Skip to main content

See also:

Study reveals Keystone XL pipeline will produce more greenhouse gas

A new study indicates that the Keystone XL pipeline will produce more greenhouse gas and emit more carbon to enhance global warming. The new study published in Nature Climate Change reveals that the calculations are incorrect due to the calculations about oil consumption, reports the LA Times today.

Keystone Oil Pipeline Protesters Demonstrate Outside Of Obama Fundraiser
Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

The Keystone XL pipeline could lead to four times the estimated greenhouse gas emissions. The State Department previous numbers missed projection of global consumption. The new study released does not show a savings in global oil price but only a marginal change despite the cost and risk of gases released.

The prior forecast of greenhouse gases released was 1.3 million to 27.4 million metric tons of gases annually. The new calculations display 100 million to 110 million tons every year.

The reason for the change in forecast and new numbers in the calculation is due to the change in global oil consumption. The State Department did not consider the increasing oil consumption resulting from the increasing oil sands production levels. According to authors of the study Peter Erickson and Michael Lazarus based in Seattle from the Stockholm Environment Institute the new forecast changes the scenario.

President Obama noted in June that it was the assurance from the State Department and their calculations that would gain his approval for this project. He would not give permission to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Secretary of State John Kerry is responsible for the final recommendation on this project.

This $5.3 billion Keystone XL pipeline project is set to begin in Hardisty, Alberta and onto to Steele City, Neb. It would tie into a route that has been built to lead it into refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. This required a federal permit since it was a border cross project. The State Department had concluded that rail capacity would bring proposed pipelines to deliver oil with or without this project.

The size of Florida in Alberta would provide the extraction of one of the dirtiest fuels known as the tar sands oil. The environmentalists have fought this project on the grounds that the pipeline would destroy the ecosystems; add to water pollution and place health in danger along with wildlife.

What began as an uphill project of public acceptance has hit a snag in its path. It is not as appealing an answer to future energy consumption requirements as originally sold by the State Department to the president and the public. The project has been placed on hold until after the mid-term elections this November.