House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-California) has challenged the State Department to provide a full environmental assessment on the global warming impacts of a planned pipeline from the Canadian oil sands to the US Gulf.
Waxman drafted a letter earlier this month to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing his concern that the $7bn Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast could have a major adverse impact on the carbon intensity of US transportation fuel. He also sent a similar letter to Elizabeth Orlando, the Keystone XL project manager at the State Department.
Waxman said the State Department's decision on whether to permit this cross-border pipeline, and to assess whether it is in the national interest, represents a critical choice about America's energy future. While I strongly support the president's efforts to move America to a clean energy economy, I am concerned that the Keystone XL pipeline would be a step in the wrong direction, he said.
Waxman is concerned that the State Department might have failed to analyze the most significant environmental impacts of this decision, as required by law, and is conducting the permitting process in a manner that lacks transparency and limits the ability of other relevant agencies to participate.
According to Waxman, a draft environmental impact statement has failed to disclose the global warming impacts of the project, as well its effect on Alberta's boreal forest. He wants the department to prepare a supplemental impact statement that addresses the full environmental impacts of the pipeline, using a lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.
The House committee has not yet received a response to Waxman's letters, a committee spokeswoman said today.
Keystone XL, an expansion of the original Keystone pipeline operated by TransCanada, is eventually expected to transport up to 900,000 b/d of crude oil to Gulf refineries, roughly double current imports of oil sands crude, Waxman said. Together with two previously permitted oil sands pipelines coming into the US Keystone and Alberta Clipper, which are not yet fully operational the three oil sands pipelines could raise oil sands imports to more than 3mn b/d, he said.
Studies estimate that shifting to oil sands fuel increases lifecycle GHG emissions by up to 37pc compared with the baseline fuel supply, Waxman said. More than 3mn b/d of oil sands fuel from the three pipelines would erase roughly two-thirds of the global warming pollution reductions that the administration's historic motor vehicle standards would achieve in 2020, he said.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, in turn, cites studies that find emissions over the full lifecycle from production to pipeline transportation and consumption of oil sands crude are 10-20pc higher than conventional crude. These lifecycle emissions can also be equal to that of heavy crude in the US produced from older, less efficient wells, the association warns, saying that the US will be increasingly dependent on crude imports in the future.
Waxman drafted a letter earlier this month to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing his concern that the $7bn Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast could have a major adverse impact on the carbon intensity of US transportation fuel. He also sent a similar letter to Elizabeth Orlando, the Keystone XL project manager at the State Department.
Waxman said the State Department's decision on whether to permit this cross-border pipeline, and to assess whether it is in the national interest, represents a critical choice about America's energy future. While I strongly support the president's efforts to move America to a clean energy economy, I am concerned that the Keystone XL pipeline would be a step in the wrong direction, he said.
Waxman is concerned that the State Department might have failed to analyze the most significant environmental impacts of this decision, as required by law, and is conducting the permitting process in a manner that lacks transparency and limits the ability of other relevant agencies to participate.
According to Waxman, a draft environmental impact statement has failed to disclose the global warming impacts of the project, as well its effect on Alberta's boreal forest. He wants the department to prepare a supplemental impact statement that addresses the full environmental impacts of the pipeline, using a lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.
The House committee has not yet received a response to Waxman's letters, a committee spokeswoman said today.
Keystone XL, an expansion of the original Keystone pipeline operated by TransCanada, is eventually expected to transport up to 900,000 b/d of crude oil to Gulf refineries, roughly double current imports of oil sands crude, Waxman said. Together with two previously permitted oil sands pipelines coming into the US Keystone and Alberta Clipper, which are not yet fully operational the three oil sands pipelines could raise oil sands imports to more than 3mn b/d, he said.
Studies estimate that shifting to oil sands fuel increases lifecycle GHG emissions by up to 37pc compared with the baseline fuel supply, Waxman said. More than 3mn b/d of oil sands fuel from the three pipelines would erase roughly two-thirds of the global warming pollution reductions that the administration's historic motor vehicle standards would achieve in 2020, he said.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, in turn, cites studies that find emissions over the full lifecycle from production to pipeline transportation and consumption of oil sands crude are 10-20pc higher than conventional crude. These lifecycle emissions can also be equal to that of heavy crude in the US produced from older, less efficient wells, the association warns, saying that the US will be increasingly dependent on crude imports in the future.
