If you’re following the increasingly heated controversy over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that will bring tar sands crude oil from the far reaches of Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, you’ve probably heard this line by now: Increasing oil imports from Canada will reduce imports from undemocratic nations and reduce the money we are sending to the monarchs and despots of the Middle East. Russ Girling, CEO of TransCanada, the company behind the new pipeline, made that case earlier this year when he told reporters: “Keystone XL will improve US energy security and reduce dependence on foreign oil from the Middle East.” Supposedly, Americans face a choice between “conflict” oil from unstable regions and the “ethical oil” produced by our friendly neighbors to the north.
It’s a snappy sound bite, I guess, and seems compelling enough. Just one problem: It isn’t true.
But don’t take my word for it. Instead, look at what TransCanada has told its own investors.
In February 2009, the energy analysis firm Purvin & Gertz published a detailed study – commissioned by TransCanada – that examined how a new infusion of tar sands oil via Keystone XL would influence energy markets. (You can download the report here.) As befitting a report geared for investors, the study mostly focuses on how much additional money Canadian oil companies will be making if Keystone XL is ever built: anywhere from $2 billion to $3.9 billion a year in extra revenue by 2013.
That’s a lot of oil (about 500,000 barrels a day). But it won’t do a thing to reduce the amount of crude we’re currently importing from OPEC.
For evidence, look at this graph, found on page seven of the report:
As you can see, total US oil demand is expected to plateau. (In fact, according to one report by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, US petroleum demand likely reached its peak in 2005.) But “other imports” (that is, the oil we buy from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, et. al.) will keep growing even with an increase in Canadian crude. That because, as this chart makes clear, domestic oil production is on the decline (despite upticks in the last two years thanks to the oil in the Dakotas’ Bakken fields.)
So more oil from the tar sands won’t undo our relationship with the House of Saud or the kleptocracy in Nigeria. It will just fill the gap from decreasing US (and Mexican) reserves. In 2025, according to these figures, we will still be stuck buying millions of barrels of oil a day from people who don’t share American values of democracy, human rights, and gender equality.
In all fairness, a boost in Canadian crude would, in this business as usual scenario, displace some of the petroleum we would otherwise be buying from outside North America to make up for shortfalls in US production. That’s not saying much, however. At best, increasing tar sands imports from Canada will offset some of the expected increases in imports from the Middle East. But avoiding increases in oil imported from the Middle East is hardly the same as achieving energy independence or breaking our addiction to oil altogether.
“Yeah, it means one less barrel [of oil from outside North America],” Scott Tinker, a University of Texas professor who studies the energy industry (and is Keystone XL supporter), told me in a recent conversation. “Unless you can reduce American demand – which is a different conversation – and should be done.”
Tinker’s observation gets to the heart of the matter. The choice we face isn’t whether to buy oil from Canada or from someplace else. The real decision is how much oil we should be buying in the first place – whether we want to continue with business as usual.
Often missed in this debate is the fact that the US has permitted the building of two other tar sands pipelines since 2008. Building a third, extra large one, just seems like the supersizing of an already bad idea. It’s like an obese person thinking that they are going to lose weight by switching to the locally made burgers and the locally made milkshakes. Ain’t gonna happen.
Rather than having a conversation that boils down to the lesser to two evils (oil from the Saudi monarchy, or oil strip mined out of the boreal forest) we should be discussing how to reduce oil demand. We know how to do this: through redesigning our cities to be less auto-dependent, increasing the fuel economy of our cars and trucks, and boosting electrified mass transit that runs off a green grid.
And by now we should also know this: Buying more oil, no matter who it comes from, is not a path to breaking our oil addiction. It’s just a recipe for staying hooked even longer.
We don’t have a paywall because, as a nonprofit publication, our mission is to inform, educate and inspire action to protect our living world. Which is why we rely on readers like you for support. If you believe in the work we do, please consider making a tax-deductible year-end donation to our Green Journalism Fund.
Donate
