A New Analysis of the Keystone XL Pipeline: Global Emissions Would Increase

Summary.  Last year President Obama stated that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport as much as 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, requires a finding that the pipeline be in the national interest.  As part of the approval process the U. S. Department of State released an environmental impact statement earlier this year.  Its findings and arguments suggest that the pipeline would not have a significant effect on the environment, including greenhouse gas emissions. 

In a new journal article, however, Erickson and Lazarus conduct a comprehensive lifecycle analysis of the effects of transporting the additional oil, pointing out shortcomings in the Department of State’s environmental analysis.  They find that when operating at full capacity, the XL pipeline would increase global oil consumption by 490,000 barrels per day as of 2020, leading to new greenhouse gas emissions that are four times higher than the environmental impact statement estimated, throughout the 50 year lifetime of the pipeline.

In an era when the world should be making every effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the findings of Erickson and Lazarus clearly show that approval of the XL pipeline would increase emissions, and so would not be in the national interest.  President Obama should not approve its construction.

 

Introduction.  President Obama is weighing whether to approve construction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (XL) segment from the Canadian border to an existing pipeline terminal in Oklahoma.  At full capacity it is intended to carry 830,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd) of “heavy crude” oil, also called “tar sands” oil, from Alberta to refineries in the U. S. along the Gulf of Mexico.  The Department of State (DOS) is evaluating the application, since it involves international policy, to determine whether the project serves the national interest.  DOS weighs “a wide range of factors, including … environmental… and economic impacts; [and] foreign policy”, among others.  As part of its review  DOS issued its Final SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) concerning the application In January 2014.

The Final SEIS, as part of its lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimates that transporting and consuming 830,000 bpd would lead to emitting between 147 and 168 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO₂e) per year throughout the operational lifetime of the pipeline, i.e., over several decades.  The analysis finds this is 1-27 MTCO₂e higher than would be obtained by consuming a comparable amount of a reference crude oil such as Mexican Maya.

Erickson and Lazarus find that the Final SEIS radically underestimates the lifecycle emissions from operation of XL.  Peter Erickson and Michael Lazarus published their article, “Impact of the Keystone XL pipeline on global oil markets and greenhouse gas emissions”, in Nature Climate Change on Aug. 10, 2014.  The authors conducted a comprehensive economic analysis of the principal contributions to lifecycle GHG emissions (see Details at the end of this post).  It includes important considerations that they state were not apparent in the Final SEIS.  An important feature of their analysis evaluates  the decrease in the global price of oil as a result of adding the tar sands oil to world supply.  This would lead to higher consumption: “for every barrel of increased production, global oil consumption would increase 0.6 barrels”, corresponding to an increase in consumption by 490,000 bpd.  This in turn would lead to an increase in emissions, when the oil is burned, of as much as 110 MTCO₂e annually, four times higher than the upper estimate presented by DOS in the Final SEIS (see Details; these upper estimates assume operation of XL at full capacity).  Erickson and Lazarus ascribe this serious discrepancy to inadequate evaluation in the Final SEIS of the economics of the global oil market.

 Analysis 

In President Obama’s address at Georgetown University on climate change delivered on June 25, 2013, he stated that approval of the XL application required a finding that the pipeline was in the “nation’s interest.  And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.  [XL’s] effects … on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether” to approve the project.

Erickson and Lazarus have made a significant contribution to the task of assessing whether approval of XL would be in the nation’s interest.  They have pointed out two errors in the DOS Final SEIS which effectively show that the nation’s interest would not be met.

First, whereas the Final SEIS finds that the incremental increase in annual emissions rate would be at most 27 MTCO₂e compared to a reference crude, the economic analysis presented by Erickson and Lazarus concludes that emissions would be about four-fold higher than the DOS estimate, when XL operates at its full capacity.  Second, the Final SEIS stated that production of tar sands oil would not be affected whether or not XL would be approved because alternative means of transporting the oil to the Gulf Coast would be used.  (This writer has commented on the moral implications of this argument here.)  In contrast, Erickson and Lazarus show by widely recognized economic methods that shipment of tar sands oil through XL would require expanded production, and that global consumption of oil would increase by 490,000 bpd when XL is operated at full capacity.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has set forth the urgent imperative that the nations of the world have to agree on meaningful reductions of GHG emissions very soon.  Increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere result directly in higher long-term global average temperatures, bringing physical damage, and ecological and societal harms with them.  Any project such as the XL pipeline contributes to increased GHG emissions throughout the operating lifetime of the project, which the present authors estimate at 50 years.  As a result XL clearly would not meet President Obama’s criterion for approval, namely that it be in the nation’s interest.  The President should not approve the XL pipeline project.

 

Details

The Final SEIS evaluated lifecycle emissions from projected operation of XL, and compared the result to emissions expected from production of reference sources of heavy crude oil.  The analysis included extraction, processing, transportation, refining, and final uses including gasoline for fuel, as well as co-products such as petroleum coke.

Extraction of tar sands oil was acknowledged to emit about 17% more GHGs than occurs in extraction of crude oil in the U. S. as of 2005.  Overall, the annualized burden of GHG emissions from tar sands oil was found to be 147 to 168 MTCO₂e for operation of XL at its full capacity of 830,000 bpd, compared to 124 to 149 MTCO₂e for four reference crude oils.  The incremental lifecycle burden from use of tar sands oil was evaluated to be in the range 1.2 to 27.4 MTCO₂e per year.  (The Final SEIS states that the broad range of these values arises because several reference crudes were used and because the result depends on which lifecycle study was used in the comparison.)

Erickson and Lazarus conducted a comprehensive economic lifecycle analysis of oil use and emissions arising from operation of XL, evaluated for the year 2020.  They  formulate the increment in yearly emissions over the projected lifetime of the pipeline as the total from a) those required during construction, b) those required to operate XL compared to pipeline shipment of reference crudes that would be displaced by sending tar sands crude through XL, and c) consumption of tar sands refined products compared to consumption of displaced reference crudes.  The authors agree with the Final SEIS that contributions a) and b) are trivial in comparison with c); they did not analyze those further. 

Algebraic rearrangement of their simple expression showed that a principal factor in the economic analysis is a ratio that expresses the extent to which expanding oil sands production may increase global oil consumption.  The authors state that the Final SEIS did not assess this contribution, and furthermore that it has not been treated adequately by others either.

The authors evaluated this ratio using methods of economic lifecycle analysis employed for other proposed fossil fuel extraction projects.  The principal contributions to evaluating the ratio are first, a projection of how worldwide prices for crude oil would decrease as the additional supply from operating XL would ramp up to its maximum capacity, 830,000 bpd; and second, how demand would be shifted to higher levels at any fixed price as shipment of tar sands oil increased up to the maximum.

Erickson and Lazarus conclude that net worldwide consumption of crude oil would increase by 490,000 bpd when XL operated to capacity over the 50 year-lifetime of the pipeline.  This translates to an incremental GHG emissions burden of 100-110 MTCO₂e per year, an estimate that is about four times higher than the highest value of 27 MTCO₂e per year estimated in the Final SEIS.  According to the authors, the “sole reason for this difference is that we account for the changes in global oil consumption resulting from increasing oil sands production levels, whereas the State Department does not…. Our simple model shows that, to the extent that Keystone XL leads to greater oil sands production, the pipeline's effect on oil prices could substantially increase its total GHG impact.”  (They also point out that the analysis used in the Final SEIS is proprietary and “is opaque with respect to key assumptions and features”.  In contrast, Erickson and Lazarus state that they use openly available peer-reviewed methods.  Also, their article itself underwent peer review prior to publication.)  They conclude that the Final SEIS issued by DOS has failed to consider the most important factor determining global consumption of crude oil: the increase in use due to increased supply and its effect leading to lower prices.

© 2014 Henry Auer

Comment Sent to the State Department on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Summary.  TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P has applied for approval to construct a pipeline from Canada to a pipeline terminal in Oklahoma in order to ship “tar sands” oil to refineries on the U. S. Gulf Coast.  The State Department has evaluated the application in its Environmental Impact Statement.  The U. S. must weigh this application to determine whether it meets the national interest.  This post presents a Comment submitted by this writer recommending that the application not be approved, for several reasons.

I. Introduction: The Department of State (DOS) is evaluating the Presidential Permit Application of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (the Application) to determine whether the project serves the national interest.  DOS weighs “a wide range of factors, including … environmental… and economic impacts; [and] foreign policy”, among others.  In this regard DOS issued its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) concerning the Application In January 2014.  An earlier application, which was not approved, covered the pipeline’s full length from Canada to U. S. Gulf Coast.  The present Application covers only the northern portion of this route, since construction has already begun on the remainder, which, as a fully domestic project, does not require presidential approval. 

The currently pending project is intended to transport “heavy crude” oil, also called “tar sands” oil, from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) to the terminal in Oklahoma where the domestic pipeline to the Gulf Coast refineries begins.  The capacity is to be 830,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd); the project portion to Oklahoma is estimated to cost $3 billion. 

DOS is accepting comments on the Final SEIS until March 7, 2014 (Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 /p. 6984).  This post presents a Comment submitted by this writer addressing certain aspects of the Final SEIS, based on the Executive Summary (ES) thereof, and considers broader policy factors affecting the national interest. 

II. Effects of Man-Made Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Global Warming

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued the first of three sections of its Fifth Assessment Report (5AR; see the Summary for Policymakers) in September 2013.  It finds that the historical warming of the earth’s climate to date is “unequivocal”.  Since the 1950’s many climate parameters have changed to an extent that is “unprecedented” over decades to thousands of years.  Humanity’s activities, burning fossil fuels to provide energy, have been the dominant factor producing global warming due to the increased emission of the greenhouse gas (GHG) carbon dioxide (CO₂).  5AR projects future climate patterns, concluding that if humanity continues emitting GHGs the earth will warm further, with long-lasting effects.

5AR concludes “Cumulative emissions of CO₂ largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond…. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO₂ are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO₂.”  It further states “[Most] anthropogenic climate change … is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale” because there is no natural process operating within this time scale that removes CO₂ from the atmosphere. 

The warmer climate will worsen extremes of weather and climate that are already occurring, causing serious harm to people and major damage to the land. 

For these reasons domestic and foreign environmental policy should be guided by the need to abate the continued accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere.

III. The Final SEIS minimizes impacts of the pipeline project.

A. Lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions omits consideration of the no-transport case.

The Final SEIS presents an analysis of the full lifecycle effect on GHG emissions from operation of the pipeline (Section ES.4.1.2).  It estimates that transporting 830,000 bpd would cause emitting between 147 and 168 million metric tons of CO₂-equivalents (MMTCO₂e) per year. 

The Final SEIS mentions the case in which production from WCSB is reduced by 830,000 bpd, i.e., one in which tar sands oil destined for the proposed pipeline is never extracted.  It argues that no such case need be considered because “…approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil”.  This means that the GHG emissions identified above would continue unabated.

It is possible, however, that if the Application is not approved the volume of WCSB oil corresponding to the pipeline’s intended capacity would not be extracted, and that no corresponding emissions would arise.

In other words, the Final SEIS seeks to render futile the possibility that the Application will not be approved by proposing that extraction and shipment not under the control of the U. S. administration would occur regardless.  This is highly improper, for it seeks to make the U. S. complicit in promoting further emissions even if the Application is not approved.  No such responsibility in fact exists.  The U. S., acting in accord with considerations of global environmental policy and its own national interest may indeed decide against approving the Application.  Any consequences of such a decision due to actions of third parties would be beyond the scope and power of the U. S. and should not influence the decision to be made.

B. Assessment of alternative routes for oil transport belittles the no-transport case.

The Final SEIS sets out three alternatives to the pipeline project (Section ES.5.0 and subsections therein); a) the No Action Alternative, presenting potential market reactions if the pipeline is not constructed; b) Major Route Alternatives for transporting oil to Steele City, NE (just upstream from the Cushing, OK terminal); and c) Other Alternatives presenting additional route options and alternative pipeline designs.

The No Action Alternative includes an assessment of a Status Quo Baseline, according to which no pipeline would be built and no emissions would arise.  This reflects the current situation.  The No Action Alternative also considers three alternative scenarios involving rail transport of WCSB oil.  All the rail scenarios include loading fourteen 100-tanker car trains per day to transport oil.

Certain Major Route Alternatives are assessed in detail; these would have comparable lengths, costs and environmental impacts as the intended route.

DOS considered Other Alternatives further adjusting routing and design, and concluded that none were appropriate for the purpose of the Application.

Here too, as in Section III.A of this Comment, assessment of the Status Quo Baseline is given scant attention in the ES.  By thoroughly analyzing the rail scenarios and the alternatives, all involving extracting and shipping WCSB oil, the Final SEIS emphasizes the preconception that WCSB oil will indeed reach the Gulf Coast refineries, regardless of whether the Application will be approved or not.

As noted in Section III.A, here too the Final SEIS infers the futility of not approving the Application by strongly implying that importation will occur in any case, in ways no longer under the control of the U. S. administration.  This is highly inappropriate, for it seeks to burden the U. S. government with consequences of promoting further GHG emissions even if the Application is not approved.  No such attribution in fact exists.  The U. S., acting in accord with its global environmental policy and its own national interest may indeed decide against approving the Application.  Any consequences of such a decision due to actions of third parties would be beyond the scope and power of the U. S. and should not influence the decision to be made.

IV. U. S. Climate Change Policy

A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The lifecycle analysis presented in the Final SEIS estimates that, if operational, the pipeline would emit between 147 and 168 MMTCO₂e per year, throughout its lifetime.  Oil pipelines have lifetimes of 30 years or longer. The permit for the Alyeska pipeline, for example, has been extended so that it may remain operational for 57 years.  Thus approving the present Application would single-handedly significantly increase the world’s atmospheric CO₂ burden.  An emission level of 158 MMTCO₂ per year, for example, would correspond to about 2.7% of present U. S. annual emissions produced by burning fossil fuels (fossil fuel data).  Because of the harms brought by increasing GHG concentrations, the U. S. should be embarking on policies that avoid adding new GHGs to the atmosphere.  Approving the Application would have the opposite effect, worsening global warming.

B. President Obama’s stated policy is to reduce GHG emissions.  His Second Inaugural Address in January 2013 stated “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”  The President’s Climate Action Plan issued June 2013 reiterates his “pledge that by 2020, America would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels if all other major economies agreed to limit their emissions as well.”  The Plan stated “…we have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged”, recognizing that extreme weather and climate events in the preceding year, attributed at least partly to global warming, cost the U. S. over $110 billion.

Approval of the Keystone XL Application would enshrine significant new GHG emissions for up to half a century or longer.  This would directly contravene the President’s pledge to honor our “moral obligation to future generations” to mitigate global warming.  It would make it harder to attain meaningful reductions in the future.

C. The U. S. is involved in negotiations for a worldwide pact to reduce GHG emissions.  Long-term negotiations sponsored under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are in progress, with the intention of reaching agreement by 2015 and entering into force in 2020.  If successful it presumably would cover ratifying members of the U. N.  Secretary of State John Kerry and his Special Envoy for Climate Change are directly involved in these negotiations.  Approval of the Application would critically jeopardize these negotiations, and would make it harder for the U. S. to attain international agreement to limit GHG emissions.

D. Climate models show that the longer we wait to undertake abatement of emissions, the more intensive and the more expensive those efforts will be.

Calls to action have been made at least since the first IPCC Assessment Report in 1990, and have become more urgent as the global climate situation worsens.  Recent urgings include those from Thomas Stocker, a Coordinating Lead Author of 5AR, and James Hansen, formerly head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  In 2013 Stocker wrote “…every year counts; if mitigation actions are delayed, much larger emissions reductions are later required to maintain a selected [emissions reduction] target”.  Also in 2013 Hansen and many coworkers including Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University wrote “…the world must move rapidly to carbon-free energies and energy efficiency, leaving most remaining fossil fuels in the ground, if climate is to be kept close to the Holocene [the present geological epoch] range and climate disasters averted”.   There is overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that humanity has to migrate from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources as early as practicable.  The U.S. would promote these goals by denying the present Application.

E. The anticipated cost of the Keystone XL pipeline, if redirected, could be used to install significant renewable energy capability.  The Final SEIS estimates the cost for the U. S. portion of the pipeline project (from the Canadian border to an existing pipeline in Nebraska) at $3 billion.  Cost overruns in such projects are not unusual, and could double the cost.  One alternative to invest such a sum would be construction of wind turbine farms and transmission lines from the farms to urban areas for distribution.  Using information from the Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory and the American Electric Power Company, it is estimated that dividing a realistic estimate of $4.5 billion evenly between a wind farm and a transmission line could provide 639 2 MW turbines and 703 miles of a 765 kV transmission line.  It would be in our national interest to develop policies and practices that induce fossil fuel energy companies to invest in renewable energy sources.

F. The Final SEIS pays short shrift to the viable option of not approving the application and investing instead in renewable energy.  As noted above, the document improperly seeks to make the U. S. government responsible for added emissions arising from alternative strategies if they are implemented by other, foreign, parties.  It is inappropriate to make such an unfounded attribution.

V. Conclusion

This Comment has identified fundamental omissions in the DOS Final SEIS whose effect is inappropriately to suggest that failure to approve the Application would implicitly implicate the U. S. in the consequences of continued burning of WCSB oil.  DOS and President Obama should resist such implications, and decide the fate of the Application purely according to the national interests of our country.

Those interests lie exclusively in undertaking actions with regard to global warming that safeguard our nation and our planet from further climatic degradation.  This Comment summarizes many facets in the science underlying global warming and policies that we need to undertake to address this critical problem.  In general, as urged by climate scientists around the world, we should not continue policies that expand use of fossil fuels.  Rather, we should develop new practices that promote energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources.

In this way President Obama can contribute to fulfilling our “moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged”.

© 2014 Henry Auer

Develop Renewable Energy, Not the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline

Summary.  TransCanada, the sponsor of the Keystone XL pipeline project, filed an updated application for approval with the U. S. Department of State.  The Department issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the application.

It addresses many immediate environmental concerns focusing on the pipeline route and its environmental integrity.  This post focuses on a more fundamental issue.  It restates the opposition of this blog to approval of the pipeline because if granted, the project would ensure a long-term commitment to continued and prolonged emissions of carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas.

The energy economy is likened to a zero-sum enterprise, balancing investments in conventional carbon-based fuels for energy, worsening global warming, and developing renewable energy sources, improving the global climate.  The longer mankind accumulates higher and higher levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the worse global warming and its harmful effects on humanity become.  It behooves all nations to abate emissions and migrate to a carbon-free energy economy, sooner not later.  Accordingly, it is recommended to deny the XL permitting application.

Background.  The Keystone XL oil pipeline (XL) is an international transport pipeline project intended to carry bitumen (Alberta tar sands oil) from the Canadian border to refineries on the U. S. Gulf Coast.  Its sponsor is TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LC.  Since the project has an international aspect, involving oil transport across the Canada-U.S. border, it requires positive review by the U. S. Department of State (DOS) and approval of the President.  The query to be resolved is whether approving XL is in the national interest.

         A first approval request was considered in 2011 with inconclusive results.  The proposed route passed over important subterranean aquifers in Nebraska.  The DOS Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) generated at the time dealt extensively with this issue.  Ultimately concerns over the susceptibility of the pipeline to failure leading to contamination of the aquifers led to failure to approve the project.

TransCanada has modified the proposed route through Nebraska to reduce  potential contamination of aquifers.  In addition, a portion of the original pipeline project from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast is now under construction, as it does not require approval by the Administration.  The revised application has resulted in a Draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS) prepared by DOS in March 2013.  After formally releasing the SEIS in April 2013, any interested party may submit comments (see Note for details) for consideration and possible response before the final SEIS is issued.

         Tar Sands.  The oil available in Alberta is a surface-accessible mixture of a thick oily substance with the consistency of tar, called bitumen, with sand and clay.  Bitumen must be heated with hot steam to liquefy it, permitting separation from the minerals mixed with it.  Before shipping, bitumen is further refined to provide a synthetic crude oil suitable for pipeline transport.  Alternatively, bitumen can be diluted with liquid hydrocarbons to permit it to be pumped in the pipeline as well.

The Provincial Premier of Alberta, the province in which the tar sands are located, visited Washington, D.C. for the fourth time in 18 months during the week of April 8, 2013.  Alison Redford came to lobby for favorable action on XL.
 

Manmade global warming has become a serious problem in recent decades.  Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels, and other industrial and agricultural practices, are generating ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere.  These accumulate because most carbon dioxide, the product of burning, and some others of the gases, remain in the atmosphere for long times.  There is no natural mechanism that removes these gases once emitted.  They remain active, accumulating to create a more intense greenhouse effect, for a century or longer.  It is the total accumulated burden of greenhouse gases, not their annual rate of emissions, that governs the intensity of the greenhouse effect.

The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.  This post discusses aspects of the SEIS presented in the Executive Summary.
 

The American portion of the pipeline under review extends from the Canadian border in Montana, traverses South Dakota and Nebraska and ends at Steele City, NE.  This portion is 875 miles (1408 km) long and 36 inches (91 cm) in diameter.  It will carry Canadian tar sands bitumen.  A branch, carrying shale oil from North Dakota, and other crude oils, will join it.  Its total capacity is intended to be 830,000 barrels per day, of which 555,000 barrels per day is currently committed to transporting Canadian bitumen.  Ultimately the sources of the oil stocks it will carry would be determined by market decisions. 
 

The SEIS devotes extensive attention to potential localized environmental effects, especially in the case of leakage.  These have been amply addressed elsewhere, including the SEIS, by both proponents of the pipeline and its environmental opponents. 

Construction of the U. S. portion of XL is estimated to cost US$3.3 billion for directly incurred expenses.  Direct employment during construction would be about 3,900 full time jobs over the 1-2 years envisioned for construction.  Once operating XL would need fewer than 50 employees.  The construction site is a moving front progressing along the route, requiring a 110 foot wide right of way during construction, which would be restored to a permanent 50 foot right of way upon completion, amounting to 5,584 acres (2,259ha) of land.  It includes 44 valve stations and 18 pumping stations along this segment. 

Climate change impact of XL.  The Executive Summary reports that operation of the proposed XL project is expected to lead to the emission of about 3.2 million metric tons of CO₂-equivalent per year of operation, mostly devoted to generating the electricity to operate the pumping stations along the pipeline.  The SEIS states this is comparable to the energy requirements of about 626,000 gas-powered cars, or about 398,000 homes using electricity, for one year. 

These figures account only for the operational emissions of the XL Project under review.  The full length of the U. S. portion of the pipeline from the Canadian border to a Gulf Coast terminus is about 1,700 miles, or almost twice the length of the proposed Project.  So the numbers in the preceding paragraph should be approximately doubled to account for transporting tar sands bitumen from the Canadian border to a Gulf Coast refinery. 

In addition, on a life-cycle basis extracting and refining of Alberta bitumen is more energy intensive than that of conventional oils, releasing about 17% more CO₂.  As noted above in the Background section, this is because of the extra heat energy needed to liberate the bitumen from its mineral composite.

This writer has estimated the CO₂ burden arising from actual combustion of tar sands bitumen, in the presumed form of gasoline, petroleum coke and other products of refining.  Depending on assumptions made, this estimate may have an error of perhaps 15%.  The result obtained is about 100 million metric tons of CO₂/year resulting from burning the full complement of bitumen proposed for transport by XL.  [Update 04/23/13:  This XL-derived annual emissions forecast represents about 4.5% of total CO₂ emissions for 2011 originating from burning petroleum-derived fuels in the U. S., according to data from the 2013 Annual Energy Outlook of the U. S. Energy Information Administration (Table A18), excluding international marine (bunker) fuels,]

 

Analysis

 

This blog has opposed the XL pipeline for a fundamental reason, one little argued by others.  It should be the policy of the U. S. to accelerate the transition of our energy economy away from one dependent on carbon-based fuels toward one that relies on renewable energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases.  As pointed out in many recent posts, this should be done as soon as possible. 

Long Lifetime of Emitted GHGs. A major fraction of CO₂, the main greenhouse gas, emitted into the atmosphere remains there for at least one century and probably longer.  (Natural processes remove the minor portion, but cannot accommodate the full amount emitted.)  Thus atmospheric CO₂, and other manmade GHGs, will keep accumulating more and more until the rate of emission approaches zero.  This higher level of atmospheric GHGs worsens global warming and all its harmful effects on the planet and to mankind.  Thus early steps toward decarbonization of the energy economy are needed.

President Obama addresses climate change.  President Obama has proclaimed his support for efforts to combat global warming in both his Second Inaugural Address and his 2013 State of the Union address.  An important signal backing up his policy would be denial of a permit for XL.  This is because of the major additional annual rates of emission of CO₂ over the long term that its operation entails, as detailed above.  Transnational transport and burning of Canadian bitumen and its refined products would contribute about 106 million metric tons of CO₂ each year, for the full operational lifetime of the pipeline, i.e., for several decades.  The U. S. should take a policy stand that it will not be responsible for, or condone, such continued emission of GHGs, but rather that it will instead support deployment of renewable energy sources.

Pronouncements by TransCanada and the Alberta Premier are contradicted by their  actions.  The SEIS, presumably relying on declarations made by TransCanada, notes that it may not matter whether the U. S. approves the XL application.  Production of bitumen in Alberta and of crude oil in North Dakota would continue.  It states there are alternative modes of transport, involving other pipelines, rail, and truck, to carry Canadian bitumen to the Gulf.  Other destinations are also noted but were not evaluated. It also points out that the Gulf refineries already receive crude oil for processing by tanker transport from other sources.

Even so, TransCanada is actively campaigning for approval of XL and is laying groundwork for the Project.  For example, Mary Pipher, a Nebraskan opposed to the Project, points out in the New York Times of April 17, 2013 that TransCanada is using threats of exercising eminent domain (legal expropriation of property) against landowners along the XL right of way.

Alison Redford, the Premier of Alberta, has visited Washington, D.C. four times in the last 18 months seeking favorable action on XL.  During her most recent visit, she declared “We’re an exporting economy,” saying that Alberta’s bitumen would be harvested regardless of the approval of XL. “Alberta does have other options,” such as Canada’s Atlantic or Pacific coasts (New York Times, April 9, 2013).

The actions by TransCanada, described by Ms. Pipher, and the persistent campaigning in the U. S. by Premier Redford, clearly show that these interests are not ambivalent about the final decision on XL.  They are heavily invested in the outcome, and apparently actively pursue a favorable outcome.  To grant approval would further set back mankind’s pursuit of decarbonizing our energy economy by condoning continued fossil fuel use.

 

Conclusion: The energy economy is a zero sum enterprise.  In weighing whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, the choice is not whether to approve it or simply to reject it. Rather the correct decision to consider is whether to prolong the fossil fuel energy economy or to expand our renewable energy economy.

As noted above, the pipeline, if built, commits us to continued atmospheric emissions of CO₂ from this oil over its full service lifetime, i.e. 40 years or more.  [Update 04/23/13:  This represents about 4.5% of emissions from petroleum use in the U. S.]  The longer we delay to abate emissions, the harder it becomes.

The alternative strategy is to shift the investment that would be going into projects such as the pipeline into developing industrial scale, renewable energy sources and energy transmission infrastructure instead. We should stop harvesting tar sands oil and build wind farms and solar farms instead, and should reject new oil pipelines in favor of new transmission lines from those farms to energy consumers. The US$3.3 billion investment envisioned for the XL Project segment could develop significant renewable energy facilities such as these.  In this way, the overall energy economy is preserved, job demand remains vibrant, and global warming is addressed in a meaningful way.

[Update 04/23/13:  Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commented on the SEIS in a letter to DOS dated April 22, 2013.  The comments identify aspects of the SEIS that are inadequate and require further analysis or support.  These include (among others) first, the 17% or higher greater emission of GHGs required to produce Alberta bitumen compared to a range of crude oils from conventional sources.  The letter requests an assessment of overall social costs for this increase.  Second, the letter requests a more thorough market analysis supporting the SEIS conclusion that regardless of whether the Project is approved Alberta bitumen production will not change significantly.  Third, the letter requests further details on how the U. S. and Canada can cooperate to mitigate GHG emissions in the production of bitumen (including carbon capture and storage) and possible use of renewable energy to power the operation of the pipeline.  These and other failings in the SEIS currently preclude the EPA from approving the XL Project.]

 

Note
 

Public comments on the SEIS may be submitted

a) by email to keystonecomments@state.gov,
 

b) using the internet at http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/, or
 

c) by mail to:

U.S. Department of State

Attn: Genevieve Walker

NEPA Coordinator

2201 C Street NW Room 2726

Washington, D.C. 20520.

 

© 2013 Henry Auer

TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline: Not in the U. S. Long-Term Interest

Summary.  The Keystone XL pipeline is proposed to carry Canadian crude oil originating in the Alberta tar sands to coast of the U. S. Gulf of Mexico.  As part of the approval process, the U. S. Department of State issued an Environmental Impact Statement on Aug. 26, 2011, which, overall, supports construction of the pipeline.  This post analyzes the report in the broader context of President Obama’s energy and environmental policies.  It is concluded that the XL pipeline would not be in the long-term interests of the U. S.  The project would not be consistent with the President’s policies promoting reduced emissions of greenhouse gases, since a) fossil fuels are burned to extract crude oil from Alberta tar sands, b) the additional flow of oil for decades means increased emissions of greenhouse gases when the refined oil is burned, and c) a considerable portion of the refined product is likely to be exported rather than being consumed domestically.  It would be far more beneficial to promote large-scale renewable energy projects in order to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.

Introduction.  The Keystone XL Project (XL) involves construction and operation of a pipeline carrying Canadian crude oil originating in the Alberta tar sands to refineries and ports on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.  The applicant in XL is TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (Keystone).  For an international project such as this, a Presidential Executive Order requires the U. S. Department of State (State) to determine whether the project is in the national interest.  As part of this review, State issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for XL on August 26, 2011.  This post is based on the Executive Summary of the EIS (link accessed Aug. 30, 2011). In addition to the EIS, State will consider further reviews from the U. S. Departments of Energy, Defense, Transportation, Homeland Security, Justice, Interior, and Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Thus, consideration for approval assesses broad issues of national interest, as well as the need to satisfy various environmental considerations during both construction and operation.  This post reviews the environmental assessment as presented in the EIS, and discusses aspects of national interest from a broad perspective of energy policy.

The Proposed XL Project.  The pipeline is to be a 36 inch (91 cm)-diameter pipe capable of routinely carrying 700,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 U.S. gallons, 147 L) of oil a day, with the option of increasing flow to a maximum of 830,000 barrels a day.  This represents 8-10% of U. S. imports in June 2011 from its 15 largest suppliers (link accessed Sept. 1, 2011).  The full length of the pipeline is to be 1,711 mi. (2,753 km), of which 1,384 mi (2,227 km) will be in the U. S. 

An existing Keystone pipeline extending from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma is part of the overall proposal.  Details of the issues considered in the EIS are presented at the end of this post.

Analysis.  Warming of the long-term average global temperature in recent decades is a reality that has been traced by temperature measurement at sites all around the planet.  The warming is directly traced to the increase in our atmosphere’s content of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases.  Global warming has already produced many extreme weather events around the globe whose effects on human welfare are severe, including drought and famine, flooding with consequent devastation, and forest wildfires.  These are predicted to become more severe as more CO₂ enters the atmosphere.

For these reasons it is important to strive toward a worldwide zero-emissions regime for greenhouse gases as soon as possible.  CO₂, once emitted into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels for energy, remains there for a long time, at least 100 years (except for the CO₂ taken up by green plants in photosynthesis and absorbed by the oceans).  We can think of the atmosphere as a bathtub containing CO₂ (see this post).  The faucet is filling the bathtub with more CO₂ coming from fossil fuel combustion, but the drain is essentially closed, keeping most of the added CO₂ from escaping.  So the bathtub keeps filling higher and higher.  Increased atmospheric CO₂ is predicted to make extreme weather events, and detrimental changes in regional climatic conditions, worse than they are today.

President Obama has set the goal of reducing the greenhouse gas emission rate by the federal government by 28% by 2020 (link accessed Sept. 1, 2011). (We should remember that all remaining emission released each year continue to accumulate, as explained above, adding to the atmospheric CO₂ concentration.)  Laudably, the administration has supported small research and development projects, and granted start-up support, to small companies that are creating new technologies intended to achieve that goal.  In recent speeches the President has extolled job creation and enterprises engaged in renewable energy manufacturing, such as wind turbines and solar power.  In addition his administration has issued regulatory guidelines that significantly increase fuel efficiency of cars and trucks in the coming decade, first to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg; 0.0662 L/km) by 2016, and further to 54.5 mpg (0.0431 L/km) by 2025, for cars and light trucks (link accessed Sept. 1, 2011).  Emissions standards are also being proposed for medium- and heavy-duty trucks.

The President’s recent decisions to resume limited offshore drilling for oil (link accessed Sept. 1, 2011), and opening the U. S. Atlantic and northern Alaska coasts to drilling (link accessed Sept. 1, 2011), however, are not consistent with his greenhouse gas goal. 

Nor would approval of the XL pipeline project support the President’s objective.  Although cast in the framework of helping the U. S. attain independence from foreign, potentially hostile, suppliers of our energy needs, approval of the pipeline would have the profound disadvantage of prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels.  The more oil and gas we burn, the more CO₂ is released and the more full the atmospheric “bathtub” becomes, worsening the effects of global warming.  The new oil wells and the XL pipeline transporting crude oil from Alberta represent fuelling commitments that last for decades, so that by these actions the U. S. is committing to increasing the atmospheric CO₂ concentration for decades to come. 

Offshore oil drilling costs billions of dollars.  The low-hanging fruit of drilling shallow wells has largely been harvested, so that the more expensive, and more risky, deep water drilling is all that remains.  The XL pipeline is forecast to cost US$7 billion.  This post respectfully proposes that energy companies that are willing to commit such large amounts of capital to prolong America’s demand for harmful oil and gas could just as easily commit to development of renewable energy.  After all, as energy companies, their business plans could justifiably be changed to develop renewable energy.  Their profits from undertaking such projects would be comparable to those expected from the oil-based development currently being programmed. 

A profitable renewable energy project is exemplified by Portland, Oregon’s solar-powered electric vehicle recharging stations (link accessed Aug. 26, 2011).  Portland is striving to have all forms of municipal transport based on electric power. This blog reviewed electric cars in an earlier post, pointing out precisely this need for renewable energy sources for these vehicles. 

A main argument used in the EIS to support the XL pipeline is that it would satisfy demand for crude oil at the Gulf Coast refineries (see Details, below).  It is implied that that demand originates domestically, and that the added supply would be consumed domestically in America.  In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (link accessed Sept. 1, 2011) exports of finished petroleum products from the Gulf Coast increased from 703,000 barrels per day in 2005 to 1,580,000 barrels per day in 2010.  Thus support for the XL project cannot be based on domestic demand; rather there is no overriding national interest related to the U. S. domestic energy economy that is served by the project.  

Conclusion.  The XL pipeline project is proposed to transport large amounts of crude oil from the Alberta tar sands to U. S. Gulf Coast refineries in order to satisfy domestic demand and relieve reliance on petroleum imports from other foreign sources.  The project is not in accord with President Obama’s energy policies promoting renewable energy and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.  Producing crude from the tar sands is far more energy intensive than producing crude from conventional wells, according to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (link accessed Sept. 1, 2011) and the EIS, detailed below.  Burning the refined products from this newly added source of fossil fuels would emit large, additional, amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere, worsening global warming and its consequences, for many years to come.  Overall, the project does not appear to promote long-term U. S. energy and environmental interests.  Rather, the U. S. should strive to implement policies promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy sources as rapidly as possible. The world-wide benefit of working toward a zero-emissions energy economy would be considerable.

Details. 

This section summarizes the Environmental Impact Statement’s Executive Summary.

The proposed route of the pipeline is shown in the map below.

Source: U. S. Department of State. http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open (link accessed Aug. 30, 2011)

The pipeline itself is to be buried approximately 4 ft (1.2 m) below ground level, and passes at least that far below stream and river beds when it crosses these waterways.  Except in Nebraska, underground aquifers that the path encounters are far below the depth of the pipeline.  The project includes 30 above ground pump stations, over 100 valves, and an oil storage facility in Cushing, Oklahoma.  The overall projected cost is US$7 billion.  The pipeline, if approved, would begin operation in 2013.

Tar Sands.  The oil available in Alberta is a surface-accessible mixture of a thick oily substance with the consistency of tar, called bitumen, with sand and clay.  Bitumen must be heated with hot steam to liquefy it, permitting separation from the minerals mixed with it.  Before shipping, bitumen is further refined to provide a synthetic crude oil suitable for pipeline transport.  In addition, bitumen can be diluted with liquid hydrocarbons to permit it to be pumped in the pipeline as well.

Justification for XL.  The EIS states that demand for crude oil is high and growing in refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.  The principal objective of XL is to transport crude oil to the Gulf coast in response to this demand. A related objective is to fulfill market demand of the refineries, which currently get 5.1 million barrels per day, of their total capacity of 8.4 barrels per day, from abroad.

Safety considerations. The EIS states that Keystone agreed to 57 project-specific conditions, in addition to generic regulatory criteria already in place, for building and operating the pipeline.  The specific conditions govern design standards for manufacturing and testing the pipe, design and construction of the project including stringent pressure testing during construction, and remote sensing and data acquisition during operation that is intended to detect leaks at as low as 1.5 to 2% of the flow rate.

Frequency and severity of spills is discussed in detail.  The EIS reviews Keystone’s previous spill history, noting that they tend to be quite small in size and few in number.  Keystone projects a maximum potential spill volume of 672,000 gallons (note: not barrels) over 50% of the pipeline, and a maximum potential of 2.8 million gallons in a particular section of 1.7 mi (2.7 km).  Keystone is required to submit an Emergency Response Plan and a Pipeline Spill Response Plan for review before beginning operation.  In the event of a detected leak, pipeline pumps would stop, and isolation valves closed, all within 12 minutes.

Potential environmental impacts of leaks.  The most serious environmental impacts of leaks would occur in sensitive areas such as wetlands, rivers and streams, shallow groundwater areas, near drinking water supplies, and regions with sensitive wildlife or plants.  Both physical impacts on the oil on the terrain and toxicological impacts of oil on life forms are discussed in detail.

Passage through the North High Plains Aquifer System (including the Ogallala aquifer and the Sand Hills aquifer unit) is specifically mentioned.  These are important drinking water and irrigation water sources, and important sections of the aquifers pass close to grade surface for about 65 mi (105 km) in Nebraska.  State assessed in detail potential dangers to aquifers and water supply wells in preparing the EIS.  No sole-source aquifers, or aquifers that are principal drinking water sources, are crossed by the proposed pipeline route.  Based on previous spill experience, the EIS states that impacts of a spill would typically be limited to several hundred feet from the location of a spill, including, if at a shallow aquifer site, a limited area.  The EIS states “In no spill  incident scenario  would  the  entire Northern  High  Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected”.  

State specifies that Keystone should have an independent consultant approved by State and the federal regulatory agency, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, to review its risk assessment, and identify any needed additional measures to be taken, based on the analysis.

Alternatives to the XL project were considered and dismissed.

First, not building the pipeline was considered.  It was assessed that even so, demand for Canadian crude on the Gulf Coast would remain undiminished.  It was evaluated that alternative use of rail or truck tank containers, or other pipelines, could partially fill the need.  Other crude would arrive from foreign sources by ocean tanker.  At the source, it was evaluated that Canadian producers would find other non-American consumers.

Second, system alternatives including alternate pipeline and transport modes as mentioned above were further evaluated.  None of the pipelines available would serve the needed volume of crude oil shipments, 380,000 barrels per day delivered to Texas alone.  Expanding other pipelines to fill the need would offer no better option than the XL project.  Trucking would worsen highway congestion and lead to significant greenhouse gas emissions.  Expansion of existing rail lines to provide the needed capacity would be somewhat better than the XL project, but their use would increase greenhouse gas emissions, emit considerable noise pollution and adversely impact communities on the route.

Third, five major route alternatives for pipeline construction were considered, all avoiding or minimizing exposure to the Ogallala and Sand Hill aquifers.  The alternative paths are all longer; all were eliminated based on cost and environmental factors.

Other alternatives still were also considered, in response to comments on a draft EIS.  State “did not find any of the major alternatives to be preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons presented in the final [full] EIS and summarized [here]”.   

Environmental Impacts.  The EIS considers numerous natural and societal impacts of the XL project.  The most significant evaluation relates to increased emissions of greenhouse gases as a result of sourcing crude oil from the Canadian tar sands.  It evaluated the full cycle from extraction, upgrading, transportation, refining and combustion.  Depending on specific assumptions made, the EIS concludes that for a gasoline product between 2 and 17% more greenhouse gases are produced than from conventional crude oils.  Based on assumptions employed, the EIS reports that the crude oil to be shipped by the XL pipeline would emit between 3 and 21 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) per year.

This writer finds this conclusion somewhat disingenuous.  Once at the refinery, the steps of refining and combustion are essentially the same for all sources, and should be removed from the total assessment.  It is widely known that extraction of crude oil from tar sands requires a high input of energy, not required to produce conventional crudes (see Analysis above).  This extra energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels, releasing greenhouse gases as a result.  Thus the production step enhances the percent greenhouse gas emissions significantly higher than the low range of 2 to 17% identified. 

A large number of other potential environmental impacts of the project are discussed in detail; essentially all are considered to be temporary in nature, occurring only during and shortly after construction of the pipeline.

© 2011 Henry Auer