Questerre Energy Corporation

The approval of the last leg of the Keystone XL Pipeline currently before the U.S. government is unlikely to be rejected on the basis of another incident involving waterfowl landing on oilsands tailings ponds.

According to David Goldwyn, the U.S. State Department's Special Envoy for International Energy Affairs, the decision on Keystone involves consideration of a number of factors -- including energy security as part of the "calculus" -- and won't hinge on one event.

"Canada is our No. 1 source of energy imports ... It's important for us to understand issues such as how the Canadian government will deal with greenhouse gas emissions, the impact of the tailings ponds, land use policy, the upstream impact and the efficiency of the process," said Goldwyn, who was in Alberta the past two days visiting with industry, regulators and touring the oilsands. "We also need to understand what the plans are for using regulatory policy to improve the efficiency of the (oilsands) process."

But that's not to say Keystone is a slam dunk, either, despite remarks made last week by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton surprised many by telling a San Francisco audience the U.S. is leaning toward supporting the project, because the choice it faces is to be dependent on dirty oil from Canada or dirty oil from the Persian Gulf.

That is unless, and until, renewable energy was a viable option.

Clinton's remarks might have caused some to conclude that Keystone was a foregone conclusion but Goldwyn was quick to reiterate that there is a process being followed -- with all issues contributing to the final decision.

Still, he did say that his meetings on Tuesday, which included time spent with the Energy Resources and Conservation Board, were helpful in understanding the regulatory process.

"It was encouraging to see the rigour with which the ERCB approached the tailings directive . . . as well as the review of technology that takes place before it is presented for a hearing," he said.

The function and process of the ERCB, noted Goldwyn, doesn't have much visibility south of the border.

Good thing, then, he was able to learn about it, firsthand.

While Keystone might be top of mind these days in these parts, it forms one part of a bigger question: how far is the U.S. ready to go to get off oil? Because the answer to that question has important implications for Canada.

On this, Goldwyn was clear.

"The administration is strongly committed to decreasing dependency on oil . . . and this will take place over time. It's a pathway that is multi-faceted and involves engines, fuels and improving on existing processes," he said.

Fair enough.

But it's a tad frustrating that when queried on the issue regarding the treatment of California heavy thermal oil -- which has a carbon footprint that is equal to, if not greater than, what is produced in the oilsands -- Goldwyn's response was that California has its own standards and moreover, the amount of California oil produced is not as significant as what is pulled out of the oilsands.

Still, what it has in terms of reserves isn't insignificant: the U.S. Department of Energy shows California's heavy oil reserves amount to 42 billion barrels -- just under 25 per cent of what is contained in Alberta's oilsands.

Therefore, the fact California thermal is grandfathered under existing legislation, in light of other regulations that could negatively affect the oilsands remains troubling.

What remains fascinating is that getting off oil in U.S. terms appears to mean increasing vehicular efficiency and therefore decreasing the amount of gasoline required, not necessarily decreasing the general dependence on cars.

It's a known fact that 80 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from the tailpipe of a car; one would think the first place to start might be to reduce the number of cars on the road.

And if tailpipe emissions are one issue on the GHG agenda, the other elephant in the room is the use of coal in electricity generation, which supports half of the U.S. electrical generating capacity and emits far more GHGs than the oilsands. Put another way, an electric car charged with coal-fired power is of no net benefit from an environmental perspective.

On this, Goldwyn is convinced natural gas is the answer -- that it is the essential bridge fuel until the puzzle of how to store electricity generated by renewable sources is solved.

And because the current abundance of supply has depressed prices, Goldwyn believes natural gas is an option not just for North America, but for other countries.

The abundance of the fuel -- which many expect will continue as a result of the shale gas phenomenon -- will make it affordable not only here, but in the developing world.

"Countries like China and India are more able to choose natural gas over coal -- for efficiency and environmental reasons," he said.

One can't help but feel, however, that this rings a bit hollow when the U.S. doesn't appear to be going down the natural gas road at a rate some might expect.

What all this does, however, is illustrate the complicated issue that is energy production, use and policy.

Some things happen quickly to change the dynamic of the industry -- whether the shale gas phenomenon or the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that will resonate for years -- others, such as addressing tailpipe emissions, improving the efficiency and process of the oilsands or phasing out coal-fired power, take much longer.

What's key today is making the right decisions that amount to a longer road taken, not a short one filled with regret. And that's why Goldwyn's fact-finding mission this week was important.

dyedlin@calgaryherald.com