Keystone’s Environmental Impact May be Four Times Higher. Oops?


mentalfloss
#1
Keystone’s Environmental Impact May be Four Times Higher. Oops?

Well, the Americans tasked with calculating the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline may have been a bit off in their calculations, two buttons off to be exact: the multiplication button and the number four. But hey, that’s what we have Swedes for! Peter Erickson and Michael Lazarus, researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute, published findings that the U.S. State Department’s original calculations missed. The State Department believe that the oil sands pipeline wouldn’t make a significant difference in the picture, but they missed a major source of greenhouse gas emissions that, unfortunately, involves the economy, the environment’s middle school bully that keeps reappearing latter in life.

“It didn’t appear that they looked at the market implications,” said Erickson, “if the Keystone pipeline were to enable a greater rate of extraction of the oil sands, would that not increase global fuel supplies, which might then decrease prices and therefore allow a little bit more global consumption?”

Yes, that does make sense, and this is coming from a guy who is by no means an expert it any of this (though it does seem that the experts that were in charge of planning this multibillion dollar, environmentally delicate project did happen to gloss over this seemingly clear and paramount part of the research). Lazarus says that the pipeline’s capacity would represent one percent of the of global oil consumption, a big chunk from an economists perspective, and enough to incrementally move markets. It’s this capacity that would lead to a 110 million ton annual carbon impact, four times more than what the State Department predicted.

Regardless, Erickson and Lazarus’ paper does not answer whether the pipeline would encourage expansion, or if it provides an outlet for growth that would happen one way or another. While environmentalists and industry officials argue, this provision of keystone is very important to consider, as it will alleviate dependence on oil from the Middle East—a place I think important to distance ourselves from economically. Now, while some argue that the pipeline will have little effect on foreign crude oil imports and that events in the Middle East will have a significant impact on U.S. energy markets, regardless of where the nation’s oil imports originate, let’s take a realist’s perspective on this.

Oil, like alcohol, as Homer Simpson put it, is the cause of all of life’s problems. However, unlike alcohol, as Homer Simpson put it, it is not also the solution. Oil, especially in the Middle East, has been a major catalyst for numerous conflicts over the years, including the Gulf War and the Sudanese Conflict that has taken millions of lives, with deadly repercussion still in effect today. While it is important to join hands, sing kumbaya, and hope that our governments will start investing in sustainable energy research, let’s face it, our politicians all suck; they are corrupted by the hold energy companies have on our governments, and keep pushing an environmentally sustainable future further and further into the horizon. While the Keystone pipeline may not be a step in the right direction, it’s definitely not a step in the wrong direction. It’s more of a step down a path through a dark, eerie forest, probably filled with a bunch of things that try to kill you, but that ultimately doesn’t lead off a cliff.

Lazarus, remaining customary with the calm, collectiveness Swedish people are known for, says, “looking at the demand-supply interaction is something energy economists do and modelers do all the time, but usually at a global level. What is not done sufficiently is to look at the implications of individual actions, policies, programs and investments…It’s important to look at the incremental impact of all sorts of actions No particular action is going to be individually that large.” Wise words, though none of them address what’s really been irking me: my loathing towards Alberta and all the free taxes they get because of the oil sands revenue. Now there’s a reason to fight Keystone! Nobody gets exempt from sales tax on my watch; we all need to suffer equally.

Maybe we should start looking towards Iceland, a country that uses hydro and geothermal power for nearly all its energy, for sustainable energy inspiration. Yeah, that’s what Canada needs, a few volcanoes.

Keystone's Environmental Impact May be Four Times Higher. Oops? (external - login to view)
 
petros
+2
#2
Quote:

“It didn’t appear that they looked at the market implications,” said Erickson, “if the Keystone pipeline were to enable a greater rate of extraction of the oil sands, would that not increase global fuel supplies, which might then decrease prices and therefore allow a little bit more global consumption?”

No. How f-cking retarded are Swedes? Good thing we have Swedes to be proxy morons for 'Mericans.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Keystone’s Environmental Impact May be Four Times Higher.

Bigger is always better.

Fact
 
Grievous
No Party Affiliation
#4
I say build the pipeline.


Just not anywhere near me.
 
petros
+2
#5
Yeah make it bigger so it can be all oil sands synthetics instead of synthetic, sweet, heavy and kerogen all at once.

Do the Swedes know it's a multi sourced, multi grade pipeline?

Mentalflaws didn't know that or he'd say "heeeeey, wait a second, these guys are clueless, I'm not going to post bullsh-t just to be called on it".

Quote: Originally Posted by GrievousView Post

I say build the pipeline..


Just not anywhere near me.

It's okay fagro. The world passes you by already, you'd never notice.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+3
#6  Top Rated Post
When I lived in Quesnel, the smell of pulp mills was obnoxious and acrid. It could eat the paint off cars but people referred to it as the "smell of money." I see many here think the same way about oil and pipelines. Must be all those exhaust fumes have rotted their brains.
 
petros
#7
After the first couple days you can't smell it. Try again.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

After the first couple days you can't smell it. Try again.

I wonder if Cliffy is aware that pipelines do not vent fumes into the open air.
 
petros
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I wonder if Cliffy is aware that pipelines do not vent fumes into the open air.

Ohhh I doubt that. Why bother knowing?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#10
Bizarre logic if it can be called that in the OP. A better line of thought would be that if people outside of North America quit breed in like flies there would be no need to increase oil production.

And the ones that are alive now should aspire to live in caves and eat twiggs and berries instead of attempting to gain a North American lifestyle.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+1
#11
I am not in favor of this pipeline in the least. It exports raw product to be refined and sold
on the international market providing jobs and bigger profits. Profits that should go the us
by having us tell the greenies to get lost and build the refinery in Canada.
Not against more oil consumption I am against giving away good jobs for Canadians and
not giving away Canadian jobs and profits
 
Walter
+1 / -1
#12
Four times zero is still zero.
 
petros
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

I am not in favor of this pipeline in the least. It exports raw product to be refined and sold
on the international market providing jobs and bigger profits. Profits that should go the us
by having us tell the greenies to get lost and build the refinery in Canada.
Not against more oil consumption I am against giving away good jobs for Canadians and
not giving away Canadian jobs and profits

It's not raw. It's upgraded and stripped of the value added goodies. There is no money in a finished fuel because it would have to be diluted with slickum which would have 1/2 the volume evaporated or piped back in a duel line like northern gateway.

The only reason this line is delayed is the volume of kerogen on the 'Merican portion and Obama wants more. Waaaaay more than what was agreed upon

Look this sh-t up as suggested over the past three yearsl

If you're not going to bother researching what is really going on, why bother posting nonsense?
 
mentalfloss
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Four times zero is still zero.

 
petros
#15
Nice meme. Did it fix your f-ck up?

How come you and the Swedes never knew the line had several types of crude and sources?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

How come you and the Swedes never knew the line had several types of crude and sources?

Ideologues don't worry themselves with those little details
 
petros
#17
How can people be so f-cking stupid?
 
mentalfloss
#18
Keystone pollution may be four times estimates: study

The controversial Keystone XL pipeline could result in four times more greenhouse-gas emissions than previously thought, according to a new study by researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute.

U.S. State Department findings earlier this year that the pipeline would make no significant difference failed to account for an increase in the amount of oil on the market as a result of the proposed infrastructure, the study says.

Such an increase could reduce oil prices, spur consumption and lead to more emissions, write researchers Michael Lazarus and Peter Erickson.

The co-authors used existing data from previous research and international agencies that mathematically illustrate the way oil prices affect consumption.

“We find that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline could lead … to an increase in global GHG emissions four times as big as prior analyses have concluded,” the study says.

This finding—developed here using a simple supply and demand model—points to the need for greater availability and transparency of oil supply and demand analyses," it says.

Canada's government claims the study's conclusions were derived from false assumptions, according to The Canadian Press.

Ottawa “agrees with the U.S. State Department analysis that Keystone XL will be safer and less emitting than alternative options,” according to an email from Natural Resources Canada quoted by the news agency.

According to the study, Keystone XL’s yearly carbon impact could reach 110 million tonnes versus the State Department’s largest estimate of 27 million tonnes.

The Stockholm Environment Institute is a non-profit, international research group based in Sweden whose work receives both public and private support.

Keystone pollution may be four times estimates: study | MINING.com (external - login to view)
 
Locutus
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Nice meme. Did it fix your f-ck up?

How come you and the Swedes never knew the line had several types of crude and sources?

 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Keystone’s Environmental Impact May be Four Times Higher. Oops?
Well, the Americans tasked with calculating the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline may have been a bit off in their calculations, two buttons off to be exact: the multiplication button and the number four. But hey, that’s what we have Swedes for! Peter Erickson and Michael Lazarus, researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute, published findings that the U.S. State Department’s original calculations missed. The State Department believe that the oil sands pipeline wouldn’t make a significant difference in the picture, but they missed a major source of greenhouse gas emissions that, unfortunately, involves the economy, the environment’s middle school bully that keeps reappearing latter in life.
“It didn’t appear that they looked at the market implications,” said Erickson, “if the Keystone pipeline were to enable a greater rate of extraction of the oil sands, would that not increase global fuel supplies, which might then decrease prices and therefore allow a little bit more global consumption?”
Yes, that does make sense, and this is coming from a guy who is by no means an expert it any of this (though it does seem that the experts that were in charge of planning this multibillion dollar, environmentally delicate project did happen to gloss over this seemingly clear and paramount part of the research). Lazarus says that the pipeline’s capacity would...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Of course if the oil comes from the middle east there would be no pollution. Right?
 
mentalfloss
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Of course if the oil comes from the middle east there would be no pollution. Right?

Wrong?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Wrong?

SO then how can oil coming down the Keystone pipe create any more pollution than oil from any other source?
 
mentalfloss
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

SO then how can oil coming down the Keystone pipe create any more pollution than oil from any other source?

It's not?
 
petros
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

SO then how can oil coming down the Keystone pipe create any more pollution than oil from any other source?

The proxy morons from Sweden say so.
 
mentalfloss
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The proxy morons from Sweden say so.

This is a false statement.
 
petros
#26
What types of crude are slated to go down XL and from where Flawssy?

Any idear?
 
B00Mer
Republican
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What types of crude are slated to go down XL and from where Flawssy?

Any idear?

Heavy crude oil, that's the reason they are sending it to Houston, TX one of the very few refineries that can process that sh*t.

So here my question to you, what refinery will it be sent too and will the oil be used for domestic use or be shipped off to a different country.

In short, is it just Big Fat cats making a profit at the expenses of the environment, once again.. or will there be some benefit to the US public for taking this risk. ie. lower fuel prices.
 
mentalfloss
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What types of crude are slated to go down XL and from where Flawssy?

Any idear?

You are misrepresenting the study.

It wasn't comparing the two sources of oil.
 
petros
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Heavy crude oil, that's the reason they are sending it to Houston, TX one of the very few refineries that can process that sh*t.

So here my question to you, what refinery will it be sent too and will the oil be used for domestic use or be shipped off to a different country.

In short, is it just Big Fat cats making a profit at the expenses of the environment, once again.. or will there be some benefit to the US public for taking this risk. ie. lower fuel prices.

Sorry BOOMer. SK and AB heavy crude is just one of around ten raw and finished products to go down XL.

Sorry about Houston, you have a problem.

The first heavy oil upgrader in North America is in Regina and heavy has been refined here for 75+ years. The fat cats raking it are the people of SK who funded, built and own the upgrader while a second one built right beside the very first one sits awaiting East/West and XL and another will be built when those lines are running.
 
B00Mer
Republican
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Sorry BOOMer. SK and AB heavy crude is just one of around ten raw and finished products to go down XL.

Sorry about Houston, you have a problem.

The first heavy oil upgrader in North America is in Regina and heavy has been refined here for 75+ years. The fat cats raking it are the people of SK who funded, built and own the upgrader while a second one built right beside the very first one sits awaiting East/West and XL and another will be built when those lines are running.

They are shipping heavy crude south.. so what is the benefit to he US public, if they just ship it back out of the country..

Please, what are the names of the Heavy Crude refiners in Western Canada. Link to your source.

Keystone XL Pipeline | (external - login to view)
 
no new posts