Following an OP Ed Piece in the NY Times by Thomas L Friedman extolling the virtues of not building the Keystone XL Pipeline, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Vice President Greg Stringham valiantly rushed to the defense of the pipeline. And he stayed solidly with the company line that the Canadian tar sands oil was intended for US consumption despite the fact that once refined in the gulf coast, the resulting fuels are most likely headed overseas. Here’s Mr. Stringham’s letter to the editor of the NYT:
Letter Oil Sands Emissions
To the Editor:
Contrary to “No to Keystone. Yes to Crazy,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, March 10), Keystone XL will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions because oil sands crude will replace current American imports of similar heavy oil from Venezuela and Mexico.
Oil sands operations account for just 0.16 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. If all operations shut down tomorrow, the impact on greenhouse gas emissions would be infinitesimal. Even so, industry reduced oil sands emissions per barrel by 26 percent since 1990 and continues to seek reductions through technology and innovation.
The Alberta government implemented oil sands greenhouse gas regulations in 2007, including a carbon price. Of the top five oil suppliers to the United States — Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela — only Canada has such regulations in place.
Keystone XL is not about greenhouse gas emissions or how much oil the United States chooses to use; it is about where the United States gets that oil.
Vice President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Calgary, Alberta, March 14, 2013