Who needs Keystone XL? Oil sands flow to US via loophole.

As Keystone XL awaits a final decision from the Obama administration, at least one energy firm has found a loophole to ship controversial oil sands across the US border. The Keystone XL workaround could increase the flow of oil sands to the US by an additional 75,000 barrels per day without White House approval. 

By , Oilprice.com

  • close
    Some of more than 350 miles of pipe awaiting shipment for the Keystone XL oil pipeline project is stored at Welspun Tubular, in Little Rock, Ark., earlier this month. Canadian energy firm Enbridge has found a way to ship oil sands to the US without the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
    View Caption

Instead of waiting to obtain a “presidential permit” to ship oil sands from Canada to the United States, one Canadian firm has found a workaround, and environmental groups aren’t happy about it.

Pipeline operations giant Enbridge has figured out how to avoid having to go through the regulatory process with the U.S. State Department for approval of an oil sands pipeline.

According to EnergyWire, the company plans to build several interconnections on either side of the border between Manitoba and Minnesota. The interconnections will allow the company to transfer heavy oil from its Alberta Clipper pipeline to another pipeline known as “Line 3.” It will then be transferred back to the Alberta Clipper line once it is safely across the border in Minnesota.

Recommended: Think you know the odd effects of global climate change? Take our quiz.

The Line 3 pipeline would do the same. It is much older and normally does not run at full capacity. A 17.5 mile stretch of the pipeline was retrofitted in order to handle the heavier oil sands from the Alberta Clipper. The lighter oil from Line 3 would be switched over to the Alberta Clipper pipeline until it crosses the border, and then switched back.

The result will be the ability to increase the flow of oil sands to the United States by an additional 75,000 barrels per day without having to obtain White House approval. Both pipelines would meet regulatory requirements under existing permits.

The State Department is going along with the scheme. In an email sent to Enbridge in July and only recently made public, State Department official Patrick Dunn said, “Enbridge’s intended changes to the operation of the pipeline outside of the border segment do not require authorization from the U.S. Department of State.”

Environmental groups blasted the move, accusing the Obama administration of making backroom deals.


Like this article?

Subscribe to Recharge, the Monitor's weekend digest of global energy news.
Click here for a sample.


“When it comes to the climate crisis, President Obama’s central purpose ought to be, ‘Do no harm,’ ” Marc Fink, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press release. “The administration’s approval of this Alberta Clipper scheme certainly violates that doctrine. President Obama said he wouldn’t approve Keystone XL if it significantly exacerbates the problem of carbon pollution. He must hold the same standard when it comes to the Alberta Clipper.”

The move to switch pipeline flows and the willingness of the State Department to look the other way would appear to be an effort on behalf of the Obama administration to avoid another protracted fight over a pipeline. The Keystone XL permitting process has dragged on for years, and TransCanada, the company proposing the pipeline, has only scars to show for its six-year battle with environmental groups and the U.S. government.

Enbridge submitted an application back in November 2012 to increase Alberta Clipper line’s capacity from 450,000 barrels to 880,000 barrels per day. But it did not want to wait to see its Alberta Clipper line suffer a similar fate as Keystone XL. So it has come up with the plan to swap oil flows between two existing lines.

Enbridge downplayed the significance of the move, calling it a temporary measure until the State Department considers its application for an expansion of Alberta Clipper. “Ultimately this is about meeting shipper requirements for capacity,” Enbridge spokeswoman Lorraine Little said on Aug. 20. “We are utilizing this optimization in order to meet that. We do see it as a short-term solution until the full Department of State review is completed.”

The recently released documents depicting the State Department’s consent for the plan risks igniting a broader fight from environmental groups over a project that has thus far stayed out of the limelight. They see the Alberta Clipper project as the same as Keystone XL, and will take the administration to task for appearing to abdicate regulatory responsibility over the project.

But it may be too late. Since the State Department says that Enbridge has complied with the law, there is likely little recourse. Enbridge is expected to complete the interconnections in September.  Despite the efforts to block Keystone XL, the U.S. is about to see increased flows of oil coming from Canada’s oil sands.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Bypassing-Keystone-Canadian-Firm-Uses-Loophole-To-Ship-Oil-Sands-To-U.S.html

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best energy bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link in the blog description box above.

Share this story:
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...