Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau gives go-ahead to two oil pipeline projects

Scott K. Johnson

Pipeline in Alberta, Canada.

jasonwoodhead23

In the US, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline meant to carry oil from Alberta, Canada’s oil sands to refineries in Illinois and on the Gulf Coast ultimately died due to stiff opposition. That wasn’t the only route Alberta’s oil industry is pursuing to get its oil to market, though. On Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced decisions on three major pending pipeline projects. One was rejected, but two received a thumbs-up.

The especially controversial Northern Gateway pipeline would have carried oil from Edmonton, Alberta, to a port in Kitimat, British Columbia. Trudeau said this new pipeline would not be approved, citing environmental concerns for the newly protected Great Bear Rainforest that covers islands along the coast that would see greatly increased oil tanker traffic.

But a major proposal to expand the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton to a port near Vancouver will proceed. A second pipeline will be built to parallel the existing one, boosting the capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels per day. That will, at least, replace the volume currently being transported to the coast by rail as it heads to markets in Asia.

A proposed expansion of the Line 3 pipeline from Edmonton to the port in Superior, Wisconsin, will also be allowed to go ahead. That would basically replace the existing pipeline and allow the flow to increase from 390,000 to 760,000 barrels per day.

Alberta’s oil sands are dirtier and more expensive than your typical barrel of oil. Most oil that is produced comes from underground reservoirs containing a mix of heavy and light crude oil, often accompanied by natural gas. Alberta’s oil can’t just be pumped out of a well. There, tar-choked sandstone sits just below the forest floor. Energy is required to heat the oil sand (using steam) and extract heavy crude oil. That means producing a barrel of oil from oil sands entails greater greenhouse gas emissions—and a higher cost—than a barrel of conventional oil.

The climatic impact of an oil pipeline is difficult to predict. Without a change in oil prices, there may be no change in production—just a shift in the transportation method away from (more expensive) railroad cars. But if the bottom line changes for oil producers for any of several reasons, the pipeline can lead to more oil and more greenhouse gas emissions from the production and transportation process.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency estimates show that, together, the two pipelines would increase industry CO₂ emissions in Alberta by about 23-28 million tons per year if the new capacity turns into new production. Alberta’s oil sands are currently responsible for about 70 million tons per year.

Although this won’t threaten Alberta’s plan to cap the province’s oil industry emissions at 100 million tons per year, increased oil sand production will definitely make it harder for Canada to meet its promised greenhouse gas reduction targets. As part of the Paris Agreement, Canada pledged to cut emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

And, of course, the oil produced in Canada gets burned somewhere, further contributing to global greenhouse gas emissions.