Killing The Keystone Pipeline Won’t Stop The Oil Sands Being Mined

I have to admit that I don’t really understand one of the arguments being used against the Keystone pipeline project. Several of the arguments I do understand and simply disagree with, but one of them I just don’t get in some important manner. That’s the one that if the pipeline isn’t built then the oil in the tar sands won’t be extracted and thus climate change is be less likely. This just doesn’t ring true for me. Mark Perry provides one little chart to show why:

As the Wall Street Journal pouts it, and as Perry quotes them:

Welcome to the revival of the Railroad Age. North America’s major freight railroads are in the midst of a building boom unlike anything since the industry’s Gilded Age heyday in the 19th century—this year pouring $14 billion into rail yards, refueling stations, additional track. With enhanced speed and efficiency, rail is fast becoming a dominant player in the nation’s commercial transport system and a vital cog in its economic recovery.

Oil nearly always travels below ground—by pipeline. Unlike pipelines, which travel between two fixed points, trains can transport the oil in many more directions. They also let producers go where the demand is—taking advantage of spreads of as much as $25 a barrel in markets pipelines can’t reach.

Until recently, “crude by rail” was just an experiment. But by November [of last year], big oil players had carved out a plan here [in North Dakota], dooming a new pipeline project in favor of a dozen rail-loading sheds. By year’s end, more oil was moving out of North Dakota by rail than by pipeline.

What’s true of North Dakota is also going to be true of any other profitable oil field. If there isn’t a pipeline then another way will be found to get that same oil to market.

My number is a little old but it was always said that the tar sands in Alberta became economical to mine at $40 a barrel. Given the current price of around $100 people simply aren’t going to leave it there for lack of a pipeline: they’re go9ing to go hire some railroad cars instead.

So Keystone or not Keystone isn’t going to be the deciding factor as to whether those sands get exploited or not. Which is, as I say, one of the reasons I’m so puzzled by the importance that is given to the exploitation or not of the sands when referring to that pipeline.

Other arguments I do understand, even if I disagree with them. For example, the potential for spillages from the pipeline. Yes, obviously, this could happen. Pipelines have broken in the past. But it’s also worth noting that there are tens of thousands of miles of such pipelines criss-crossing the country and have been for decades. And we’re not all dead yet nor the environment ruined. So one more pipeline probably isn’t going to do the trick either.

But as I say, given that people are going to mine the sands whether the pipeline is built or not, oil will be transported pipeline or no pipeline, why is the argument being framed as stopping the pipeline will kill the exploitation and the transport? That’s the part I just don’t get.

 

Forbes