TransCanada Will Look At Rail If Keystone Rejected

The chief executive of TransCanada said Wednesday if the Obama administration doesn’t approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline his company will look to the more dangerous alternative of building build rail terminals in Alberta and Oklahoma.

President Barack Obama is expected to decide early this year on Keystone XL, which is under review at the State Department. The long-delayed pipeline would carry oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said pipelines are “by far a safer alternative” to oil trains but said if customers want him to build rail terminals he will. He said he’s in discussions with oil and rail companies.

Concerns have been raised about the increasing use of rail to transport oil throughout North America. A number of recent derailments have worried both officials and residents close to rail lines. In July, 47 people were killed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, when a train with 72 oil tankers derailed and exploded in the small community. On Dec. 30, an oil train derailed and exploded in North Dakota, causing the evacuation of a nearby town but no injuries. Earlier this month, a train carrying oil and gas exploded in New Brunswick, also causing evacuations.

Girling said they’ll consider building a rail terminal in Hardisty, Alberta where the pipeline would have started. He said he will also consider building an import terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma, site of the biggest U.S. oil storage hub. The southern leg of Keystone XL from Cushing to refineries in the Gulf Coast is set to come online next week.

Obama initially refused to issue a permit for part of the entire Keystone XL project amid concerns about its potential impact on a large aquifer in Nebraska. The administration is considering another application, but TransCanada has received clearance for the pipeline’s southern leg.

The pipeline would carry 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta across six U.S. states to the Texas Gulf Coast. Republicans, and business and labor groups, have long urged the Obama administration to approve the pipeline as a source of much-needed jobs and a step toward North American energy independence. Environmental groups have been pressuring Obama to reject the pipeline, saying it would carry “dirty oil” that contributes to global warming. They also worry about a spill.

Girling said opposition has helped delayed the process but said he’s confident Keystone XL will ultimately be approved.

Obama’s initial rejection of the pipeline went over badly in Canada, which relies on the U.S. for 97 percent of its energy exports. Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird repeatedly called for a prompt decision on the Keystone XL pipeline during a trip to Washington on Wednesday.

“One politician — the president of the United States — can say yes to a great project to create jobs on both sides of the border, help with energy independence and energy security,” Baird told reporters.

“Decision time is upon us.”

The pipeline is critical to Canada, which needs infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production. The northern Alberta region has the world’s third largest oil reserves, with 170 billion barrels of proven reserves.

RIGZONE

3 Comments on "TransCanada Will Look At Rail If Keystone Rejected"

DC on Thu, 16th Jan 2014 12:53 am 



The tar-pipe is NOT critical to Canada. Ill get by just fine if its never built. So will 99.5% of the rest of my people. It IS critical to the US corporations that actually control my nation and its gov’t….and its resources, but to the nation, even in the abstract?

No….

PapaSmurf on Thu, 16th Jan 2014 1:51 am 



The XL pipeline does not matter at all. 100% of that heavy oil is going to be exploited in one way or another.

Canada will likely export it via pipeline to the west coast of Canada to tanker ships.

Or they will just build train tankers to bring it over the border to the pipeline system.

Or they will expand the existing pipelines that are already operating. There is a bunch of Canadian oil (and heavy oil) already coming across the border to various refineries.

This decision doesn’t stop any heavy oil at all from ultimately being utilized.

rockman on Thu, 16th Jan 2014 2:03 pm 



It’s getting really absurd. So many folks on both sides of this debate are so full of crap. First major BS point: so they may want to rail oil from Alberta to take advantage of the recently completed southern leg of Keystone XL. One little problem with that plan: the pipeline is already subscribed to full capacity. IOW there is no room at the inn: for the last couple of months the line has been filling with 3 million bbl of oil. They estimate in just one week this section of KXL will begin delivering 600,000 bopd directly from the oil sands fields to Texas refineries.

But how can that be: the POTUS hasn’t even signed the permit to build the border crossing section of KXL…KXL doesn’t cross the border. Second major BS point from the opponents of the oil sands: the freaking oil already has multiple avenues to cross the border. Where will the oil come from that will flow in the southern leg of KXL from Cushing to Texas? It will come from the Keystone Pipeline…the other Keystone pipeline that isn’t KXL. The K pipeline has been moving oil across the border into the US since Oct 2010. In addition to current rail and truck transport of oil across the border there are 6 pipelines that move hydrocarbons between the two countries. Which is how more oil than ever before has been exported from Canada to the US in 2013 than ever before in history. There are already a number of rail terminals on both sides of the border moving oil. There are other pipelines that already exist whose capacity is being expanded because such actions do not require POTUS approval.

And what about all the talk about efforts to prevent the oil sands production from reaching the west coast? More BS: it has already been doing so for years and those systems have capacity increases planned. And lastly let’s not forget the plans to move Alberta production to their east coast where the EU and India would be major buyers of Canadian production. It will take a while to expand the pipeline system to the east but it’s already underway. If fact, oil export terminals on the east coast have already began expanding.

Both sides of the debate have flooded the public with much misleading crap IMHO. No wonder few people really understand the dynamics. Especially the fact that regardless of how much GHG will be created by burning the oil sands production the major controlling forces, the Canadian and US govts are fully behind the effort. Yes, some Canadians are trying to restrict production. Results: more oil produced in Canada in 2013 than ever before and a new record anticipated for 2014. Yes, some Americans are trying to restrict oil sands production. Results: more Canadian oil imported into the US in 2013 than ever before and a new record anticipated for 2014.

And all this has happened and will continue to happen without the approval of the POTUS for those few miles of KXL that cross the border. One of the most bizarre debates I’ve ever seen: both sides have been using the same red herring. The lack of POTUS approval has had no effect on the oil sands development. And yet both sides use it as the emblem on their battle flag. It’s turned into a debate of liars lying about the lies of other liars IMHO. LOL.