Mulcair expresses misgivings about Keystone XL pipeline during U.S. visit

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

No they wouldn't account for that. The assumption is that rail cars do not 'dead head' so-to-speak.

There's a good chance they would dead head on the trip back, especially the heated cars that don't require diluent to ship.

[Tinordi]

Anyway, the pipeline vs. rail is kind of besides the point, the emissions are just too small.

What matters is the future of the oil sands with and without the pipeline. Is oil sands production marginal without Keystone? The upstream production emissions are the real question. Without Keystone will an additional 800,000 barrels a day be built in the same time frame? The Department of State says yes, the EPA says no.

That's the nut of the issue.

[burn_this_city]

A lot of companies already have plans to bypass the bottleneck through rail and barge. At this point the pipeline reduces shipping costs, but I don't think it flat out holds up production expansion. The only thing that holds up expansion at this point is the cost escalation we're seeing in construction.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Rail vs. Pipeline

Diesel rail moves 78.5 tonnes CO2 per TJ (check office of energy efficiency)

and 0.23 MJ/tonne km

Meaning that it moves product at 0.018 Kg CO2/TKM

Pipeline requires 250 BTU/ton mile or 0.28 MJ/TKM

Oil pipelines are electric powered, if you take the average US GHG emission factor of 650 grams CO2 per kWh then you get 180.7 tonnes CO2 per TJ.

(this is the basic and contentious assumption, but because Keystone will basically flow through coal and gas dependent states, Montana has more than 65% coal, South Dakota 30% coal, Nebraska 80% coal, Kansas 75% coal, Oklahoma 40% coal, 50% gas, Texas 45% gas, 35% coal -- this means that that 650 g/kwh is probably conservative as coal has a dominant share in every regional electric zone. p.6 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/docum...maryTables.pdf)



That equals 0.033 KG CO2 per TKM.

The genesis of this argument is that oil is bad because we need to burn coal to generate the electricity to ship it. Instead we should use oil to ship the oil which is much better for the environment.

The issue has nothing to do with the GHG emissions of oil transport and everything to do with the greenhouse gas emissions of coal generated electricity. Blocking oil imports into the US will not do anything to help that out.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Anyway, the pipeline vs. rail is kind of besides the point, the emissions are just too small.

What matters is the future of the oil sands with and without the pipeline. Is oil sands production marginal without Keystone? The upstream production emissions are the real question. Without Keystone will an additional 800,000 barrels a day be built in the same time frame? The Department of State says yes, the EPA says no.

That's the nut of the issue.

But where does the replacement oil / energy come from?

At some point due to inelastic demand and poor short term (25 year) substitutions the price of oil will just rise to offset the cost of shipping or they will expand heavy oil production in Russia, Saudi, Kuwait and Venezaula rather than Canada.

I dont see how the EPA can credibly say that the worldwide emmissions due to oil would change as a result of keystone

[Azure]

What do you mean? If we shut down the tar sands everything will be roses with free electric cars powered by ####s and giggles for everyone!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

What do you mean? If we shut down the tar sands everything will be roses with free electric cars powered by ####s and giggles for everyone!

You must've fast forwarded through most of the discussion.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by GGG

But where does the replacement oil / energy come from?

At some point due to inelastic demand and poor short term (25 year) substitutions the price of oil will just rise to offset the cost of shipping or they will expand heavy oil production in Russia, Saudi, Kuwait and Venezaula rather than Canada.

I dont see how the EPA can credibly say that the worldwide emmissions due to oil would change as a result of keystone

Well, new supply is not as emission intensive as some oilsands oil. The Bakken shale for example, boosted by increased prices from restrained WCS imports, would see its production increase, as with tight oil reserves in California. Tight oil is estimated to be about 10% less GHG intensive than SAGD.

So you could very credibly say that marginally increasing prices would lead to less GHG intensive new production.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Well, new supply is not as emission intensive as some oilsands oil. The Bakken shale for example, boosted by increased prices from restrained WCS imports, would see its production increase, as with tight oil reserves in California. Tight oil is estimated to be about 10% less GHG intensive than SAGD.

So you could very credibly say that marginally increasing prices would lead to less GHG intensive new production.

Is Bakken really less GHG emitting than SAGD? I thought it would be similar. And you are missing the more intensive sources of Venezualan and Russian heavy oil with no or little government emission monitoring. If either of these jurisdictions (mainly russia) were to burn coal to produce steam to produce heavy oil it would be cheaper and greater emissions.