It’s Not Just Keystone — Five Dirty Pipelines You’ve Never Heard Of

  • submit to reddit
Cushing, Okla. -- where Keystone XL's southern leg begins. Photo: Tara Lohan.

Cushing, Okla. -- where Keystone XL's southern leg begins. Photo: Tara Lohan

By now most people have heard of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline and the fact that, after five years of deliberation and protest, its fate still hangs in the balance (the southern portion is already built, but the northern portion that crosses the Canadian-US border awaits a permitting decision). The issue has galvanized the environmental movement, inspired dozens of high-profile demonstrations and captured media attention. But while the impacts from Keystone XL are significant, it’s not the only tar sands pipeline project in town.

Usually pipelines don’t draw much attention unless something goes wrong — like when a suburban Mayflower, Ark., neighborhood was flooded with heavy crude from the Alberta tar sands last May courtesy of a busted Exxon pipeline. But increasingly, communities aren’t waiting until catastrophe strikes to voice their opposition to new or expanded pipeline projects — partly because of environmental and public health risks from spills and partly out of concern for increasing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

When Keystone XL was brought into the spotlight, people began to understand that not all pipelines are created equal — a pipeline carrying “dilbit,” or diluted bitumen from tar sands — poses different (and often greater) risks than a conventional oil pipeline. Hazardous chemicals and other hydrocarbons need to be added, along with high pressure and heat, to move viscous dilbit through a pipe. And when spills occur, the oil doesn’t sheen at the surface; it sinks — making cleanup difficult (or impossible). Just ask communities along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan where a 2010 dilbit spill of close to a million gallons is still causing headaches even after $1 billion in cleanup operations.

And then there are also the environmental implications that come from the mining of tar sands, which have devastated the boreal forests of Alberta, creating massive lakes of toxic chemicals, clear cuts, and polluted water and air.

Here’s a great description from Worldwatch Institute of what’s involved:

Producing oil from the tar sands is scraping the bottom of the oil barrel. Tar sands consist of a mixture of 85 percent sand, clay, and silt; 5 percent water; and 10 percent crude bitumen, the tar-like substance that can be converted to oil. Bitumen doesn’t flow like crude oil, and getting it out of the tar sands is a messy job. The current technology, which has evolved relatively little since it was first developed in the early 20th century, is a hot-water-based separation process that requires huge quantities of water and energy. Imagine mixing a bucket of roofing tar into a child’s sandbox. Then boil some water, pour it into the sandbox, and try to wash the tar out of the sand.

In summary, it’s about the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive way to get energy these days.

In a 2012 op-ed in The New York Times, leading US climatologist Dr. James Hansen wrote, “If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.” He was referring to the greenhouse gas impacts from the development and export of tar sands from Alberta. His “game over” assessment became a rallying cry for opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. But these days it could apply to a growing number of other pipelines in the works that could also carry dilbit.

Here are five projects that rival Keystone XL in size, but which very few people have heard of.

The Alberta tar sands. (Flickr/ Howl Arts Collective)

The Alberta tar sands. (Flickr/ Howl Arts Collective / CC)

Alberta Clipper (Line 67)

The Alberta Clipper (otherwise known as Line 67) is part of a large network of pipelines owned by Enbridge, the company responsible for the spill of dilbit into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. The 1,000-mile Alberta Clipper line, completed in 2010, is still a work in progress. It was recently expanded to carry 570,000 barrels a day and now is seeking the okay to hit a design capacity of 880,000 barrels a day.

The line travels from the tar sands capital Hardisty, Alberta, southeast through Canada and then across North Dakota and Minnesota, ending in Superior, Wis. Enbridge already received permission from Canada’s National Energy Board for the expansion. But like the Keystone XL, things on the US side are still hung up pending State Department approval. With a max capacity of 880,000 barrels a day, the Clipper is larger than Keystone XL’s expected capacity of 800,000 barrels a day.

While most of the public hasn’t heard about it, the project hasn’t escaped the attention of environmental groups. As Lena Moffitt of the Sierra Club wrote, the expansion means hundreds of thousands of gallons more of “heavy, toxic, corrosive tar sands being blasted against the inside of the pipeline — increasing the risk of a spill and increasing the danger and size of any such spill.”

2. Line 3 Rebuild

If pipeline companies like Enbridge and TransCanada have learned anything in recent years, it’s that getting the Obama administration’s stamp of approval for pipeline projects is no longer a sure thing (or at least a quick thing). Fortunately for them, there are some loopholes.

Enbridge is willing to shell out $7 billion for a rebuild of their Line 3 pipeline, which also transports light crude from Hardisty, Alberta, to Superior, Wis. The line, 34-inches in diameter and built in 1968, is one of six in its US Mainline system. The replacement plan would allow the line to be widened by two inches and hit a capacity of 760,000 barrels of oil a day — nearly twice its current capacity.

And here’s the kicker. Heather Libby writes for Desmog Canada, “Unlike the Keystone XL pipeline or its predecessor Line 67… this project is classified as ‘replacement’ or ‘maintenance,’ meaning it operates under an existing presidential permit and does not require a new one.”

The change will allow Enbridge to bring nearly the same capacity as the Keystone XL will handle across the border, without requiring any sign-off from the State Department, and it will also allow it to move crude oil ranging from light (which it currently carries) to heavy (which includes dilbit).

3. Energy East

Not to be outdone by Enbridge, TransCanada is plotting a pipeline that will be the largest in North America, with a capacity of 1.1 million barrels a day. The company will be applying for a permit from Canada’s National Energy Board this summer. The route is not set in stone, but the company reports that the “4,600-kilometre pipeline will carry 1.1-million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada.”

The project would involve converting existing gas pipeline, adding new pipeline, and building new pump stations and tank terminals. It would link oil-producing regions in Western Canada with refineries in Montreal, Quebec City, and St. John, New Brunswick.

While it will run entirely on Canadian soil and won’t cross the US border, it’s still an international issue. In addition to supplying Canadian refineries, Enbridge says the pipeline will include “marine facilities that enable access to other markets by ship.”

A new report from Canada’s Environmental Defence reveals that Eastern Canadian refineries have about all they can handle already from other sources and most of what Energy East carries will end up traveling to off-shore markets.

“Canadians are being misled about this risky project. The evidence is clear that Energy East is primarily an export pipeline. Canadians would have all the risks of the pipeline, but little reward,” said Adam Scott of Environmental Defence. “Energy East threatens thousands of Canadians with the risk of a tar sands oil spill and only benefits the companies that want to export Canadian crude oil.”

4. Flanagan South

Work is already underway on Enbridge’s Flanagan South — a 589-mile pipeline — despite legal challenges from the Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation. The 36-inch diameter pipeline will link Pontiac, Ill., with “pipeline crossroads of the world” Cushing, Okla. (which is also the starting point of Keystone XL’s already-operational southern leg).

Enbridge says the pipeline will have an “initial capacity of 600,000 barrels per day.” But at the rate Enbridge is going lately, expect a plan to expand its capacity shortly. It will also run alongside Enbridge’s Spearhead pipeline (for a combined volume of 790,000 barrels a day).

The pipeline will be able to carry heavy crude (including dilbit) from Western Canada, as well as fracked oil from North Dakota’s booming (and literally explosive ) Bakken Shale. “The Flanagan South Pipeline gives North Dakota’s Bakken and western Canadian producers timely, economical and reliable options to deliver a variety of crude oil supplies to refinery hubs throughout the heart of North America or as far as the Gulf Coast,” the company reports. “From Cushing, shippers can continue through the Seaway Crude Pipeline System to meet the crude supply needs of refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast.” That’s right — just like the infamous Keystone XL, this largely unheard-of pipeline will enable tar sands product to hit Gulf Coast refineries, making it a prime target for export.

Enbridge doesn’t have to mess around with State Department permits and seek Obama’s blessing for this pipeline, in fact it is speeding the process along by using a Nationwide Permit 12 from the Army Corps of Engineers. This type of permit is considered a “fast-track” because it bypasses the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which would require an environmental impact statement and public comments.

The Sierra Club and NWF’s lawsuit contends that the project was executed behind closed doors. “This massive pipeline has been authorized without any public notice, without any opportunity for public comment, without any public hearings, and without any NEPA review of the extensive environmental impacts of the entire pipeline, including the grave risk of oil spills,” the lawsuit states.

Doug Hayes, a Sierra Club attorney, says the organization has used the Freedom of Information Act to see the company’s permit application, but requests for even that basic information have been denied.

At issue is also the use of the Nationwide Permit 12, which is given for “single and complete projects” that won’t result in impacts to more than a half-acre of wetland. Even though Flanagan South will have about 2,000 stream crossings, “the definition of ‘single and complete linear project’ allows the Corps to treat each water crossing as a separate ‘single and complete project,’” the lawsuit explains. So the cumulative impacts of the pipeline are not assessed.

5. Seaway

In direct competition with TransCanada’s newly operational southern leg of the Keystone XL, which runs from Cushing, Okla., to refineries around Houston, Enterprise Product Partners and Enbridge teamed up a few years ago to reconfigure the Seaway pipeline.

Built in 1976, Seaway originally moved imported oil arriving in Freeport, Texas, north to midwest refineries. But a few years ago Enbridge and Enterprise decided to reverse the flow of the pipeline and use it to bring dilbit south from Cushing, Okla., to Houston. The repurposed and reversed line originally carried 180,000 barrels a day, but was expanded to 400,000 barrels a day last year. And now the companies are building a twin line that together will carry 850,000 barrels a day. It’s expected to be operational this year.

Reversing and repurposing pipelines has become more common with the expansion of tar sands mining in Alberta. Such changes are not usually subject to additional environmental or regulatory scrutiny. But there is concern of increased risk when older pipelines, which previously carried conventional oil, are instead used to carry dilbit, which is more viscous and needs a hotter, heavily pressurized pipeline. The dilbit spill that coated a Mayflower, Ark., neighborhood last year — Exxon’s Pegasus pipeline — was reversed to carry dilbit at a higher volume.

Other pipeline reversal plans are in the works, with Exxon and Enbridge working to reverse the flow of two pipelines in the northeast. The first, Line 9, links Sarnia, Ontario and Montreal. The second is the Portland-Montreal pipeline that crosses into Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Both currently pipe conventional oil west, but would be reversed to send dilbit to the ports of Maine. Both plans have seen much local pushback, but have been a mere blip on the radar of national media coverage in the US.

Sierra Club’s Hayes said that too often, as with Flanagan South, “these other pipelines are being permitted behind closed doors.” The kind of pushback that we’ve seen with Keystone XL, which requires State Department approval, isn’t possible because the public is given no notice.

But increased vigilance from environmental organizations and community groups (as well as growing opposition from landowners angered by potential eminent domain seizures for pipeline routes) may bring some much-needed attention to these projects., one of the groups that has led the charge against Keystone XL, says it’s also helping to support other opposition campaigns.

“In project after project, communities are facing an all-risk and no-gain proposition around expanded refining and distribution of tar sands,” said David Stember,’s regional tar sands organizer. “Like the Keystone fight we’re seeing that local citizens must come together to have a voice in state and local regulatory processes to stop these projects. Though we’re already deeply involved in several state and regional campaigns, once the Keystone project is finally stopped, we’ll continue opposing tar sands infrastructure expansion across North America.”

(Story image: Laura Borealis)

Tara Lohan, a senior editor at AlterNet, runs the multimedia project Hitting Home chronicling extreme energy extraction. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis, most recently, Water Matters: Why We Need to Act Now to Save Our Most Critical Resource. Follow her on Twitter @TaraLohan.
  • submit to reddit
  • Enlightened conservative

    Kinder Morgan also wants to twin its existing Trans Mountain pipeline from Hinton, Alberta to Hargreaves, British Columbia near Vancouver. That would probably transport dilbit as well. The Alberta Tar Sands abomination is extending its filthy tentacles wherever it can reach. .

  • Anonymous

    This is literally killing the Earth, heinous crime when looked at from a Universal standpoint. Many scientists as well as indigenous oriented people looking at our roots now claim oil is blood of the Mother Earth and spoils both environment, Her Sacred Body, and all of life as we know it by harming her crust and insides this way.

  • ccaffrey

    I can’t begin to describe the range of emotions I went through reading this article. Let’s just say that joy, optimism, hope weren’t among them. This is absolute madness. The government is issuing drilling permits as fast as they come in, the states too, and individuals signing away mineral rights in the middle of their neighborhoods..There have been 3 MAJOR spills into waterways in the last week ALONE. Droughts, floods mudslides. Monsanto is devastating the ecosystems with pesticides and genetically modified organisms which invade our food supplies that we can’t even get notice of in our supermarkets. And yet, the only health related question they ask when applying for the Affordable Care Act and which will jack up your premium rates is…”Do you smoke?” The irony should not be lost on anyone! May God, this next generation, and the beautiful plants and animals of this world forgive us for our ADDICTION to MONEY and POWER.

  • snert

    Already has approval. Go tankers!!! Go jobs!!! It is within the realm of reasonable possibility to never have a serious accident.

  • Bob Short

    I live fifty miles from the Kalamazoo River and they are still working to clean it up. So do you want to tell me again about the exceptional safety record.

    Also, according to a Bloomberg report we export more oil than we import.. Who benefits the most???

  • nick quinlan

    Christopher, there is no longer a ban on exporting oil. In fact, the oil from Alaska has gone to Japan for 25 years. You can be proud of the tar sand oil extraction going on in Canada if you want, but I’m disgusted, and I don’t even live in Canada.

  • nick quinlan

    Its become an all out orgy fest of greed, corruption, and a total lack of sane thinking.


    Obviously the Canadians don’t want to be our friends or they would care about polluting America and the planet.


    SORRY CHRIS, but you’re no friend of mine. You want to pollute America. I say God bless America. We will fight for clean energy to our death !


    Chris, a ban on exports? Wonderful ! Then none of the tar sands Keystone XL oil will be exported? I think not.


    Right on ccaffrey ! Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do. ..

  • Bob Short

    Bloomberg 2012. I don’t recall the issue date. How about reports that over 80% of the oil from your ” tar sands” will be exported! Also that it takes four barrels of oil to extract ten from tar sands.
    No comment on the Kalamazoo River?
    By the way, just who do you work for ?

  • JPierre33

    NO thanks to fracking when you have poisoned all your aquifers. Fracking for fossil fuels is stupid and criminal. All those working in this industry should be 1)incarcerated , 2) given a better education to alleviate their greed and sociopathic tendencies.

  • Christopher Wilson

    A ban on US oil exports. KXL brings Canadian Oil to the US for refining. Refined petroleum products can be exported.

  • JPierre33

    Were you just born yesterday? Who cares about “serious accident” when they can all be reported as “minimal” by all those lying CEOs? Any accident is UNACCEPTABLE. You guys have a real hard time understanding the little word “NO”, so how can you claim to understand anything else? And “job”? You are delusional if you think that helps the country in this case of exporting dilbit.

    OK, for some I guess the ‘lights’ are still off and no one is ‘home’ – that’s understandable. You see some people have ‘vision’ and some just don’t. Those who have some degree of vision understand that we cannot just flick the switch off. Those with no ‘vision’ whatsoever always present the argument as you have – going from day to night at the flick of a switch. We must put pressure on the fossil fuel industry and governments to invest more in energy alternatives, and minimize extraction of fuels that most severely impact our environment. It’s those with some element of vision that are challenging the status quo maintained by those with no vision and sustained only by their greed and aspiration to personal profit. And in regard the notion that jobs are sooooo important such as you might say, then here’s a response from Alison to those who say: “”Any job beats freeloading off the taxpayers.” A job that is not in the best interests of your country is, in effect, freeloading off the taxpayers. Because they are going to have to pay to fix whatever problems your job causes your country.”

  • Christopher Wilson

    I don’t work for anyone other than my current employer in the field of private education. I do however have many investments in energy stocks if that’s what you’re getting at. The Kalamazoo like all oil spills is regrettable, but given the sheer volume of oil and gas pipelines all across North America its silly to think one incident means we need to shut down all progress.

  • snert

    Weren’t born yesterday and I’m a realist. Nothing in life is 100% guaranteed. There’s “vision” then there’s paranoia. Also, being “in the best interests” of one’s country is highly subjective.

    No problems understanding the word “NO” either. It’s the opposite of “YES”.

    Once again those against miss the opportunity to make sure that the job is done with the absolute minimum chance of a significant incident. Fortunately there are those who do recognize the seriousness of the situation and who also realise that it it is manageable.

  • TO

    Research suggests that there is no need to depend on fossil fuels to maintain the current energy need. Only very powerful financial and political interests are forcing this path of more fossil fuels while painting a benign picture of who they are and what they do.

    You are saying it because your family or property has not been negatively affected by environmental hazards and other issues. As long as you are doing fine, everything is fine, according to your logic.

  • Joan Harris

    If these pipelines weren’t enough, there are related episodes. One week ago, the Whiting, Indiana BP refinery leaked an estimated 30 barrels of Canadian tar sands oil into Lake Michigan according to The Chicago Tribune. The Chicago mayor and Sen. Durbin have been critical of the refinery for sometime and as clean-up was under way, Indiana officials have remained silent on the event. BP revenue must be more important to Indiana than the environment.

  • Anonymous

    To Wilson & snert, Your logic and justification of planet killing technology that provides jobs is like child molesters justifying their actions by calling it sex education…

  • mgg

    I don’t get it. What is so bad about pipelines? How are we supposed to get oil from one place to another?

  • snert

    There is no such thing as clean energy so you’d be fighting for a lost cause. No matter which form of energy you use there is an environmental cost. Oh, and when America has cleaned up it’s own act then get back to us in Canada.

  • snert

    Safety records can be improved. Maybe that would be the more beneficial route to take rather than obstruction which may not serve any purpose in the long run.

  • Bob Short

    Can be? Yes. Will they be? Sure, as long as the improvements don’t cost too much.
    From a source I can’t reveal because they may lose their job, claims some safety Inspecters were fired because they were finding too many problems .
    I don’t know how true this may be, but given past cover ups , I wouldn’t doubt it.
    Reports of 100-300 unreported leaks in North Dakota alone.

  • snert

    So, this would be an area of productive focus. If people spent as much time working on seeing that improvements were made and followed up on as they do trying to prevent the projects in the first place these improvements could be of benefit in many more areas than just pipelines.

  • Duane Weaver

    1.1 trillion acres of 1.7 million square miles. You better check your math. 1.7 million square miles is 2.5 times the size of Alaska.

  • Bob Short

    Well Duane lets start with Bloomberg, which you claim is inaccurate. Easy statement to make if you wish not to back it up with any sources for your information.
    The article was written by Barbara Powell and dated Feb. 29,2012 and titled “U.S. Was Net Oil Product Exporter For First Time Since 1949.”
    Exports exceeded imports by 439,000 barrels/day. Imports averaged 269,000 in 2010.
    As for your so called “rare leaks” Reuters, Oct. 10,2013 sited that there was nearly 300 spills, or leaks, in two years with no public notification! Also check the WSJ for articles on leaks.
    CBC claims nearly 1047 pipeline incidents in the past 12 years.
    Plenty of info out there if you’re interested. Or you can just continue to listen to some politicians who get campaign money from the industry.

  • Joan Harris

    “It is funny that the mayor complains about the transportation of petro….”

    No one is complaining about “the transportation of oil”.

  • Joan Harris

    It isn’t about pipelines; it is about pollution. As long as there are leaks the oil industry must be held accountable.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve heard about Enbridge wanting to build oil storage facilities in Superior, WI . Combine that with GTAC mining company and it’s CEO (I think he is wanted in Spain for polluting a reserve aquifer in a different mining fiasco there) wanting to strip mine the Penokee Hills for iron. The combination of the two will permanently destroy Lake Superior. A few jobs in construction and yes, the oil goes to China.
    I also heard mention that the pipeline underneath the Straits of Mackinaw is at least 60 years old. I doubt it could handle the heavy stuff – even if they did “water” it down. Just imagine – a break in that pipeline.

  • Pam Driscoll

    Fossil fuels must be phased out. Building more infrastructure for fossil fuels is digging our own graves. Time is quickly running out before runaway climate change will ensue and life as we know and love it will be over. Mass species extinctions are already underway. What may the world look like? Less food, less clean water, scarcity, chaos and violence— and about 90% or MORE species extinct. WE are the people we’ve been waiting for! All change comes from the bottom up. Stop driving your vehicles unless absolutely necessary…car pool, take the bus, subway, walk bike, buy local food and other local or regional products. Encourage schools to have bus stops rather than every child picked up in front of his/her home. Also school sports should be with teams close by, not three hour drives for a 12 year old to play football or wrestling. Common sense stuff! Part of why the price of gas is going down is we are using less. If you can afford it, buy electric vehicles, get solar panels to charge it and encourage others to do the same. Buy organic and from small diverse family farms. Big agriculture is also another large part of the problem.

  • Pam Driscoll

    There are, on average, 200 major oil spills globally every year. We only hear about the ones the international media picks it up. Nigeria suffered a massive oil spill in the delta that destroyed their eco system and life giving resources. Can money repair that? No way!
    Clean, renewable energy, relocalization, simple living are the ways to a healthy future. What do you call a “solar spill?” A sunny day! Let’s create a sunny future for all life on earth! Towards “The Great Healing!”