Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 1, 2014
Report Opens Way to Approval for Keystone Pipeline
The State Department released a report on Friday concluding that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Obama to approve the politically divisive project.
The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Mr. Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that if it were not built, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail instead.
The report sets up a difficult decision for Secretary of State John Kerry, who now must make a recommendation on the international project to Mr. Obama. Mr. Kerry, who hopes to make action on climate change a key part of his legacy, has never publicly offered his personal views on the pipeline. Aides said Mr. Kerry was preparing to “dive into” the 11-volume report and would give high priority to the issue of global warming in making the decision. His aides offered no timetable.
“He’ll deliberate and take the time he needs,” said Kerri-Ann Jones, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and international affairs.
Environmentalists said they were dismayed at some of the report’s conclusions and disputed its objectivity, but they also said it offered Mr. Obama reasons to reject the pipeline. They said they planned to intensify efforts to try to influence Mr. Kerry’s decision. For more than two years, environmentalists have protested the project and been arrested in demonstrations against it around the country. But many Republicans and oil industry executives, who support the pipeline because they say it creates jobs and increases supplies from a friendly source of oil, embraced the findings.
The State Department is expected to shortly release the results of an inspector general’s investigation into the preparation of an earlier draft of the environmental impact report. The investigation was ordered after an environmental group obtained documents indicating that some consultants for the firm that wrote the draft report had previously done work for TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline. If investigators determine a conflict of interest in the preparation of that draft, the State Department may have to conduct a new environmental review.
In light of the investigation, environmentalists were particularly critical of the report released on Friday.
“In what could be perceived as eagerness to please the oil industry and Canadian government, the State Department is issuing this report amidst an ongoing investigation into conflicts of interest, and lying, by its contractor,” said Erich Pica, the president of Friends of the Earth.
Some environmentalists saw reason for optimism in the review, which models several possible future oil market possibilities. Most involve a future of high oil prices and robust demand, in which the oil sands crude is rapidly developed with or without the Keystone pipeline. However, the report offers one alternative sequence, in which oil prices and demand are low. In that case, not building the pipeline might slow development, and thus slow carbon emissions. That possibility is unlikely, but it could provide the administration something to point to should it deny the project.
“We’re taking the inclusion of that scenario as good news,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The oil industry applauded the review.
“After five years and five environmental reviews, time and time again the Department of State analysis has shown that the pipeline is safe for the environment,” said Cindy Schild, the senior manager of refining and oil sands programs at the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for the oil industry.
There are political and strategic advantages to approving the pipeline: It would strengthen relations with Canada and provide a conduit for oil from a friendly neighbor. If the pipeline is approved this year, it could also help the re-election campaigns of two vulnerable Democratic senators from oil-rich states — Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Begich of Alaska — while silencing critics who for years have urged the president to move ahead with the pipeline.
Environmentalists said that if Mr. Obama were to approve the pipeline, it would destroy his efforts to make progress on climate change. Thomas F. Steyer, a California hedge fund billionaire and a major donor to Mr. Obama’s presidential campaigns, has started an advocacy group, NextGen Climate Action, that has spent heavily campaigning against the pipeline.
Larry Schweiger, the president of the National Wildlife Federation, said: “This is a large source of carbon that’s going to be unleashed. We’re headed in a terribly wrong direction with this project, and I don’t see how that large increase in carbon is going to be offset.”
Although the pipeline is a potent political symbol, its true impact on both the environment and the economy would be more limited than either its supporters or its opponents suggest.
The new State Department report concludes that the process used for producing the oil — by extracting what are called tar sands or oil sands from the Alberta forest — creates about 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional oil. But the report concludes that this heavily polluting oil will still be brought to market. Energy companies are already moving the oil out of Canada by rail.
“At the end of the day, there’s a consensus among most energy experts that the oil will get shipped to market no matter what,” said Robert McNally, an energy consultant who was a senior energy and economic adviser to President George W. Bush. “It’s less important than I think it was perceived to be a year ago, both politically and on oil markets.”
The new State Department analysis took into account the growing global demand for oil and the rapidly growing practice of moving oil by rail in areas where pipelines have not been built. “Given the anticipated outlook of oil prices and the cost of development, no single project will likely affect the rate of extraction,” said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named under the ground rules imposed by the department.
But moving oil by rail has its own hazards. As the practice has increased in recent years, so have incidents of explosions of rail cars carrying oil.
Supporters of the pipeline say it will create jobs, though the number may be limited. A study by the Cornell Global Labor Institute concluded that the pipeline would create about 3,900 construction jobs over two years.
Privately, people close to Mr. Obama say that although he is committed to building a climate legacy, he does not see the pipeline as a central part of that effort. Instead, the president is moving forward with a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Those regulations do not have the potent political symbolism of the pipeline, but could have a far greater impact on the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by freezing construction of new coal plants and closing hundreds of existing ones.
Ahead of making his decision, Mr. Kerry will take counsel from the leaders of eight other government agencies: the Departments of Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy and Homeland Security and the E.P.A. It is unclear when the decision might be made, but some close to the process say it could take as long as a year.
Environmentalists are preparing to influence the next stages of the decision-making process.
“This is the most scrutinized pipeline in the nation’s history,” said Brigham A. McCown, a former administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. “The fact that it’s lasted as long as it has means one of two things. They’ve either done a very good, thorough job, or they’ve slowed it down due to political pressure.”
An earlier version of this article misidentified the agency with which Susan Casey-Lefkowitz is affiliated. It is the Natural Resources Defense Council, not the Natural Resources Defense Center.
12 Comments on "Report Opens Way to Approval for Keystone Pipeline"
robertinget on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 5:58 pm
The nation’s ‘rolling pipeline’ made Keystone XL muted two years ago when financial genius Warren Buffett purchased railroads and tank cars.
The Southern half of Keystone opened
a few months ago with no mention by the anti northern half.
Such a shame environmentalists chose
XL as their bulwark against climate change when efforts should have been directed at minimizing killer coal.
Having supported lost causes all my life I’ve come to recognize the animal.
Attacking coal with the same vigor as
resisting Canadian “Tar-Sands” would have no doubt brought tangible benefits.
One would think folks who understand ‘peak oil’ would understand demand.
Now, we see the same Quixote battle against ‘Fracking’ taking shape.
“If we can’t stop Canadian Tar we certainly can stop Fracking!”
I’ll pose two simple questions:
a)What would our economy look like today
without deeply discounted Canadian crude?
b) What if natural gas, at under $4.75
did not exist during this latest cold ‘snap’? (Japan is paying $17.00 LNG)
DC on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 6:57 pm
It wont be long now before we find out the second ‘report’ is a fraudulent as the first one.
robertinget on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 7:13 pm
What or Who do ya trust DC?
The facts are clear.
#1 A rollin on pipeline is more prone to spills than a newly built pipeline. You got a problem wit dat?
#2 Even if Canadian exports were to be entirely rejected, for being too ‘dirty’,
we then would need to apply the same standard
to California ‘Tar Pit’ (BRY) heavy oil or numerous
coal burning power plants..
Yes or No… DC?
Now, splain what’s so phony about this repore?
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 7:14 pm
robertinget on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 5:58 pm
XL as their bulwark against climate change when efforts should have been directed at minimizing killer coal.
Amen to that! Liquid fuels will be the weak link in our energy predicament. We will need each and every source of liquid fuels to confront the depletion that is going to leave us dangerously exposed. If we need to trade out coal emissions for tar sand emissions so be it. We have many more options with power generation. We have no other option for liquid fuels. Electric cars, second gen biofuels, and other exotic transport technologies are nothing more than niches.
I hate the rape of the world. I cringe when I see these giant scares in the earth from the tar sands. The thousands of well pads in west Texas, the contaminated beaches in the gulf and the contaminated ground water in fracking areas are further side affect. Yet, we are here in a global industrial society facing serious systematic risk that could compromise our local support systems. We are talking possible starvation if the system locks up and can’t reboot.
We are heading towards a collapse regardless of tar sands or not but shouldn’t we buy time to try to get a critical mass of people prepared. Without a minimum of preparation our odds of rebooting our support mechanisms are greatly diminished. It is all about degree and duration of a collapse. If we can make the liquid fuel decline less severe then we have a better chance of not loosing it so to speak.
DC on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 7:29 pm
Rob, Did you miss the whole first report was written by Trans-Canada itself, along with other Tar-sands and oil industry insiders? Were you not aware of the minor little detail?
Also, the source of the report, the US ‘state dept’, which spends most of its time and energy destabilizing govts it doesn’t like around the world. At the risk of saying something completely obvious, ‘state dept’ is not a scientific of technical organization of any kind. Not only are they singularly unqualified to make any such judgements, the first go around showed a massive conflict of interest. Not that anyone was expecting otherwise mind you.
If your looking for ‘trust’, you wont find any of it at the ‘uS state dept’, that much is certain.
GregT on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 8:42 pm
“We are heading towards a collapse regardless of tar sands or not but shouldn’t we buy time to try to get a critical mass of people prepared.”
The bigger issue that I see here Davy, is ecosystems collapse. Nothing can prepare us for extinction. Once again, we have a hard choice to make, on one hand we have modern industrial society, which will eventually collapse anyways, and on the other hand we have the environment, which no matter how you dice it, we will not survive without.
What to do?
paulo1 on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 8:56 pm
I am quite certain that various CEOs and other ‘friends’ long ago told Obama what should be done regarding Keystone XL. I am also convinced he is simply waiting until after the mid-term elections are over. Then, he can approve the pipeline and the Dems will have two more years for the uproar to blow over before it is Hillary’s turn at the trough of influence. Call me cynical, but these ‘decision makers’ have been bought lock stock and barrel long ago. It remnds me of The Godfather when the Corleones owned ‘the judges’. Nothing is different and nothing has changed.
Paulo
rockman on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 10:38 pm
First, let’s be clear what they. evaluated: it was the GHG contribution from the building and operation of the pipeline…not that of burning the oil sands. As the reports states the oil sands would be burned whether the Northern section of KXL is built or not. While a valid argument can be made against burning those fossil fuels little can said against the very minor GHG contributions from the construction and operation of the pipeline itself.
So let’s address the absurdly childish expectation that the POTUS opposed the production, importation and burning of the Canadian oil sands. It still amazes me that anyone could hold that belief after the POTUS, two years ago, very publicly stated his full support for the southern leg of Keystone XL. Not only did he say this segment was vital to the US economy he also instructed all his departments to do whatever they could to expedite it’s completion. To EXPEDITE the completion of a pipeline system that would have the capacity to flow 600,000 bopd directly from Alberta to Texas. So with that clear PUBLIC POSITION of the POTUS supporting the transport of 600,000 bbls of Canadian oil sand production per day to Texas refineries why would anyone expect him not to approve the border crossing section? And to do so when it was politically safer to do so?
I still contend the folks who so publicly ranted against the border crossing permit of KXL provided invaluable cover for the POTUS as well as the producers and transporters of the oil sands production. They constantly distracted from what was happening elsewhere. And some here may wonder why a 40 year veteran of the oil patch has been putting out the truth time and time again both here and at the Oil Drum.
Perhaps the reason was so simple it alluded some folks that made it so convoluted: probably almost every oil/NG producing US company would love to see the POTUS ban all Canadian oil imports. It’s very obvious: the Canadian imports compete with our production. There’s an equally simple reason for the POTUS to support the domestic production and importation of bbl of oil possible: no POTUS would ever be elected if he didn’t prove to the vast majority that he was doing everything possible to maintain energy BAU. Folks are free to disagree. All they need do is provide examples of any politician winning an election after telling folks who were suffering energy poverty that they would just have to accept the situation. That he wasn’t going to everything possible to get them the energy the public DEMANDED.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 11:47 pm
GregT on Sat, 1st Feb 2014 8:42 pm
The bigger issue that I see here Davy, is ecosystems collapse. Nothing can prepare us for extinction.
Greg T I totally agree. I am a genuine tree hugger type. I live on a farm close to nature with cattle, chickens, garden, and wildlife. I once was a big Derick Jensen sympathizer. I still do admire his passion. Yet, what I am saying about liquid fuel supply is to do everything possible immediately within reason to mitigate a coming severe production fall. So, I see artic drilling and Arctic national wildlife refuge as bad choices. The tar sands are producing. The damage has been done. The infrastructure is there. The US needs a stable supply close to home. The time frame is the key here. We are talking 9 years until the fall off in production is so severe that industrial society will implode. We have 9 years or less to build life boats. So I agree there is a risk that the tar sands rape could go on longer than 9 years if something comes to the rescue to keep the cars, trucks, planes, boats, and tractors running. I think this is unlikely because time has run out. Lots of oil resources out there but the money and means is not. This will only get worse with a financial crisis and other above ground issues
James on Sun, 2nd Feb 2014 12:27 am
Consider the source of the report.
GregT on Sun, 2nd Feb 2014 1:42 am
Davy,
There are no lifeboats. We need to learn how to swim again. The biggest concern for the human race is not how to keep the cars, boats, trains, and tractors running, it is what will happen if we do. We have far more fossil fuel resources left on the planet, than we can afford to burn. Unless we plan on killing off all of our children.
The coming economic collapse is of the least of our worries, as devastating as it will be. Our scientific community has given us less than 20 years to stop burning ALL fossil fuels, for a 50/50 chance of causing a future runaway greenhouse event.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 2nd Feb 2014 1:04 pm
GregT on Sun, 2nd Feb 2014 1:42 am
The coming economic collapse is of the least of our worries, as devastating as it will be. Our scientific community has given us less than 20 years to stop burning ALL fossil fuels, for a 50/50 chance of causing a future runaway greenhouse event.
Well, my point is preparation needs energy whether it is my lifeboat or the scientific community’s effort to reduce carbon. You may be wrong if you are wishing for a collapse to solve the ecological problem of climate change. Things may get dirtier in a collapsed world with lots of carbon still burned, multiple industrial accidents (more Fukishimas), and waste (sewage)(no landfills)pollution. All those nasty industrial things we take for granted will not be handled properly.
My opinion is the climate change issue is over we are done as a society and maybe a species. Yet, this is down the road further than the impending collapse. We are talking a few years to the 1st decent. I am saying we need more time to prepare for a multitude of problems including climate change.
The problem with climate change people is they think we can shut off the fossil fuels and get by. The cure these people advocate is getting off carbon. What is the difference between the peak oil issues discussed here and climate change plans of reducing carbon? The major point is without carbon collapse occurs. These climate change people that talk about renewables or geoengineering strategies are no different than talking about an outpost on Mars. It AIN’T likely. We can’t even manage our social political world. Renewables are a niche and or a fossil fuel extender. Renewables need manufacture and maintenance and are not self-replicating.
I am open to shutting off life support like the climate change people advocate but let us tell everyone what that means. It means mass starvation. So, Greg T, my pitch is for a few more years of preparation for a collapse like no other in history. A collapse that will be global with a population 10 times carrying capacity minus fossil fuels. The last sentence is profound in its implications. Potentially 9 out of 10 people will not have adequate support. How sever and long the first leg down will be is a roll of the dice.
Yet, I want to be able to feed my kids for a few months to get from here to there. I am hoping we can stabilize at a lower level that is very difficult but we still have a life. My lifeboat is for a few months. My life style is post carbon 19 century agriculture. If my lifeboat gets me through a few months then my lifestyle kicks in for a greatly reduced lifestyle. It is a gamble and maybe a fool’s plan but it is something. That is better than many here blogging now that talk but don’t do anything!
It is my hope that industrial civilization will slow down enough that we can reduce the effects of climate change. We are still doomed to an unknown future climate regime. There is no way to know exactly how the climate will change for the worst but most here realize the stable climate regime of the last 10,000 years will be over. This means large scale agriculture is over. This means modern man is over. This means a carrying capacity likely in 50 years of 1 billion or less.
Greg T I am just saying 3 or 4 more years to give negotiations a chance at some kind of plan B. Business as usual people and climate change people have no realistic plan B at the moment. BAU people are a Thelma and Louise and Climate change people are claiming they can make gold out of lead.
In any case as a species we deserve extinction. We have committed crimes against earth. As individuals we are all stuck being born into a world we struggle to survive in. Can you blame any of us for trying to live? Yet, as a species we are horrible. The world will recover and evolution and extinction will continue as before humans.