Top Stories -   

1
In this Oct. 13, 2010, the sandhills near Mills in north central Nebraska, through which the Keystone XL pipeline is planned to be built, is shown. Demonstrators hold up signs in front of the White House in Washington to protest the Keystone XL Pipeline project in the US, and the Tar Sands Development in Alberta Canada Friday, Sept. 2, 2011. (AP / Luis M. Alvarez) pipeline debate

Minister: Nebraska Keystone concerns have been addressed

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV National News: Roger Smith on the protest
Canadian environmentalists are about to launch a siege of Parliament Hill Monday to protest against government support of the Alberta oilsands and a proposed pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico.
CTV Edmonton: Jessica Earle on the pipeline
Starting Monday, hundreds of protestors are planning to hold a sit-in in Ottawa - to continue demonstrations against the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
CTV's Question Period: Joe Oliver, minister
The minister of natural resources says the pipeline will be safer than any other pipeline in the U.S. He also says the project will create thousands of jobs.
CTV's Question Period: Pipeline panel
A representative from Indigenous Environmental Canada, CEP Union of Canada president, and a representative from Ethical Oil debate whether the Keystone XL pipeline should be built.
CTV's Question Period: Kevin Newman, co-host
The co-host of CTV's Question Period explains in detail why Canadians are opposing the pipeline project, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper says is safe.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (19) Facebook   

In this Oct. 13, 2010, the sandhills near Mills in north central Nebraska, through which the Keystone XL pipeline is planned to be built, is shown. Demonstrators hold up signs in front of the White House in Washington to protest the Keystone XL Pipeline project in the US, and the Tar Sands Development in Alberta Canada Friday, Sept. 2, 2011. (AP / Luis M. Alvarez) pipeline debate

Photos

In this Oct. 13, 2010, the sandhills near Mills in north central Nebraska, through which the Keystone XL pipeline is planned to be built, is shown.

View Larger Image

More on this topic

Date: Sun. Sep. 25 2011 1:23 PM ET

The day before a planned Parliament Hill protest against a proposed oil pipeline that will stretch from Alberta to Texas, the minister responsible for the file says he is confident a main stumbling block has been cleared.

One of the strongest arguments of the Keystone XL pipeline that has emerged from critics in the U.S. is the risk it would pose to ecologically sensitive areas. The most notable of these areas is the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, which supplies water to eight U.S. states.

In an interview with CTV's Question Period on Sunday, Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the safety risks for the aquifer have been assessed.

"It's not up to me to say there is no risk," Oliver said. "It's up to U.S. scientists to make a determination that it is safe, and they did.

"They said this pipeline will be safer than existing pipelines," Oliver said, adding there are already hundreds of kilometres of pipeline going through the area.

"The issues are serious, but they have been dealt with," he said.

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican, is among the politicians who have gone public with opposition to the pipeline, saying an oil spill in the aquifer is too big a risk to take.

The governor has asked U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who are responsible for approving or denying the permit for the pipeline, to scuttle the project.

The U.S. State Department will hold hearings in Nebraska before deciding whether to approve the project.

Oliver told CTV on Sunday that he not only expects a U.S. decision on the pipeline will come soon, but he is also optimistic of the outcome.

He said Canadians would benefit from the project through the creation of 140,000 jobs and $600 billion in economic activity over 25 years.

But the minister also conceded that Canada, which now exports 97 per cent of its oil to the U.S., must diversify its markets. He said action must be taken to build a pipeline from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia to export oil to Asia, especially China.

Meanwhile, organizers of the protest planned for Monday on Parliament Hilll said many of the demonstrators are prepared to be arrested to highlight the cause.

The protest will duplicate a similar sit-in outside the White House in Washington, D.C. last month, where scores of people were arrested, including actresses Margot Kidder and Daryl Hannah. The images of celebrities being hauled away hit TV and newspapers worldwide, raising the profile of the issue, just as activists hoped.

The protesters both in Canada and the U.S. have two main arguments. They believe the proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension from Alberta to Texas is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. The pipeline will serve to ramp up production in the Alberta oil sands, they say, and increase greenhouse-gas emissions as a result.

At issue is TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline extension intended to eventually carry 900,000 barrels per day of crude from Alberta to refineries in Texas where it would be processed into oil.

The Council of Canadians, the Indigenous Environmental Network and the Polaris Institute will join the protest on Monday. Actors Dave Thomas of SCTV fame and Graham Greene (Dances with Wolves) also plan to demonstrate.

In an email, organizers said many of those who have signed up to protest "will risk arrest in what is expected to be the largest civil disobedience action in the history of Canada's climate movement."

Where environmental activists weigh in against bolstering fossil fuel development, Canadian unions and even former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed have raised questions about exporting jobs to the U.S.

Lougheed said in a recent interview said the oil should be processed in Alberta to keep jobs in the province.

With files from CTV News and The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

MARG MM
said
0 0

One question....How are the environmentalists getting to Parliament Hill to protest???? I'm quite sure they won't be walking or riding bikes. Gee maybe they'll be using some oil products, and creating some greenhouse gas emmissions.......


KC BC
said
0 0

In theory it would be best to refine the oil here in Canada and then supply the US and others with the products. Unfortunately, the infrastructure for refineries is very very expensive and some place must be found to build a refinery where it is actually wanted...."any place but my backyard' It would be great to tap the Asian markets and obtain Brent prices, but a pipeline across the Rockies would have to be built and Pacific oil ports created....More environmental problems. Any solution to landlocked crude is a tough sell.


max , Sault. Ontario
said
0 0

What will happen if/when Canada's policies do not agree with the US? The US has a history of interfering in countries that provide their oil even to the point of invading if they become a threat to national security ( ie. not supplying oil). Why would we be any different?


Dave in Ottawa
said
0 0

With a little luck, and good judgement south of the border, this whole project will get blown out of the water before it is launched. Nuts to the oil companies.


mtenhagen
said
0 0

I am concerned with the possibility of US intervention in Canada if Canadian policy diverges from theirs. The US has interfered , sometimes with the military, in every country that and has threatened their oil supply.


Shan SK
said
0 0

If they don't want the pipeline, why not just refine it here in Canada and send final product down to them on trucks? It seems unproductive to ship raw oil to Texas to get refined. It seems like we would be financially better off as a nation refining it locally.


CalgarySandy
said
0 0

I have read lots of news stories on this from the US. The ones who will be affected by a pipeline are concerned and well they should be. Water is necessary for life. Driving big SUV's around the city is not. Every added pipeline increases the risk that one will break down. It happens with some frequency but rarely, so far, damages more than the land and livelihood of farmers and fishermen.
However, if we absolutely refuse, in Alberta, to invest in green power sources then the money needs to be put into building refineries here. Do we really want to destroy the working class like they have with outsourcing the way the US has Building refineries will provide jobs and save billions in the long run.
I would much prefer they abandon this. We do not owe the US anything. They never acknowledge our existence on the planet despite their reliance on our cheap oil. They pay squat in royalties and taxes. The executives, often Americans, pay even less taxes. As a fourth generation Albertan I have seen the province destroyed for all but the monied classes and the soulless drones who work in the white collar end of it. These people literally curse out the homeless as they walk buy. I know. I worked in the industry and in the IT development side of it.


JB in Ontario
said
0 0

In all fairness, have the concerns been addressed in Canada regarding the pipeline?


pyroguy99
said
0 0

The only stumbling block I see is how we can continue to sell out our resources.We import oil from overseas, we pay through the nose at the pumps, and we produce the stuff and are shipping 97% out of the country?Am I the only one who finds that just a touch absurd?


Bret
said
0 0

This is about big corp oil doing as they please to teh world with their billions. Nebraska is doing fine with jobs. Take your dirty oil somewhere else. What about your spills in North Dakota and Montana? BP spill anyone remember?? IT HAPPENS! Anyhow this oil is slated for export Do your research. google "Where is the XL pipeline oil going to be used" and you will find it is going elsewhere.


JB in Ontario
said
0 0

I am against the Keystone XL pipeline for many reasons, one being the environmental damage which will likely occur having an underground pipeline spanning two large countries.


Scott ON
said
0 0

Gilbert, you gonna put up the funds to build the refineries needed to refine it? It's business and the infrastructure is there to do it in the gulf. It's simple cost analysis. Besides, the left here complain so much about the pollution created by the oli sands, imagine adding on a dozen refineries.


CD from AB
said
0 0

What a bunch of US fools. They would rather risk their energy security on the Nigerians, their "friends" in the Arab peninsula, and Hugo Chaves. The pipe is already coated folks and ready to be put in the ground, and this is nothing more than political posturing. When Saudi ARAMCO decided to deal with China instead of the US they should have smelled the coffee. This is another fine example of the Americans not knowing who their friends are. When the pipeline is built (and it will be) they should remember which side of the tap they are on.


Raj
said
0 0

This is a win win situation for Canada and the US. We need jobs shout the NDP, but we dont want these types of jobs. Well what do they want? I am so sick of hearing from Greens and lefties who would have our economy in the toilet. I have no time at all for Hollywood types, or Greenpeace who gets paid millions a day They seem to be able to protest at the drop of a hat It is going through, so they need to get over it.


Flintstone
said
0 0

Stop the pipeline and everyone wins. Canada can create its own pipeline to cater to the rest of our own country, the Hollywood 'fashionable environmentalists' win their fight of the moment and we all get to watch the USA suddenly cuddle up to countries such as Venezuela or Iran for oil hopefully bringing peace. Or maybe the USA will finally stop thinking it is a human right to drive mammoth vehicles?


Darby in Dartmouth
said
0 0

Yes! America prefers bloody oil but it musn't be dirty!



Gilbert in Orleans
said
0 0

I was in favour of the project in the beginning, as we need oil in our society and it will not change overnight. But then I started hearing details of the project and grew more and more againts it. Not for ecological reasons, but rather economical and as a proud Canadian! My reasoning for being against the pipeline is simple: Why would we send crude oil to the Gulf of Mexico to be refined? We produce it here, lets refine it here and sell the finish product to the Northern American States. Thus creating Canadian jobs (refining here) and economic benefits, and secondly, the refined gas and diesel will not have to travel as far to reach it's markets. It's a win- win! By the way, we do the same with lumber, by selling trees to the US and buying back 2x4 and plywood, and in the steel industry its the same story.


Mike Stokes
said
0 0

This pipeline is hardly mentioned in the US, it's the Canadian media making a big deal out of it. it will be approved... guaranteed.


AlbertaCItizen
said
0 0

If Nebraska doesn't want the jobs that's fine. The pipeline can always go around. Other states would welcome the economic activity.


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Top Stories

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt speaks in the House of Commons in Ottawa on Monday, May 28, 2012. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Federal government orders end to CP Rail strike

More   51 Comments 51    7 Video(s) 7

Dominic and Abby Maryk were found in Mexico four years after allegedly being abducted by their father.

Extradition sought in Winnipeg missing children case

More   4 Comments 4    3 Video(s) 3

Protesters opposing Quebec student tuition fee hikes demonstrate in Montreal, Sunday, May 27, 2012. (Graham Hughes / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Quebec, students to resume talks on tuition hikes

More   26 Comments 26    1 Video(s) 1