, we can lower the volume on the massive campaign of criticism being directed at President Obama by the oil industry.
• And once we’ve finished this campaign, we can start pounding the president about Arctic drilling.

That’s why!

This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post and is reprinted with permission of the author. Michael Northrop is a Program Director for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund or National Wildlife Federation.

Protect people and wildlife from the dangers of tar sands spills and climate change — Tell President Obama to say NO! to the Keystone XL pipeline.

Companies like Suncor need coastal access in order to grow their operations — and they’re banking on KXL to get them there. (Photo: Suncor)

Far from being inevitable, the development of land-locked Canadian tar sands is almost entirely dependent on selling oil beyond North America. As the industry has repeatedly stated, without major infrastructure like Keystone XL giving this product access to world markets, the fragile economics propping up tar sands extraction will begin to crumble. In fact, RBC Dominion Securities recently warned that without Keystone XL, tar sands production growth could be reduced by almost 19 million gallons per day by 2017.

We are already seeing diminished capital investment in the Alberta oil patch due to the high level of uncertainty over the White House’s Keystone XL permitting decision, proving that this particular project is a linchpin for the industry. Other major pipeline proposals face significant legal and political obstacles in Canada, and appear increasingly likely to be stalled indefinitely. Moreover, Keystone is the largest proposal to date, and by itself would support an increase in tar sands production by 36 percent, which makes it a significant driver of climate change even if no other projects move forward.

Here’s what the industry and other experts have to say:

Western Canada’s oil industry faces a serious challenge to its long-term growth. Production growth will become constrained unless more pipeline capacity is built to access new markets.

TD Economics, Special Report – December 17, 2012

If we can’t attract world prices, then we will ultimately curb energy development.

Al Monaco, Enbridge, Inc. CEO – March 7, 2013

We’ve seen a lot of companies based out of Alberta making (spending) decisions that are quite different in the last half of (2012) compared to what they were in the first half of the year…We can no longer continue to rely on oil and gas for 30 per cent of our revenue. It’s a fundamental change.

Alison Redford, Alberta Premier – January 25, 2013

Oil sands projects display some of the highest break-evens of all global upstream projects. The potential for wide and volatile differentials could result in operators delaying or cancelling unsanctioned projects.

Wood Mackenzie, International Energy Research Firm – June 2012

“There’s a lot of that oil out there in the market. There’s plenty of capacity in the Pacific Rim/Asian markets for heavy oil like ours, but it’s not infinite and it’s certainly competitive.” And “If we can get our products into the market in that stream we’re going to be competitive…The equivalent of being late is you have to take a bigger and bigger discount on your product, or switch and start supplying a more higher valued-added product.”

Michal Moore, Professor of Energy Economics at the University of Calgary – February 7, 2013

Access to this crucial [Asian Pacific Basin] market will depend critically on the outcome of the pipeline approval process, and also the cost to ship from Canada. If Canada does not approve of the Pacific coast pipeline expansions, or takes too long in doing so, it could find its crude unable to effectively penetrate the world’s most promising oil export market.

David Hackett, et al., University of Calgary School of Public Policy, “Pacific Basin Heavy Oil Refining Capacity” – February 2013

If you look at the volume projection going out to 2020, you start saying Northern Gateway’s not going to happen, Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain will be delayed.

Michael Formuziewich, Portfolio Manager at Leon Frazer & Associates – February 7, 2013

Pipeline capacity out of Western Canada is adequate for the short term, but substantial progress must be made on this front in 2013. Progress, or lack thereof, will have a big impact on sentiment towards Canadian oil producers. We estimate that pipeline capacity out of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin could effectively be full in the 2014 time frame, suggesting little room for error/politicking in bringing on new pipeline capacity.

Andrew Potter, CIBC oil and gas equity analyst – December 17, 2012

KXL is likely, therefore, to be moving Canadian bitumen before any of the other major pipeline projects considered in this report. In fact, with KXL in place and operating at capacity, bitumen production could increase substantially and have a major effect on the overall supply/demand situation throughout the North American continent.

Canadian Energy Research Institute – July 2012

Growing conventional oil, including tight oil, and oil sands production has created an urgent need for additional transportation infrastructure. New pipelines, expansions to existing infrastructure and increased transportation by rail are all required to meet this need for capacity. Pipelines continue to be the dominant mode of transportation for crude oil but it takes time for pipeline infrastructure to be built or expanded.

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers – June 5, 2012

Unless we get increased [market] access, like with Keystone XL, we’re going to be stuck…We’re heading into the same situation with crude oil as we did with natural gas, in that we’re going to hit a wall at some point in time and our production is going to be the one backed out of the system, like natural gas has been backed out of the U.S. system. I think it will have a dramatic impact.

Ralph Glass, Vice-president, AJM Petroleum Consultants – June 8, 2011

If there was something that kept me up at night, it would be the fear that before too long we’re going to be landlocked in bitumen. We’re not going to be an energy superpower if we can’t get the oil out of Alberta.

Ron Liepert, former Alberta Energy Minister – June 8, 2011

It’s fair to say that development has already slowed because of the [price difference between Canadian oil and other benchmarks]. Companies are certainly going to wait and see what the decision on Keystone is before moving ahead with development.

Robert Schultz, Professor of Business at the University of Calgary – March 7, 2013

If President Obama approves Keystone XL, Americans would get all of the risk of a pipeline without any benefits to energy security or gas prices — not to mention the project’s serious implications for climate change and wildlife in Canada and the US. Tell the White House to say NO! to this dangerous and dirty project.

Speak up for wildlife like Woodland Caribou — tell President Obama to reject Keystone XL.

Now, it’s up to us to send a signal to the Obama administration they can’t ignore. The 45 day public comment period starts TODAY, and your voice is needed to keep up the fight for caribou and many more wildlife at risk from this catastrophic project.

Protect caribou by telling the Obama administration to address Keystone XL’s impacts on wildlife, habitat and climate change.

Photo: Flickr/peupleloup

State Department Analysis is Fatally Flawed

The State Department’s review ignores the massive impacts to wildlife from the Keystone XL pipeline by failing to:

• examine the effects on the boreal forest and its wildlife by enabling further tar sands development in Canada. If development continues unchecked, some caribou herds in the tar sands region could disappear in as little as 30 years.

• consider the enormous contributions to climate change. The expansion of tar sands extraction in Canada is exacerbating the climate crisis, which is fueling extreme weather events and putting wildlife in danger.

• adequately address the threats from pumping 800,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day along its route through America’s heartland. The pipeline would pass through the same migratory corridor that endangered whooping cranes use each spring–putting the rivers and wetlands on which they rely at risk of toxic oil spills.

Keystone XL Decision Looming

The fight to stop Keystone XL has been more than three years in the making. From emails, to hearings and rallies, to phone calls, and letters in your local newspapers–the efforts of dedicated people like you have been critical in halting this dangerous project thus far, and now we must see it to the end.

We’re expecting a final decision on Keystone XL by President Obama this year. Fortunately, we have a critical opportunity right now to make sure the effects on wildlife, habitat, and climate change are included in the final review. Our wildlife and future generations are depending on it.