This isn't your average oil pipeline. Keystone XL is a TAR SANDS pipeline
Posted February 14, 2012 in Moving Beyond Oil
Yesterday and today, the offices of Congress are being flooded with messages from hundreds of thousands of Americans opposing the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. After just 24 hours, almost 800,000 messages were sent to Senators from all across America decrying efforts to undo President Obama’s decision to deny the pipeline permit. Americans oppose proposed legislation that would bypass the environmental review for this tar sands pipeline (even though a final route for the pipeline has not yet been set) reversing the decision to deny the permit. So how can a recent poll released by Fox News find that 67 percent of Americans support the tar sands pipeline? The answer is that Fox News didn’t specify that this is a tar sands pipeline – different from regular oil pipelines in its risk of oil spills and in how much worse tar sands is for the climate than regular oil. In this, the Fox News poll differs markedly from another recent poll by Hart Research where respondents backed President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, 46 percent to 37 percent. Once Americans understand the risks of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, they say no to this dirty energy project. We know that we can do better than tar sands to meet our energy needs.
The difference in these poll results comes down to one thing: whether the person being surveyed understands that Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline – a very different thing than a conventional oil pipeline. There are significant environmental issues unique to tar sands including an increased risk of spills. The Keystone XL pipeline will carry tar sands, a uniquely corrosive and acidic mixture, more risky than most of the pipelines across the country. This blend of tar sands bitumen makes pipes more susceptible to corrosion bringing a higher chance of oil spills that are more difficult to clean up once they happen.
The poll by Fox News said that 67 percent of voters support the Keystone XL “oil pipeline.” This question is fundamentally flawed because it fails to mention that Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline. This and other polls touting public support for generic “pipeline” questions deserve a second look including a Rasmussen released poll claiming that a majority of Americans in favor of the pipeline and the National Journal poll with similar findings. These polls don’t give a fair assessment of where the public is because they asked about Keystone XL as a “pipeline” or an “oil pipeline,” which papers over the primary issue about Keystone XL – that it carries tar sands.
It is when Americans learn the truth about the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, that they grasp what a colossal mistake it would be to proceed with this project. The Hart Research poll takes a much closer look at public attitudes. The poll, conducted in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Colorado, found that respondents backed President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, 46 percent to 37 percent, once they heard the arguments for and against the pipeline. (Even before hearing the arguments, 32 percent backed the President’s decision – significantly more than found in polling with highly unreliable and generic questions that had been conducted earlier.)
Once Americans learn the full story about the tar sands pipeline, their views of the project dramatically change. First, they learned that this is not generic pipeline carrying conventional oil like so many pipelines that now exist. The Canadian tar sands oil is now being pushed through U.S. pipelines that were built and designed for less abrasive conventional oil. And TransCanada – the proponent of Keystone XL – has a bad safety record,. In fact, Keystone One, (the existing sister pipeline to Keystone XL) spilled 14 times alone in the United States, and over 20 times in Canada, in its first year of operation. President Obama made the decision to deny the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because the government was not given enough time to fully evaluate all of the pipeline’s health and safety issues (not to mention the full route was never scoped out). It is no wonder that once poll respondents understood these key facts more clearly they found good reason to support the President’s denial of the pipeline.
Second, they learned that the pipeline is meant to meet the needs of foreign oil companies wanting access to an international port. Keystone XL is a tar sands export pipeline through America – not for America. Keystone XL would not increase U.S. energy security and would increase the price of oil in the Midwest. Essentially, Keystone XL would take oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be sold on the international market. Exporting Canadian tar sands oil at higher prices on the world market may increase profits for the tar sands industry, but does not offer the U.S. energy security and it jeopardizes our drinking water all while increasing prices for American consumers.
Failing to mention that Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline carrying a very different and more dangerous substance than conventional oil is a significant omission from a poll question. Once Americans learn that with Keystone XL there are greater dangers of a toxic oil spill and that the pipeline itself is designed to take oil through America – not to America – their apparent support fades. That is why so many people across the United States turned out in unprecedented numbers in a 24 hour period to tell Congress that they do not want the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
Join the Conversation
Comment on this post:
All pertinent comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Off-topic comments, commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. We are also required to remove any express or implied statement endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for political office. Valid email addresses are required. (NRDC respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)
Comments (Add yours)
BS — Feb 15 2012 08:26 AM
Would you care to show the details on the Hart poll? Exactly what questions were asked? And what were the "pros and cons" they listed before asking the questions.
The poll, in more detail here: http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/kxl-poll.pdf, appears biased towards getting respondents to say they favor Obama's decision.
So woo hoo. When you improperly influence the answers of poll respondents in a biased manner, you get answers that more closely resemble what you're looking for. BFD.
And again, I'd still challenge NRDC to show any statistically valid data they have that led them to the conclusion that diluted bitumen is more likely to be spilled than other types of crude. Somehow I doubt that data exists.
And now that you are acknowledging that US pipelines already ship high-sulfur and high TAN (total acid number) crudes, how 'bout you now show the data that proves dilbit is somehow "uniquely" worse?
The facts are that these acidic and sour crudes are shipped safely all over the country. Pipelines are required to be routinely monitored for corrosion, dents, and other integrity problems via the use of "smart pigs" (aka "smart tools") that are run in the lines. Pipelines also use corrosion inhibitors and biocides when corrosion or microbial damage is a concern.
Pipelines are extremely heavily regulated (for good reason), and are the safest method of oil transport. The mindless actions of the NRDC and other opponents simply result in increased transportation of crude by rail and ship. These methods of transportation are more dangerous, more likely to cause spills, and are more energy intensive (worse for the environment).
Agree — Feb 21 2012 09:05 PM
Its isn't a guess theat the Pipeline will leak, it is a fact. All pipelines leak no matter the precaution, but the real guess is how much will it leak? This pipeline (should it be made) would run across the Orgullala Aquifer, which provides around 30% percent of the drinking for the midwest. Also, it only takes one gallon of oil to pollute over a thousand gallons of water, and water security is much more important than tar sand security. Alternative energy resources are available and more will soon come. However, we need water for ourselves, our crops, and to perform daily neccessities (like cooking food). And as I said before, more technological advances in energy are soon to come and in (probably even less than) twenty tar sans and fuel for that matter will not be a sustainable nor our main source of energy, so why spend all this money on it now? Sure the economic bonuses will be great: more jobs and private sector money goes into our economy (etc.), but is losing parts (if not all) of the orgullala aquifer and other environmental repurcusions really worth the short term surplus? Personally, I think not.
BS — Feb 22 2012 08:14 AM
How have leaks from all the other pipelines that already run across the Ogallala aquifer affected the water?
Oh, no leak has ever contaminated it? Oh, there's no evidence that oil from a leak could even reach the aquifer?
Do you have any evidence? Or just irrational fear?
Your statistic about one gallon of oil polluting thousands of gallons of water is for surface water. Many sources of groundwater have, unfortunately, been contaminated by chemicals from refineries, factories, etc (generally from before we had good environmental regulations). First, such contamination requires a persistent source of the chemical to even cause contamination (i.e. a spill that is quickly cleaned up will not contaminate an aquifer). Second, in the cases where aquifers have been contaminated, the contamination stays in one spot. Aquifers are not lakes. They are porous rocks that contain water. Liquids to not flow through rocks, rather they sit in one spot. Hence, groundwater contamination from industrial sites never causes widespread contamination, only contamination in the immediate area.
So yes, your fears are totally unfounded. But hey, let's use unfounded fears to dictate national policy. Great idea!
BS Needs to Take A Break — Feb 23 2012 04:58 PM
To BS:
Funny you use "BS" as your name, as that is exactly what your statements are "BS"!! You are the definition of what is wrong with the people that are unfortunately bullying, I mean influencing our government in all the wrong ways. You are obviously in favor of the Keystone Tar Sands Pipeline, well great for you, but guess what the majority of the people in this country do not support it, so why don't you give it a rest and stop bullying people verbally for their beliefs.
BS — Feb 24 2012 09:16 AM
I'm not a bully. Bullies suck.
What I am is a person who thinks issues should be debated on the facts, not by spreading lies and misinformation like the NRDC does.
There's a reason they're not defending their position. They can't.
Just because a person "believes" the Ogalalla aquifer is at risk doesn't make their opinion valid. A valid opinion is one that is based on science and facts. Not one valid argument has been made to suggest that the fears about massive contamination of the aquifer is anything but irrational.
If one person armed with actual facts is able to silence a bunch of people who have none, that's not bullying. It's called winning a debate.
BS — Feb 24 2012 10:42 AM
Turns out that among people who have heard of the issue, a strong majority of Americans are in favor of Keystone.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/212375-poll-shows-support-for-keystone-pipeline-environmental-regulations
So much for the NRDCs claim that Americans only support it because they don't know anything about it.
offline — Mar 8 2012 05:58 PM
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full.html