With the recent decline in gas prices, a review by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that construction of the Keystone XL pipeline could cause increased development of Canadian oil sands, which would result in a considerable rise in greenhouse gases.
“Until ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of oil sands are more successful and widespread … development of oil sands crude represents a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” EPA assistant administrator Cynthia Giles wrote in a letter to the State Department, which is reviewing the project.
EPA findings could influence whether President Barack Obama vetoes or approves the pipeline, which would carry about 800,000 barrels of oil each day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. The White House said Obama would veto any law attempting to force approval of Keystone XL, and the president has said a significant contributing factor to his decision would be the pipeline’s impact on climate change.
The EPA said constructing Keystone XL could increase emissions to more than 27 million metric tons a year, which is equivalent to building about eight coal-fired power plants, The Guardian reported.
“I think that in their careful way, they are pointing out that this does fail the president’s climate change test,” Tiernan Sittenfeld, a senior vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, said of the EPA review, according to The New York Times. “We think these comments are a big deal, and they make us more confident that the president is going to reject this dangerous pipeline.”
In Giles’ letter to the State Department, she wrote that the process of extracting oil from Canadian oil sands emits 17 percent more greenhouse gas pollution than is released in the extraction of conventional oil. However, the review also noted that oil would probably be extracted regardless of whether or not the pipeline is constructed. Furthermore, it concluded that oil would be transported by rail without Keystone XL.
Giles also acknowledged that oil prices will probably rise in the long term, but “given the recent declines in oil prices and the uncertainty of oil price projections, the additional low price scenario included in the Final S.E.I.S. [supplemental environmental impact statement] should be given additional weight during decision making, due to the potential implications of lower oil prices on project impacts, especially greenhouse gas emissions.”
At the same time, because oil prices have fallen, the EPA said producers are less likely to pay to move oil by rail.
“Construction of the pipeline is projected to change the economics of oil sands development and result in increased oil sands production, and the accompanying greenhouse gas emissions, over what would otherwise occur,” the agency stated.
Washington-based industry lobbying group American Petroleum Institute said the letter was just an excuse to delay the decision.
“Suggesting that the drop in oil prices requires a re-evaluation of the environmental impact of the project is just another attempt to prolong the KXL review,” Louis Finkel, executive vice president of the the group, said in a statement.
Whether or not the pipeline pulls through is now in the hands of Obama.
The Republican House is likely to pass a Senate bill next week to approve Keystone XL and avert the State Department review, although supporters don’t appear to have the necessary votes to override a veto, Bloomberg reported.
(With reports from Bloomberg, The Guardian and The New York Times)
