On Friday, the State Department published a draft of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Keystone XL, which will inform the president’s decision later this year to approve or not approve the construction of the transboundary pipeline that could deliver an estimate 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil to the United States.
In a conference call on Friday, Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones noted that the EPA will officially publish the draft report in about a week for a 45-day public comment period. The president’s decision will come later this year, likely in the summer.
The 2,000-page report evaluates a number of issues, including the greenhouse gas emissions associated with Canadian oil sands and possible alternatives to the pipeline for transporting oil sands to the United States, including rail transport.
The oil sands, referred to in the draft report as Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin crudes, “are more GHG-intensive than the other heavy crudes they would replace or displace in U.S. refineries, and emit an estimated 17 percent more GHGs on a life-cycle basis than the average barrel of crude oil refined in the United States in 2005,” according to the report. “If the proposed Project were to induce growth in the rate of extraction in the oil sands, then it could cause GHG emissions greater than just its direct emissions.”
According to The New York Times, the report “predicts that Canada and its oil industry partners will probably continue to develop the oil sands even if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built. It states that building or not building the pipeline will have no significant impact on demand for heavy crude in the United States.”
The New York Times added, “And it says that alternate means of transporting the oil — rail, truck and barge — also have significant environmental and economic impacts, including higher costs, noise, traffic, air pollution and the possibility of spill.”
Even with the decision of the Keystone XL pipeline pending, The Washington Post reported on Saturday that rail transport has emerged as a key alternative to delivering Canadian crudes. “Rail shipments of Canadian crude oil sands are on track to quadruple this year,” The Washington Post reported. “Producers and refiners are scrambling to buy their own tank cars in order to lower the cost and increase the certainty of transport. Industry sources said that there is an 18- to 24-month waiting period for new tank cars in Canada.”
Rail, is of course, more expensive, The Washington Post noted. “Sending bitumen from the oil sands by rail is costly — about $15 to $20 a barrel, versus $7 to $11 by pipeline, according to the research firm Peters.”
The report, while a draft, will undoubtedly play an important role in the president’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. We’ll keep you updated as developments take shape.
More from CNAS
CommentaryCan Tariffs and Sanctions Lead to a Better Climate Change Strategy?
A little more than two years since he announced in the Rose Garden that the United States was “getting out” of the Paris climate change agreement, President Donald Trump was i...
By Neil Bhatiya
CommentaryClimate Change: The New Asian Drama
When the Swedish economist and sociologist Gunnar Myrdal wrote his magisterial three volume study of postwar economic and political development in Asia, he questioned whether ...
By Neil Bhatiya
Why Abandoning Paris Is a Disaster for America
Ever the showman, President Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday about his soon-to-be-announced decision on whether or not to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement with the air of...
By Julianne Smith
Elizabeth Rosenberg before Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Elizabeth Rosenberg, senior fellow and director of the Energy, Environment and Security program, testifies before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources....
By Elizabeth Rosenberg