The example that most stands out over the past few weeks is, of course, this Washington Post article, which reported that 150 major Democratic donors had compared the significance of the Keystone XL decision to Abraham Lincoln’s resolve to end slavery.  As the article put it, “The missive, which was sent by the group Thursday and was obtained by The Washington Post, emphasized Obama’s respect for Lincoln and suggested the controversial pipeline–which would transport heavy crude from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast–marked a similar turning point in American history.”

While opponents no doubt felt that such a comparison would underscore the weight of the decision, the only thing that seems to have “stuck” is the sheer absurdity of their remarks. As the New York Post editorial states, “Sure, the pipeline involves an important presidential decision. But is it equivalent to ending human bondage?” Perhaps a more appropriate analogy to Keystone XL is President Lincoln’s leadership and support to build the Transcontinental Railroad. As this video describes, “On July 1, 1862, after decades of debate and disagreement on the matter, Lincoln brought the Transcontinental Railroad to life with a stroke of his pen…”

That’s not all. Earlier in the week, opponents also latched onto Sierra Club member Elaine Cooper’s claim that Vice President Joe Biden told her he opposed the pipeline.  Once again, the same Washington Post reporter had the story, this time featuring the anti-Keystone XL group, All Risk, No Reward, who created ads featuring Vice President Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry standing together with the text, “Psst, you should oppose Keystone XL too.”  But this claim also didn’t stick: Politico set the record straight, reporting that “evidence that Biden has said any such thing is incomplete — based on an account from one activist who has offered at least two versions of what the vice president told her on a rope line last week during a campaign event in South Carolina. Biden’s office, meanwhile, has declined to say definitively whether the quote was accurate.”

There’s more. Opponents also received a big blow to their campaign last week when – after weeks of spinning up stories about the devastating comments EPA had given the State Department’s review of Keystone XL a failing grade – acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe testified before the House Appropriations Committee that EPA actually had given the State Department’s review a “passing grade.”  Before this revelation, the Washington Post reporter wrote the story, “How much does EPA’s objection to Keystone XL matter? A lot.” The Guardian included in sub headline, “Momentum shifts again toward pipeline opponents in the long-running battle” With Perciasepe’s comment, that argument has been deflated.

Finally just this week, activists tried to make another mountain out of a molehill with a Reuters article that claims to have the “exclusive” on when the decision for the pipeline will be made.  Yet this “exclusive” comes from a “U.S. official” who “did not want to be named given the sensitive nature of the project.” A great rumor for sure, but how accurate is it?

As the Keystone XL decision drags on we can count on opponents to continue their antics to get ink – whether anything sticks is another story. And Oil Sands Fact Check will be on duty daily to set the record straight.

A new Oil Sands Fact Check video released today spotlights hundreds of union building and construction trade leaders and members who recently rallied in Washington, D.C. – just down the street from the White House – delivering a simple message: Put aside partisan politics and place renewed focus and energy on America’s continuing job crisis.

Check out the video in our “Featured Video” section or through YouTube HERE.

The refrain from this rally in support of Keystone XL is jobs, jobs, jobs:

• “And those pipelines coming down from Canada down through America, those are nothing but jobs so it means a lot to me.”

• “It means jobs for our union – our guys – we have about 100 members out of work that could really use the jobs.”

• “It’s about jobs – that’s what it’s about – put Americans back to work again in an industry that has a 14.7 percent unemployment rate. It’s good for our economy, it’s good for our country; it’s good for our energy independence and it’s good for working men and women in the building trades.”

Sean McGarvey, President of the Building and Construction Trades Department at AFL-CIO, spoke at the event saying, “We are tired of waiting and we believe the time has come to make the final decision on one of the most important projects to unlock the energy future for this country – the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Arguments About Those Temporary Jobs

In the video, Sean McGarvey also knocks down one of the primary criticisms made by opponents of Keystone XL, that the jobs it would create would be temporary.  As he says, “The interstate highway system was a temporary job; Mount Rushmore was a temporary job. If they knew anything about the construction industry they’d understand that we work ourselves out of jobs and we go from job to job to job.” 

Union and Labor Members Make Their Voices Heard Across the Country

The union rally in Washington was just one of many across the country.  Thousands of labor and union members rallied in Missouri, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Oklahoma and Ohio.

Oklahoma: The Tulsa World  reported, “A rally Tuesday at the Pipeliners Local 798 training center in Tulsa drew several hundred welders, fitters and others…Speakers called the pipeline an economic engine because of the thousands of workers needed to build it and a national security necessity because it allows the U.S. to import Canadian rather than OPEC oil.”

Iowa: As Radio Iowa reports in its April 4 story, “Union groups rally for Keystone XL Pipeline,” “Rick Tervin – the executive vice president of the United Plumbers, Fitters, Welders and HVAC Service Techs — spoke to the crowd. ‘What we don’t want is our good friends in Canada shipping this oil to China or another Mideastern country. That’s not good for us,’ Tervin said. ‘…To make matters worse, what I see happening if that happens is it will most likely be sold back here to us at an even higher cost. If that’s not an insult, I don’t know what is.’”

Nebraska: A previous OSFC video highlighted union workers calling on President Obama to approve Keystone XL: “It would have a great impact. I would have more money to support my family. I’d have a better Christmas. I’d have a better life” – “It would mean a lot of work for us” – “We need the jobs out here in Nebraska” – “With everybody out of work now it makes sense” – “We need the jobs” – it will allow us to get some bills paid. Put some food on the table; a roof over our heads.” See the OSFC video of the event here.

Laborers’ International Union of North America:  At a Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing, David Mallino testified, “For many members of the Laborers, this project is not just a pipeline; it is in fact, a life line. The construction sector has been particularly hit hard by the economic recession. The unemployment rate in the construction industry reached over 27% in 2010, and joblessness in construction remains far higher than any industry or sector, with over 1 million construction workers currently unemployed in the United States. Too many hard-working Americans are out of work, and the Keystone XL Pipeline will change that dire situation for thousands of them.

Full Script of Video

A Boon to the U.S. Economy: Production of Canadian oil sands is creating jobs and driving economic growth

Sean McGarvey: “The Keystone XL pipeline does not require an act of Congress; it does not require an appropriation.  It’s privately funded, it’s ready to go.  All it needs is one last permit and we go to work.”

Union Member: “And those pipelines coming down from Canada down through America, those are nothing but jobs so it means a lot to me.”

Jim Yuhase: “It means jobs for our union – our guys – we have about 100 members out of work that could really use the jobs.”

Terry O’Sullivan: “Life is defined by significant events, significant people and significant organizations. And brothers and sisters today is just that – a group of significant people that have banded together, that came here today to fight for jobs.”

Terry O’Sullivan: “It’s about jobs; that’s what it’s about – put Americans back to work again in an industry that has a 14.7 percent unemployment rate. It’s good for our economy, it’s good for our country; it’s good for our energy independence and it’s good for working men and women in the building trades.”

Union Member: “Keystone means everything to me – it means jobs; it means jobs that a whole lot of Americans need.”

Sean McGarvey: “The interstate highway system was a temporary job; Mount Rushmore was a temporary job. If they knew anything about the construction industry they’d understand that we work ourselves out of jobs and we go from job to job to job.”

Terry O’Sullivan:  “Never underestimate your commitment to our cause, to our purpose and to our mission.”

[I]t seems to us that we have finally reached the “enough already” moment in this debate. The EPA had its say on the first environmental-impact report on Keystone in 2011. This time around, once the process is complete, eight federal agencies will have given input. The technical review has been detailed and thorough.

We would like the State Department to approve it — but we would also like it to make a decision.

[...]

In the end, the most important thing that Keystone would do is carry as many as 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada and from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. This is oil that the U.S. still needs, and will bring in from somewhere — probably Canada or Venezuela via train and ship — whether or not Keystone is built.

Rather than encourage more study, President Barack Obama should now prod the State Department to move as fast as possible to approve the pipeline and get this overblown and needlessly divisive controversy off the nation’s agenda.

Read more HERE.

:39 min – “[The Keystone XL pipeline] would allow Canada to send heavy crude from landlocked Alberta to the Gulf Coast.”

NBC correspondent Anne Thompson reports as if the pipeline will only benefit Canada’s interests, when in fact it will serve U.S. energy infrastructure needs just as well.

First, Canadian oil sands crude will be an additional feedstock to refineries in the U.S. Gulf Coast (described as “state of the art” by President Obama) that are especially equipped to handle heavy crudes. Refining revenues would remain in the U.S., along with the thousands of jobs these facilities support.

KXL will also be a main highway for domestic sources of crude, providing 25 percent of its capacity to oil from the U.S. Bakken and other key oil fields throughout the country. All in all, the line will displace the equivalent of 40 percent of what the U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf.

:55 min – “Getting that oil out of the ground produces 17% more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional methods, according to the State Department.”

The State Department was not as definitive on its findings as NBC leads on. According to Appendix W of the latest project review, the State Department finds that “it is not clear whether [Canadian] oil sands-derived crudes are currently more GHG-intensive than other heavy crudes or crudes with high flaring rates.” The appendix continues:

“The life-cycle GHG emissions of [Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin] WCSB oil sands crudes can fall within the same range as heavier crudes such as heavy Venezuelan crude oil and California heavy oil, and lighter crudes that are produced from operations that flare most of the associated gas (e.g., Nigerian light crude).” (p. 68-69).

• In fact, the State Department finds that as we move forward, the difference in GHG emissions from Canadian oil sands crudes and other crude oils is likely to become smaller.

1:19 min – On the dump trucks

Anne Thompson stands next to behemoth-sized dump trucks used on open-pit oil sands mining sites, but fails to mention that many (if not the majority) are manufactured in the States – further supporting domestic job creation and retention. According the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), 200 Caterpillar 797 mining trucks have been purchased from the U.S. Moreover, many of the parts that go into the 797 are manufactured here at home, including engines made in Indiana, frame components from Louisiana and tires from South Carolina.

1:32 min – “Hot water is used to separate the oil from the sand in ponds of waste that can be toxic to wildlife.”

Not all oil sands development sites require tailing ponds, but we’ll get to that in the next point. Oil sands companies are making significant investments in both safety precautions and land disturbance to protect local wildlife and return land back to its original state after development is completed.

According to CAPP, oil sands operators employ multiple methods to deter waterfowl from landing. Canadian Natural is even operating a new radar-controlled bird deterrent system that has successfully kept birds away from their production site since the system’s deployment in 2009.

Reclamation is not only a key component to planning oil sands operations – it’s required by law. Before development can even begin, energy producers are required to submit a land reclamation plan and continually reclaim land throughout the life of a project.

2:00 min – “A company called Cenovous is getting the oil another way: drilling. […] Underground the oil is solid, so the steam is injected into the ground to melt it from the earth.”

The process being described is known as “in situ” and despite how NBC presents it, in situ is nothing new and is more common than open pit mining. Ninety-seven percent of the oil sands would be recovered via in situ, resulting in significantly reduced land disturbance.

2:56 min – “Canada’s oil sands: fuelling riches and controversy on both sides of the border.”

Following four and a half years of review of Keystone XL, let’s hope that the Canadian oil sands don’t only fuel “riches and controversy.” Jobs, among other benefits, are a significant driver toward project approval.

Much of the focus has been on the project’s potential for permanent job creation, but NBC, among others, discount the importance of temporary job creation. The Nightly News segment even quoted Sierra Club’s yet-to-be-supported point that the Keystone XL pipeline will only create 35 permanent jobs. As a union leader stated at a recent rally in Washington, DC, both the Golden Gate Bridge and Mount Rushmore were “temporary projects,” providing a legacy for centuries to come. The labor industry built this country with temporary jobs.

As one news outlet reported already, EPA’s comments are unlikely to have much impact. Rather, as Michael Marx, director of the Sierra Club put it recently, the effort fits in nicely with opponents’ delay campaign: “The theory has always been delay, delay, delay. We know the key to expanding the tar sands is getting the oil to market. So our strategy is to block the infrastructure.”

Further, the concerns raised by EPA over Keystone XL’s impact on greenhouse gases and climate change have been addressed and debunked:

• “One of the world’s top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta’s oil sands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming… ‘I was surprised by the results of our analysis,’ said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ‘I thought it was larger than it was.’… ‘The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming,’ Dr. Weaver said.” (Globe and Mail, February 2012)

•  “And despite fears by climate change activists that increased oil sand production has profoundly negative consequences to global warming, Alberta’s massive reserve base contributes relatively little to the problem at a global scale, [Michael Levi, senior fellow for energy and environment at Council on Foreign Relations] says. Though increasing oil sands production, which many expect will triple by 2030, will grow Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions to a huge extent if business-as-usual practices continue, the added carbon dioxide emissions are marginal in the U.S. and global contexts. Studies show CO2 output from oil sands production is equivalent to 0.5 percent of U.S. aggregate emissions from energy use and less than 0.1 percent of total global emissions.” (Scientific American, March 2009)

•  “…regarding the Keystone pipeline, the administration should face down critics of the project, ensure that environmental standards are met and then approve it. As Nature has suggested before (see Nature 477, 249; 2011), the pipeline is not going to determine whether the Canadian tar sands are developed or not. Only a broader — and much more important — shift in energy policy will do that. Nor is oil produced from the Canadian tar sands as dirty from a climate perspective as many believe…” (Nature editorial, January, 2013)

EPA also raises questions with the State Department assessment on whether oil sands would be produced without Keystone XL. This, too, has been fully vetted, including an OSFC post this past February:

In the event that Keystone XL is not approved by the Obama Administration, Canada will have its biggest economic incentive yet to approve infrastructure that could transport oil sands crude westward to willing Asian markets. A Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce report estimated that in 2012, Canadians lost $50 million dollars per day because of their restricted access to markets. Rather than moving south to Gulf Coast refineries, oil sands crude would be refined in countries like China where current emissions standards allow three times more sulfur dioxide than in the United States. Although China recently announced stricter regulations, Beijing has already admitted that implementation will be delayed.  Without firm regulations in place, there is no financial incentive for Asian refineries to meet a higher environmental standard – and a country that produces 25 percent of global GHG emissions (tops in the world) will have an even greater and more reliable supply of oil to import.

The bottom line remains: after four and half years, Keystone XL has been thoroughly debated. Perhaps John Kerekes, central region director for the American Petroleum Institute said it best when he told Politico, “We’ve had hearing after hearing and there are no new issues. The State Department has heard it all. Congress has heard it all. [The media] has heard it all. It’s time to wrap this thing up.”

This morning, as the U.S. State Department commences its hearing in Nebraska on the Keystone XL pipeline, Oil Sands Fact Check released a new video, titled, “A Boon to the U.S. Economy: A Message to the President,” featuring Nebraska labor union members and manufacturers calling on President Obama to approve Keystone XL.

After more than four and half years of review, the time has come for President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that will create thousands of jobs and strengthen America’s energy and national security. In fact, with the Keystone XL pipeline, our crude imports from Canada could reach 4 million barrels a day by 2020, twice what we currently import from the Persian Gulf. This makes good economic sense, as Canada is the United States largest trade partner, generating nearly 90 cents in return for every dollar the U.S. invests in its northern neighbor.

The final step of this process is for the State Department to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in our national interest. From a national security standpoint, this should be more than obvious: importing oil from our closest trading partner, Canada, as opposed to less friendly regions, is very much in our interest. As is stated in the video, Keystone XL offers a safe, practical way to make America more secure, both at home and abroad.

Mr. President, now is the time to approve Keystone XL.

Also See:

• Keystone XL: A Boon to the U.S. Economy

• The Keystone XL debate returns to Nebraska with more project supporters and fewer substantive points to deny it.

• Keystone XL Opponents Are Right: Public Overwhelmingly Supports Keystone XL

Top line points:

-       Recent federal and state environmental impact reviews of the Keystone XL pipeline have found the project to be safe and fit for construction.

-       According to the State Department, Keystone XL will not increase life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions or the rate of oil sands development.

-       Millions of barrels of crude oil are already being safely produced and transported across the Ogallala Aquifer by existing pipelines.

-       The northern leg of the project is necessary to connect additional domestic production and Canadian oil supplies to our state of the art Gulf coast refineries while creating thousands of American jobs along the way.

After completing its own environmental assessment and gaining the support of the governor, Nebraska may have thought it was out of the Keystone XL spotlight. But this week, all eyes will focus again on a state that has served as a prominent battleground over this project.

On April 18, Grand Island, Nebraska will host a public hearing on the State Department’s fourth environmental review of Keystone XL before a final report is issued and the national interest determination period begins. As OSFC previously noted, the State Department’s latest review didn’t change much from one completed in August 2011: both reports concluded that the project would have a minimal environmental impact. Thus, after four years of conjuring false claims about the project, pipeline opponents are clinging to the Nebraska hearing as their last hope.

Arguments against Keystone XL have morphed from one form to another over the years and, according to a recent Associated Press report, have been reduced to a handful of points outlined below. OSFC examined the old Keystone XL playbook to explain how those points aren’t likely to be part of the final report for President Obama’s review:

Claim #1: The pipeline will undercut the fight against global warming.

According to the State Department’s latest review, life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of oil sands crudes are similar to other heavy crude oils, falling in the same range as heavy Venezuelan crude oil and California heavy oil. Additionally, experts have explained time and again that Keystone XL won’t have a substantial impact on the rate of oil sands development in Canada and therefore, on GHG emissions.

But this claim underscores a big hitch in the anti-KXL crowd’s thinking: the pipeline isn’t what they’re after. As President Obama himself recently said, Keystone XL is “more of a symbolic issue.” And as UC Berkeley Prof. Severin Borenstein put it:

“Let’s face it. The opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline isn’t about dirty oil. It’s about oil.” (05/02/13)

Claim #2: The project still puts the Ogallala Aquifer at risk.

As James Goeke, hydrologist and Sand Hills expert, told the Washington Post, “many people have the wrong impression about the danger a pipeline leak would pose to the Ogallala. He said people ‘were concerned that any spill would contaminate and ruin the water in the entire aquifer, and that’s just practically impossible.’”

Millions of barrels of crude oil are already being safely produced and transported across the Ogallala Aquifer by existing pipelines, as retired USDA biologist C. Michael Cowen explains:

“The pipeline is just a red herring. If the pipeline really were their main concern, they also would be protesting all the other pipelines that crisscross the Ogallala Aquifer, including the gasoline pipeline between Geneva and Yankton, S.D.” (02/07/13)

Claim #3: TransCanada already got the Gulf Coast Project and doesn’t need to put other areas of the country at risk for the construction of the northern leg.

According to a new report from Wood Mackenzie, pipeline capacity remains tight as production from the oil sands and the Bakken shale continues to increase, making each new pipeline project that much more important. Skip York, a principal analyst for Wood Mack, explains the dynamics between the two legs of Keystone XL:

“[A] continued delay will result in Keystone XL’s southern leg [Gulf Coast Project] acting as a clearing mechanism for light oil from Cushing until the northern leg is approved and constructed.” (3/27/13)

In other words, while the Gulf Coast project can immediately impact the flow of domestically produced light oil, it’s the northern leg that will play a critical role in not only transporting safe and reliable crude from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, but also generating another 9,000 construction and support jobs along the way.

Claim #4: The Arkansas spill “has raised new concerns about pipeline safety and the specific risks associated with transporting corrosive tar sands.”

Oil sands crudes are not more corrosive than other crude oils. In a 2011 report, Canadian research group Alberta Innovates found that acid and sulfur compounds found in oil sands crudes “are too stable to be corrosive and some may even decrease corrosion.” Recent testing and studies by ASTM International and Penspen support this conclusion.

The fact is that oil sands crudes have been transported safely in the U.S. for more than 40 years. Accident reports from the Pipeline & Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) from 2002 through mid-2012 show zero internal corrosion-related releases from pipelines carrying diluted bitumen.

Further, after four years of review, the State Department continues to come to the same conclusion: Keystone XL is a state-of-the-art pipeline that will have “a minimal environmental impact.” In fact, Keystone XL adopted 57 extra safety measures, leading the State Department to declare that the project would “have a degree of safety over any other.” Pipeline technology continues to improve, making older pipelines more secure and new pipelines safer.

For all the reasons we mention above, the real risk involved with this project is in continuing to delay it.

In fact, a national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 13-17 among 1,501 adults, finds, “Support for the pipeline spans most demographic and partisan groups. Substantial majorities of Republicans (82%) and independents (70%) favor building the Keystone XL pipeline, as do 54% of Democrats.”

Public support for Keystone XL is reflected in editorials all across the country.  As the Globe and Mail notes: “A search of newspaper editorials from Virginia to North Dakota to California turned up 22 pro-Keystone pieces since the start of the year compared to three anti-Keystone views, which were published in The New York Times, Baltimore Sun and Sacramento Bee. Some of the papers that adopted stances in favour of the pipeline come from oil country – Texas, for instance – but they also pop up in less expected places like New Jersey and Michigan.”

These editorials and positive poll numbers reveal a harsh reality for Keystone XL’s opponents.  As POLITICO reported:

Here’s the truth that environmentalists are warming to: Despite the rallies and all-out campaign, Keystone XL pipeline opponents haven’t won over the public. A number of recent polls show growing support for the pipeline that would carry oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast, despite the national efforts of the environmental community.

However, Keystone opponents’ contention that Obama’s decision won’t be influenced by poll results and public opinion could backfire, since it could call into question whether greens’ efforts to sway the policy were worthwhile. And that could be a hard pill to swallow on the heels of recent events such as the President’s Day rally against the Keystone pipeline that brought thousands to the National Mall, and the Sierra Club campaign to highlight 100 days of action to fight climate change and the Keystone XL pipeline.

Just how overwhelming is the public support in favor of the Keystone XL?

• Spotlight on Oklahoma: The Tulsa World recently reported, “A rally Tuesday at the Pipeliners Local 798 training center in Tulsa drew several hundred welders, fitters and others…Speakers called the pipeline an economic engine because of the thousands of workers needed to build it and a national security necessity because it allows the U.S. to import Canadian rather than OPEC oil.”

• Spotlight on Iowa: As Radio Iowa reports in their April 4 story, Union groups rally for Keystone XL Pipeline, “Rick Tervin – the executive vice president of the United Plumbers, Fitters, Welders and HVAC Service Techs — spoke to the crowd. ‘What we don’t want is our good friends in Canada shipping this oil to China or another Mideastern country. That’s not good for us,’ Tervin said. ‘…To make matters worse, what I see happening if that happens is it will most likely be sold back here to us at an even higher cost. If that’s not an insult, I don’t know what is.’”

• Union Support: As the House Energy and Commerce Committee noted, “Union backers also voiced their support for the project on Capitol Hill this week. Testifying on behalf of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, David Mallino appeared before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power Wednesday at a hearing on H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, legislation authored by Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) that will allow construction of the pipeline to finally commence. Mallino told the panel, “For many members of the Laborers, this project is not just a pipeline; it is in fact, a life line. The construction sector has been particularly hit hard by the economic recession. The unemployment rate in the construction industry reached over 27% in 2010, and joblessness in construction remains far higher than any industry or sector, with over 1 million construction workers currently unemployed in the United States. Too many hard-working Americans are out of work, and the Keystone XL Pipeline will change that dire situation for thousands of them.”

• Bipartisan Support in Congress: Support for Keystone XL pipeline is so overwhelming now that even Congress can agree that it should be built. The United States Senate recently passed a bipartisan amendment in support of the Keystone XL project by a vote of 62-47. Following the vote support of the pipeline, authors of the amendment issued a press release with statement from cosponsors of the amendment all focused on jobs, jobs, jobs.

Support from Republicans, Democrats, Independents, small businesses and many others clearly shows that, after an exhaustive four year process, the American public wants the economic and national security benefits Keystone XL will provide.

Shortly after Friday’s incident on the Pegasus line in Mayflower, Arkansas, pipeline opponents held on to a loose assumption: If Pegasus is an oil pipeline and it spilled, then all oil pipelines must spill. Better yet, the incident involved the transportation of crude oil from Canada’s oil sands region, a convenient commonality between Pegasus and several pipelines that have fallen under recent controversy, including Line 6B in Michigan and the Keystone XL.

ExxonMobil, like all pipeline operators, is required by federal law to submit a spill response plan prior to beginning operations or when changes are made. That plan is in full force today, as the company continues to investigate the site of the Mayflower incident. But rather than inquire about the cause of the spill, activists have jumped at the chance to exploit the event as a reason why President Obama should not approve the Keystone XL project. Readers of our previous posts will acknowledge this as just another delay tactic, but what’s more concerning is the propensity for these groups to draw comparisons and make policy recommendations not based in fact. Here are a few examples of where they’ve gone wrong:

• The Marshall, Michigan incident had nothing to do with the type of oil running through it. NRDC, Sierra Club and others claim that the Pegasus leak is the second coming of Line 6B simply because both lines carry crude from Canada’s oil sands region. But following an intensive investigation of the Michigan incident, the National Transportation Safety Board found that the pipeline was subject to external, not internal, corrosion. In other words, the pipeline didn’t fail because of what flowed through it.
• The Portland-Montreal Pipe Line doesn’t currently transport oil sands crude. In an April 1 press release, Environment Maine declared that what happened in Arkansas is “a glimpse into the very real consequences we could face in Maine if the Portland-Montreal pipeline is allowed to carry the same dirty tar sands oil through our state.” That’s a big “if,” considering there are no current plans to transport oil sands crude through New England. Sure, representatives from PMPL have not written off the possibility of reversing the line in the future to transport more oil sands crude, but thus far, New England activists are opposing something that hasn’t even happened. The statement is doubly wrong when you consider that accident reports from the Pipeline & Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) from 2002 through mid-2012 show zero internal corrosion-related releases from pipelines carrying any Canadian crude.
• Keystone XL will be state of the art. For reasons outlined above, oil sands crudes do not pose a unique threat to pipeline safety – a fact that throws many claims from anti-Keystone activists out the door. But after four years of review, the State Department continues to come to the same conclusion: Keystone XL will have “a minimal environmental impact.” Pipeline technology continues to improve, making older pipelines more secure and new pipelines better than ever — and Keystone XL will take full advantage of it.

As TransCanada’s Shawn Howard told Politico, “It is easy for these groups to ignore the fact that every year, [m]illions of barrels of oil move safely throughout North America.” And if President Obama will give Keystone XL the chance, the thousands of highly-trained workers who will see to the pipeline’s construction will continue that safety legacy.

Of course, in the minds of oil sands opponents, all pipelines are made alike and are uniformly threatened by oil sands crudes. In fact, following the news of the incident, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) stated:

“This latest pipeline incident is a troubling reminder that oil companies still have not proven that they can safely transport Canadian tar sands oil across the United States without creating risks to our citizens and our environment.”

We have the top five reasons why that’s not the case.

1)     Oil sands crudes have been transported safely in the U.S. for more than 40 years. Accident reports from the Pipeline & Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) from 2002 through mid-2012 show zero internal corrosion-related releases from pipelines carrying diluted bitumen.

 2)     Oil sands crudes are not more corrosive than other crude oils. In a 2011 report, Canadian research group Alberta Innovates found that acid and sulfur compounds found in oil sands crudes “are too stable to be corrosive and some may even decrease corrosion.” Recent testing and studies by ASTM International and Penspen support this conclusion.

 3)     Oil sands crudes are transported at comparable pipeline pressures as other heavy crude oils. All U.S. pipelines must operate under Maximum Operating Pressure limitations administered by PHMSA. In other words, pipelines are constructed to specifications that ensure they can handle the intended operating pressure and the type of liquid that flows through them.

 4)     Oil sands crudes are not heated for transportation in pipelines above the temperature of other crude oils. The range of temperatures for all crude oils from Canada is 40-135 degrees Fahrenheit. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids does not consider pipeline temperatures to be elevated unless they exceed 150 degrees Fahrenheit.

5)     Keystone XL would “have a degree of safety over any other.” As mentioned in point #3, pipelines must meet certain specifications before transporting any type of crude, no matter if it’s heavy or light. Keystone XL, which will also carry heavy oil from Alberta, is going above and beyond those requirements by adopting 57 extra safety measures, leading the State Department to declare that the project would “have a degree of safety over any other.”