New U.S. safety conditions won’t sway economics of Keystone XL
Project price tag already expected to exceed initial US$5.4-billion estimate provided by TransCanada
CALGARY—Additional safety conditions imposed on the Keystone XL pipeline are not expected to hurt the economics of the project, whose price tag is already expected to soar by at least several hundred millions of dollars over earlier estimates.
“It appears to mean a couple of extra steps on the welding and is it going to make an economic difference? We don’t think so,” said Steven Paget, an analyst with FirstEnergy Capital in Calgary.
A TransCanada Corp. spokesperson said the company has not tallied the costs, but does not expect them to be material.
According to a report from The Associated Press, the United States Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has quietly added two extra safety conditions to the TransCanada project: one requiring the company to hire a third-party contractor of the agency’s choosing to monitor construction and another requiring it to adopt a quality management program.
The two conditions are on top of 57 others TransCanada agreed to three years ago, and are outlined in the last of 26 lengthy volumes of the U.S. State Department’s final environmental impact statement released in January.
They came about after the safety agency learned about defects on the southern leg of the Keystone system, which started delivering crude to Texas refineries in January.
But TransCanada said there’s no correlation between the flaws, which have been fixed, and the added conditions.
TransCanada has long said the price tag of Keystone XL will far exceed its current estimate of US$5.4 billion, but has not put a specific figure on the expected cost.
In a recent interview, CEO Russ Girling was asked whether US$6 billion would be a more accurate number, to which he replied: “bigger.”
“It’ll be a big number,” he said. “We’ll let people know, once we get the go-ahead. But there’s no sense in me re-estimating every few months.”
Despite the rising costs, Girling said the business case for Keystone XL remains strong.
“We’ve said we stay in this thing as long as our customers stay in. And our customer demand is growing,” he said.
“You have to make oil uneconomic to kill it.”
TransCanada has already invested about US$2.5 billion in Keystone XL.
But until the pipeline gets built, that sunk capital doesn’t do TransCanada or its investors any good, said Paget, the FirstEnergy analyst.
“The delay in itself has a tangible cost,” he said.
Paget’s most recent estimates put the Keystone cost at around US$6.9 billion, but there are several factors that could sway the number.
Sonny Mottahed, CEO and managing partner at Black Spruce Merchant Capital, said it’s unlikely the rising costs will make Keystone XL less attractive, especially since alternatives, such as rail, are so much more expensive.
“When you’re talking about these 30-, 50-, 60-year project lifespans of these pipelines there’s probably a pretty high choke point before guys start looking at completely different options,” he said. “But the reality is that you’re going to have cost creep regardless if you look at an alternative project.”
Costs are less of an issue than timing, said Laura Lau, senior vice-president at Toronto’s Brompton Group.
Lau said she’s doubtful the pipeline will be approved while U.S. President Barack Obama is in office.
“And that’s January 2017, which means another two years to build it at best,” she said.
At that point, pipelines such as Enbridge Inc.’s reversed Line 9 and TransCanada’s massive Energy East proposal should be up and running, providing an outlet for Alberta crude to fetch higher global prices.
“That’s the problem,” Lau said. “You’re bumping against yourself and will all these commercial shippers agree to extend this?”
—With files from Alexander Panetta