Home » News » U.S. ambassador to Canada: Reduce oilsands’ environmental impact
News
U.S. ambassador to Canada: Reduce oilsands’ environmental impact
News Articles Featured | Calgary Herald | June 08, 2011
Read the full article on the originating site
TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline under scrutiny
Alberta will continue to feed America’s energy needs but must work to clean up resource extraction operations, David Jacobson, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, said Tuesday.
As more criticism of Alberta’s energy exports emerged south of the border, Jacobson described Canada as the “safest and most secure foreign supplier” of oil, in a speech to open the Gas and Oil Expo and Conference.
“The United States sees Canada as a pillar of our energy security,” he said.
He admitted his country will be hungry for fossil fuels “for a time to come” but ultimately wants to reduce oil dependence.
Canada, the largest supplier of energy to the United States, accounts for more than 20 per cent of U.S. oil imports and upwards of 80 per cent of natural gas flowing into the country, he noted.
However, additional improvements in the environmental performance of oilsands extraction operations are “necessary,” he said.
“We’re aware of the progress that has been made to address some of the environmental impacts in the Alberta oilsands. . . . But as I’ve said on many occasions in the past, additional improvements are necessary.”
The diplomat’s remarks came amid more scrutiny of Calgary-based TransCanada Corp.‘s proposed $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in a letter to the U.S. State Department, raised “significant” new concerns about the project, criticizing decision-makers in the Obama administration for conducting a flawed study of the project’s potential impact.
The letter warned officials they must “carefully consider” the possibility of finding an alternate route for the 2,700-kilometre line that moves it away from sensitive ecosystems in the U.S. Great Plains.
The agency asks the State Department to seek “detailed descriptions” of efforts by the Alberta government and Canadian oil producers to reduce emissions before deciding whether to approve or reject construction of Keystone XL.
“As explained in this letter, we have a number of concerns regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, as well as the level of analysis and information provided concerning those impacts,” writes Cynthia Giles, the EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
The Keystone XL pipeline would transport up to 700,000 barrels per day of diluted bitumen from northern Alberta’s oilsands to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.
The EPA’s letter signals an attempt to throw up more obstacles to the pipeline project. Terry Cunha, a spokesman for TransCanada, said the company was still reviewing the EPA’s letter but “in general we do believe the project has already been thoroughly reviewed.”
The State Department, which has the authority to grant a presidential permit approving the pipeline, has announced a new round of public hearings in response to opposition in states along Keystone XL’s proposed route.
But State Department officials also said this week they expect to make a final ruling on Keystone XL by the end of the year, suggesting they are not open to extensive new reviews. Cunha said TransCanada will “continue to address any questions with regard” to safety, but the proposed path “has gone through a lot of review and analysis and has been determined to be the best route for the project.”
A handful of U.S. environmental groups also weighed in Tuesday, calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to listen to some 265,000 citizens they say submitted comments or signed petitions urging her to deny a permit approving the Keystone XL project.
Jacobson offered little on the future of the proposed pipeline when asked Tuesday, pointing to the State Department’s review set to close by the end of the year.
“While that process is pending, I’m really not in a position, because we’re the ones who have to decide it, I’m not in a position to really comment on the specifics of Keystone XL.”
When asked by reporters on his thoughts about a potential integrated North American energy policy, Jacobson admitted his country has not advanced new rules U.S. President Barack Obama would like.
“As the president indicated after the election, the likelihood of comprehensive energy legislation in this Congress is probably not great,” Jacobson said.
Kurt Abraham, vice-president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers told a Go Expo audience that the Keystone XL would be a “great leap forward,” stating it would safeguard against declines in oil supply from Mexico and Venezuela.
“The State Department personnel have dragged their feet in this process over the last year and a half,” Abraham lamented.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is hopeful, based on Clinton’s previous public comments, that the project will go ahead.
“We remain optimistic that Keystone ultimately will be permitted,” said Tom Huffaker, vice-president of policy and environment.
Jacobson is to attend a private meeting with oil and gas leaders and other stakeholders today to talk about how to harmonize regulatory differences between the United States and Canada.
With files from Reuters
Tagged with: keystone xl, transcanada, pipeline, ambassador david jacobson
