Pipeline emissions up to four times worse than predicted
The Keystone XL pipeline would carry crude oil from Canada to refineries and barges farther south.
North America's proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline could significantly increase greenhouse-gas emissions, suggests an analysis published on 10 August in Nature Climate Change.
The pipeline carrying up to 830,000 barrels of oil a day from tar sands in western Canada to the Midwestern United States, where it would connect with existing pipelines operating in the Gulf of Mexico. The economic model used in the latest study suggests that this extra oil could lower prices and consumption, producing the equivalent of 110 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. (This is equivalent to about 1.7% of total GHG emissions in the United States in 2012, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.)
In essence, each additional barrel of oil produced as a result of Keystone XL increase the overall consumption of 0.6 barrels, the study finds. "If that's the case, would be a major impact of greenhouse gases," says co-author Peter Erickson, senior researcher of the Institute of the Stockholm Environment in Seattle, Washington.
Pollution problem
Keystone XL has been the subject of intense debate in the United States and Canada since it was proposed by TransCanada pipeline company in 2008 The decision on whether to proceed with the construction ultimately rests with President Barack Obama, who said he supports the pipeline if "does not significantly increase the problem of carbon pollution." An evaluation by the State Department of the United States has concluded that Keystone XL would increase emissions of only 1.3 million tonnes to 27.4 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
But Erickson and his co-author Michael Lazarus say that the economic model of the State Department did not consider the effect of the pipeline on world oil prices, and therefore consumption. Because the State Department did not disclose all the details of their model, the authors of the latter study can not be certain of the variables used in the analysis of government. A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the article in Nature Climate Change.
David Victor, an expert on climate policy at the University of California, San Diego, said the production of oil from tar sands in Canada will increase regardless of whether Keystone XL is becoming a reality. Provide additional oil by rail could be a little more expensive than oil transport by pipeline, but that would reduce the profits of oil companies slightly, Victor said. "It's very difficult to stop the oil," he added.
Critics of Keystone XL Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, says that the price effects of the pipeline are to some extent irrelevant. "My concern is not so much the increase in emissions of Keystone XL, Keystone XL but is part of a larger pattern of behavior," he said. If the pipeline were to be canceled, that "signals to the market that these pollutants will not approve projects," says Caldeira.
Others are skeptical that any incremental oil production allowed by Keystone XL could push oil prices. The study shows "a reasonable history," said Maximilian Auffhammer, an environmental economist at the University of California, Berkeley. But the oil industry might react to a cheaper oil production limits, which would increase prices - and, in principle, reduce fuel consumption and emissions.
Erickson acknowledged that his analysis is not the final outcome. But he says that this shows why the price effects should be taken into account for the Keystone and other energy developments. "These are the types of questions that must be analyzed," he said.
No Comment to " Pipeline emissions up to four times worse than predicted "