Climate science and the Keystone XL pipeline

Deliberation and debate resound in the halls of Washington, D.C. these days. Among the hot topics? The proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

Keystone would move massive amounts of Canadian "tar sands" oil south to facilities in the southern US.

There's a lot of debate about the politics of Keystone. But what about the science of pumping the massive Canadian tar sands oil deposits for eventual burning and release into the atmosphere? It turns out tar sands oil is more greenhouse gas intensive than other available oil sources. Some estimate the sheer volume of the Canadian oil sands deposits at more than 7-times Saudi oil deposits.

Many say the science of pumping that much "dirty oil" into earth's atmosphere will have a significant impact on global temperatures.

University of St. Thomas Professor and frequent Climate Cast guest Dr. John Abraham writes that US fuel conservation measures alone can be one way to keep those additional greenhouse gasses from tar sands oil out of the atmosphere.

Here's John's analysis of Keystone XL's effect on future climate from his post in the Guardian.

First, the report does identify the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions which would travel through the pipeline. With an estimated 830,000 barrels per day, my calculations (reinforced by multiple published and white-paper studies) are that the associated emissions would be approximately 480 million kg CO2 per day. If you include the byproduct petcoke, which is being burned as a coal replacement (but is dirtier than coal), the numbers are even worse (520 million kg CO2 per day). There is some uncertainty because we are not certain what the actual transported product will be, how many barrels of bitumen, what the diluent is made from, what the mix of extraction methods are, etc.

All of this is equivalent to approximately 35-40 million passenger vehicles or 50-57 coal-powered plants. During a time we need to reduce emissions, exploitation of the tar sands and construction of the Keystone pipeline would do the reverse. We would be locked in for years of enormous greenhouse emissions. People who think Keystone is a minor issue don't understand science and they sure don't understand economics. The tar sands contain reserves equivalent to seven times Saudi Arabia. Full exploitation of that tar will raise world temperatures by 0.75°F.

So, how does the report overlook these numbers (which they essentially agree with)? They say, "Stop! We don't want you to focus on the greenhouse gas emissions from oil through Keystone" (or from the tar sands for that matter). They want you to imagine a world where the oil would be burned anyways. If not piped through Keystone, it would come from some other source. If not from Canadian tar sands, someone else would supply the petroleum. This argument makes no sense. It is a little like a crystal meth dealer saying to the police, "I shouldn't be charged for the damage my drug caused because the users would have found meth, or cocaine, or heroin somewhere else." Such an argument is illogical.

We need to measure the emissions from Keystone and the tar sands directly. We should compare the impacts of pumping the world's dirtiest oil to making wiser use of the energy we already extract. For instance, if we increased passenger vehicle efficiency in the US by about 12%, we would save all the oil to be pumped through the Keystone pipeline, our planet would be cleaner, and the average US driver would be $250 richer each year. Who is against a thicker wallet and a cleaner planet?

Economically viable?

The massive pumping of Canadian oil and booming production form the Bakken formation in North Dakota has triggered a worldwide oil glut. The oversupply has cut oil prices in half. Many are now asking, with $50/barrel oil, is it even profitable to extract oil that costs $75 to $85 per barrel to break even?

Some key excerpts from a piece in the San Luis Obispo Tribune from McClatchy Washington Bureau's Sean Cockerham.

Amid the theatrics, there are debates over how many jobs Keystone would create and what impact it would have on the economy and climate change. And the worldwide oil glut raises questions about whether the pipeline to bring Canadian crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast is needed or even viable.

The global oil market has changed dramatically since the project was proposed more than six years ago. U.S. oil production has soared in the meantime, helping to create a global oversupply that’s driven oil prices down by more than 50 percent since June.

It’s particularly expensive to drill the heavy oil-sands crude that would flow through Keystone from the province of Alberta, and the low oil prices make financing new drilling operations much more difficult. The global energy research firm Wood Mackenzieforecasts that $59 billion worth of Canadian oil and gas projects might be delayed over the next three years as a result of a plummet in investment.

“If I were TransCanada right now I would not be in a rush to build this pipeline,” said Chris Lafakis, senior economist for Moody’s Analytics.

Alberta oil producers are increasing production despite the supply glut, and some major new projects planned in the oil sands are moving ahead because billions of dollars already have been sunk into them. But other planned projects are at risk of delay and might end up canceled, said Lafakis, the senior economist for Moody’s Analytics. Lafakis said he put the break-even price for Canadian oil sands projects at $75 to $85 a barrel. Prices dipped below $50 this week. “The smaller projects, especially from medium- and small-sized players in Canada, those are the first that will be cut as a result of those investments no longer being economical,” Lafakis said. “Like the U.S., there will be a reduction in Canadian output.”

In the final analysis, science and economics may trump politics when it comes to the future of Keystone XL.