Keystone XL pipeline won’t add to greenhouse gas emissions

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
And another Thread on Keystone XL P/L !
And more copy/paste.

---------------------
In the absence of the pipeline, IHS CERA's study says, U.S. Gulf Coast refiners would replace expected deliveries of diluted bitumen from Alberta with heavy oil from Venezuela, which has roughly the same emissions intensity as the Canadian crude.

"If gulf refiners cannot access Canadian heavy oil, the most likely alternative is Venezuelan supply, which is projected to grow based on ongoing investments," the study states. Currently the majority of supply on the U.S. Gulf Coast comes from Venezuela, followed by Mexico, it notes.

"Venezuelan heavy oil -- and Venezuela -- would be the No. 1 beneficiary of a negative decision on Keystone," the study says.

The study says in the absence of the Keystone XL, Canadian oil sands will still find a way to market, either through pipelines traveling exclusively through Canada and not requiring U.S. government approval, or through the increasing use of railcars to ship the heavy oil.

"Given sufficient investment, our view is that the economics for moving heavy oil sands crude by rail could improve further, even approaching pipeline economics," the study states.

"Consequently, even without the Keystone XL pipeline, we believe that oil sands production would grow at a similar rate. Therefore [greenhouse gas] emissions will be unaffected by the fate of Keystone XL."

Read more at Keystone XL pipeline won’t add to greenhouse gas emissions: Consultant-T.TRP-Stockhouse news

I don't see why Obama has to get involved with this decision, once all environmental issues and approvals have been passed, it should be a business decision made by those with skin in the game. There is no government money involved here so Obama should just buzz off!!