Watching Government: Keystone foes air concerns

June 27, 2011
Republicans and most of the witnesses came to a US House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on June 16 expecting to discuss reauthorization of federal pipeline safety regulations.

Nick Snow
Washington Editor

Republicans and most of the witnesses came to a US House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on June 16 expecting to discuss reauthorization of federal pipeline safety regulations. Several Democrats and a witness from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) decided to raise questions about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project instead.

They clearly were vexed that the Energy and Power Subcommittee passed Rep. Lee Terry's (R-Neb.) bill on June 15 giving the US Department of State a Nov. 1 deadline to reach a decision on the project's cross-border permit application. "This hearing seems a day late, and a dollar short, when it comes to regulatory practices," said Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), the subcommittee's ranking minority member.

TransCanada wants to build the 1,661-mile, 36-in. pipeline from Alberta to Texas. Supporters say it would provide nearly 1.3 million b/d of crude oil from Alberta and North Dakota to refineries in the Midcontinent and along the Gulf Coast. Opponents argue that the oil would have adverse environmental impacts because it would come from Alberta's oil sands. They also used the June 16 safety hearing to allege that shipping more of the heavier crude south would cause more leaks.

"Diluted bitumen is much thicker, or viscous, than conventional crude and must be pumped through a pipeline at high pressure," testified Anthony Swift, an international energy analyst at NRDC. "It is typically diluted with light, highly volatile natural gas liquids, which increase the risk of explosion in the event of a spill."

Swift noted that while the US historically imported most Canadian crude produced from oil sands as upgraded synthetic crude similar to conventional crude, imports as diluted bitumen increased almost sixfold over 10 years to nearly 600,000 b/d, or more than half of the 900,000 b/d of Canadian tar sands oil shipped to the US.

Rest of response

Approaching floor votes late in the hearing kept another witness, Association of Oil Pipe Lines Pres. Andrew J. Black, from fully answering Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Tex.) question about diluted bitumen's potential impacts on pipelines. So OGJ asked Black for the rest of his response on June 20.

Black said the allegation the mixture is more corrosive is not new. The State Department addressed this in the draft environmental impact statement it prepared for Keystone XL's application and, through its proposed conditions, found that diluted bitumen does not pose any different risks.

"Oil sands production is certainly different than conventional crude production, but the product moved through the pipeline will behave just like a heavy crude," Black said. "TransCanada would not spend $7 billion to build a pipeline to carry a product the pipeline couldn't handle."

More Oil & Gas Journal Current Issue Articles
More Oil & Gas Journal Archives Issue Articles
View Oil and Gas Articles on PennEnergy.com