https://www.nrdc.org/experts/josh-axelrod/tar-sands-atlantic-company-behind-keystone-xl-back
[images and links in on-line article
NRDC report downloads are available at
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/tar-sands-atlantic-ocean-transcanadas-proposed-energy-east-pipeline]
Tar Sands in the Atlantic—Company Behind Keystone XL is Back
July 26, 2016 Joshua Axelrod
In November 2015, President Obama announced the rejection of the
proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The announcement ended a six
year fight between environmentalists, Alberta’s oil industry, and
pro-oil lawmakers that brought the spotlight onto tar sands oil and the
threat it poses to our shared climate and environment. For TransCanada,
the company behind the Keystone XL proposal, the pipeline’s rejection
was a blow. But now they’re back with an even bigger, even riskier
proposal that could threaten more people and more resources than even
the Keystone XL behemoth would have.
TransCanada’s latest scheme—known as the Energy East pipeline—is 35%
larger than Keystone XL and is designed to carry up to 1.1 million
barrels per day of tar sands oil from Northern Alberta to refineries in
Quebec and a seaport in Saint John, New Brunswick. From there, nearly
300 oil supertankers would be loaded every year for transit along the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in order to reach refineries in Louisiana and
Texas. And while the concept of Energy East has been around since at
least 2013, TransCanada did not submit its full project application to
Canadian regulators until nearly the same moment it sued the U.S.
government for $15 billion under NAFTA for prospective damages related
to the Keystone XL rejection.
In a new report titled Tar Sands in the Atlantic Ocean: TransCanada’s
Proposed Energy East Pipeline, NRDC reveals the specifics of the project
and the significant threats it poses to U.S. coastal resources ranging
from Maine, to the Florida Keys, to the Gulf of Mexico. As with Keystone
XL, the proposed Energy East tar sands pipeline would pose a
long-lasting threat to the global climate; introduce the risk of an
un-cleanable tar sands oil spill, this time along thousands of miles of
Canadian and U.S. coastlines, and undermine the survival of several
iconic and endangered species, this time marine mammals that depend on
ecosystems up and down the eastern seaboard. Along the way, an accident
involving Energy East tankers carrying tar sands crude could cause
significant harm to East Coast fisheries, not to mention the
multi-billion dollar coastal tourism industry.
Major Threats: Sinking Oil and Climate Change
Since at least 2010, when up to 1 million gallons of tar sands oil (in
the form of diluted bitumen) spilled into the Kalamazoo River from a
ruptured pipeline, the behavior of tar sands spills into water have been
front and center in debates about the risks of transporting tar sands
crude. In that spill, a large portion of the spilled tar sands sunk,
coating nearly 40 miles of the river bottom in a sticky mess that took
five years, repeated dredging and a reported $1.2 billion to clean up.
Today, long term monitoring of the river has been put in place because
spill responders were unable to remove all of the spilled tar sands from
the river’s bottom.
In early 2016, the National Academy of Sciences released the results of
a two year study of the best available science on the environmental fate
of tar sands diluted bitumen when spilled. The findings of the expert
panel confirmed that what happened in Kalamazoo was no fluke: tar sands
diluted bitumen is fundamentally different than other crude oils and
when it is spilled into water, large quantities can be expected to sink,
creating spill impacts that cannot be addressed by current spill
response techniques and technologies.
The implications of the NAS’s finding for our coastlines if Energy East
were ever built are clear: the proposal would create a waterborne
pipeline of supertankers traveling the Eastern Seaboard and through the
Gulf Coast carrying a toxic substance that cannot be removed from the
environment in the case of an accident. In doing so, commercial and
sport fisheries worth billions of dollars annually would be put at risk
from submerged and sunken oil, including New England and Atlantic
Canada’s iconic lobster fisheries. Elsewhere, coastal economies from
Maine to Florida to Texas could be decimated by the long-lasting effects
of an ocean spill that cannot be mitigated by existing oil spill
response methods.
Globally, Energy East would lock in an enormous piece of high-carbon
infrastructure that would operate for decades to come. The implications
for our shared climate are significant—estimates based on the types of
oil Energy East is expected to move place annual lifecycle emissions
(from production, transport, refining, and use) at a staggering 256
million metric tons of carbon pollution. While most of those emissions
take place outside of Canada, the pipeline’s total contribution to
global climate pollution is equivalent to 35% of Canada’s total annual
emissions. That’s the annual emissions of every vehicle on the road in
Germany (54 million cars). In other words, as the world begins making
the tough decisions needed to avoid climate disaster, there is no place
for energy projects with the long term climate impacts that Energy East
would have.
Threats to North American Icons
Once tar sands oil is loaded onto supertankers in Saint John, New
Brunswick, the tankers would use a pathway that could imperil numerous
Atlantic icons. For marine mammals that breed and migrate in areas
located along the entire expected route of Energy East’s tankers, the
threats are serious: ocean noise, ship strikes, and the risk of an oil
spill could all spell disaster. This is particularly true for two whale
species—the North Atlantic right whale and the fin whale—both of which
are found in the Bay of Fundy where Energy East tankers would be loaded.
The North Atlantic right whale is one of the most endangered species of
whale on the planet, with estimates placing the total population at only
450 individuals. The fin whale, which is the world’s second largest
whale, is similarly endangered. Each species is at great risk of ship
strikes, which can cause serious injuries or death; deafening underwater
noise generated by massive ocean vessels, which can hinder their ability
to communicate, hunt, and navigate; and oil spills, which not only
introduce toxic substances into the water, but could also disrupt the
availability of critical food sources.
Along our shorelines, places like Acadia National Park in Maine and the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary would also be imperiled by the
tar sands tanker traffic created by Energy East. For Acadia, which lies
only 100 miles south of Energy East’s endpoint and a short distance from
where its tankers would begin their southward journey, its granite
shorelines and fragile ecosystems are especially vulnerable to the
threats posed by an Energy East tanker accident. This is equally true
further south, where Energy East tankers would be expected to travel
within 15 miles of the Florida Keys. The Keys, which are home to the
world’s third largest barrier reef, are not only one of the U.S.’s best
known tourist destinations, they also play a key role in protecting
mainland Florida from erosion and the negative impacts of saltwater
incursion. The threat of a tar sands spill near this critical resource
cannot be ignored, with possible impacts ranging from destruction of
irreplaceable coral reefs to the oiling of beaches along Florida’s
eastern coast due to northbound ocean currents.
Keeping the Threat at Bay: Solutions for Addressing Risks Created by
Energy East
Energy East has been proposed without the tar sands industry doing
anything to show regulators or first responders that it understands how
to clean up spills of its most common product—diluted bitumen—into
water. In fact, one of their favorite talking points is to just say,
“oil is oil.” Not only have real world experiences in Kalamazoo,
Michigan and elsewhere shown this to not be the case, the NAS’s
comprehensive report on tar sands diluted bitumen has blown this talking
point completely out of the water.
To counter the threats posed by Energy East—and any other piece of
infrastructure designed to move tar sands diluted bitumen to water for
ocean or river transport—several important steps are needed. First, the
U.S. must move for a tar sands tanker moratorium on U.S. navigable
waters. Without the tools, knowledge, or techniques necessary for
cleaning up a spill of tar sands diluted bitumen, our first responders
must not be handed the task of facing the impossible while our marine
resources suffer the consequences. A tar sands tanker moratorium would
create the time necessary to either develop the technology needed to
mitigate the likely impacts of a tar sands oil spill into water or,
ideally, incentivize the growth and deployment of economic alternatives
necessary to end the expansion of tar sands production in Northern
Alberta and obviate the need for infrastructure like Energy East altogether.
As this moratorium is put in place, the U.S. must also move to engage in
the regulatory reviews of projects designed to move significant
quantities of tar sands oil into U.S. waters and on to U.S.-based
refineries. Without meaningful engagement by our environmental
regulators and those agencies charged with protecting marine species and
keeping our coastlines safe, the oil industry would be given carte
blanche to place thousands of miles of U.S. coastlines, not to mention
the species and fisheries located offshore, at risk without any
consideration of what an accident could mean for critical U.S.
resources. Doing so places all of us at risk and leaves our first
responders unprepared—indeed, unaware—of the types of threats they may
confront if a project like Energy East were to ever be built.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel