Hydrocarbon Processing Copying and distributing are prohibited without permission of the publisher
Email a friend
  • Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.



Study: Keystone XL pipeline would not impact US greenhouse gas emissions

08.09.2013  | 

According to the new IHS study, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would have “no material impact” on US GHG emissions. In the absence of the pipeline, alternate transportation routes would result in oil sands production growth being more or less unchanged, the study says.

Keywords: [oil sands] [pipeline] [greenhouse gas] [heavy oil]

According to the new IHS study, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would have “no material impact” on US GHG emissions. In the absence of the pipeline, alternate transportation routes would result in oil sands production growth being more or less unchanged, the study says.

The study also found that any absence of oil sands on the US Gulf Coast (the destination for Keystone XL) would most likely be replaced by imports of heavy crude oil from Venezuela, which has the same carbon footprint as oil sands.

The pipeline's potential impact on GHG emissions has been the subject of increased focus. President Barack Obama's June 25 climate address indicated that the relative emissions related to increase Canadian oil sands processing in US markets resulting from the pipeline are key criteria for the United States' decision whether to approve the project.

The new IHS CERA Canadian Oil Sands Dialogue study agrees with the conclusions of the US State Department's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Keystone XL that says oil sands production is expected to continue at similar levels regardless of whether Keystone XL goes forward. IHS currently expects oil sands production to grow from 1.9 million barrels per day (MMbpd) in 2013 to 4.3 MMbpd in 2030 and does not expect the Keystone XL decision to have a material impact on the production outlook.

The IHS study points out that 3 MMbpd of additional oil sands pipeline capacity (not including Keystone XL) is currently proposed. Eighty percent of this proposed alternate capacity travels exclusively through Canada—connecting the oil sands with Canada's west and east coasts—and thus would not require U.S. government approval.

Even if pipeline capacity were to lag behind oil sands growth, the study says that transportation by rail is expected to play an ongoing role and that greater investment could make rail more economic to a level approaching that of pipelines.

The study found that with sufficient scale and investment the additional cost of transporting oil sands by rail to the US Gulf Coast rather than by pipeline could be lowered from today. If heavy oil sands producers were to invest in improved rail efficiencies, the economics could be within $6/bbl compared to pipeline (for each barrel of oil sands produced). This would place rail well within the break even range for most oil sands production. One source of improved economics could come from shipping oil sands bitumen in its pure state. A lack of pipeline capacity would incentivize such added investment.

The study also found that, were oil sands not to be shipped to the US Gulf Coast, it would result in little to no change in overall GHG emissions. The region—which contains 50% of total US refining—has a large capacity to process heavy crude. This means that crude oils of similar GHG intensity would continue to be refined in the absence of oil sands, the study says.

Venezuela is currently the largest single supplier of heavy crude to the US Gulf Coast and would be the most likely alternative source of heavy crude supply absent oil sands. IHS research has found Venezuelan heavy crude to have a similar range of life-cycle GHG emissions as oil sands imported into the United States.

“Venezuelan heavy oil—and Venezuela—would be the number one beneficiary of a negative decision on Keystone,” the study says.

The complete study is available at the oil sands dialogue website,



Have your say
  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
    All fields are compulsory.

Alfred Gonzalez
08.19.2013

Tom:

Dilbit poses no extra pipeline risk

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3234751/Search/Dilbit-poses-no-extra-pipeline-risk.html?Keywords=diluted+bitumen

Tom Harris
08.16.2013

Sorry, but the IHS study results are both incorrect and too easy for pipeline opponents to defeat (and I say this as an XL supporter). Consider this:

IHS study concluded: http://press.ihs.com/press-release/energy-power-media/ihs-study-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-have-no-material-impact-us-gre "August 8, 2013) –The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would have “no material impact” on U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to a new IHS study. In the absence of the pipeline, alternate transportation routes would result in oil sands production growth being more or less unchanged, the study says.

BUT THIS ASSUMES THE ENVIRO ACTIVISTS ARE UNSUCCESSFUL AT BLOCKING GATEWAY, THE EAST/WEST (ENERGY EAST) LINE, RAIL EXPANSION AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION OF BITUMEN FROM THE OIL SANDS, ALL OF WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS IN JEAPORDY RIGHT NOW DUE TO ACTIONS OF ENVIRO ACTIVISTS. ONE COULD USE THE IHS ARGUMENT FOR GATEWAY OR ANY OF THE OTHER TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND THAT WOULD BE EQUALLY NAIVE I WOULD SAY FOR THE SAME REASONS. Remember, climate campaigners are out to kill all transportation methods between the oil sands and refineries and, at the rate they are going, they have a good chance of succeeding.

IHS also say that they "found that any absence of oil sands on the U.S. Gulf Coast (the destination for Keystone XL) would most likely be replaced by imports of heavy crude oil from Venezuela, which has the same carbon footprint as oil sands."

YES, BUT IF KEYSTONE XL IS BUILT, ONE OF THE BENEFITS, SO THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SAY (ALTHOUGH OTHERS DISPUTE THIS) IS LOWER GAS PRICES IN THE US, WHICH MAKES SENSE OF COURSE AS EXPANDING SUPPLY USUALLY LOWERS PRICES. WITH LOWER PRICES, CONSUMPTION WILL LIKELY RAISE AND SO WILL CO2 EMISSIONS.

In the IHS report itself at http://www.ihs.com/images/CERA-Insight-Keystone-Emissions-Aug-2013.pdf it says, "The most likely alternative USGC heavy oil supply is Venezuelan crude which is in the same GHG emissions range as oil sands. Consequently, if oil sands were not consumed in the Gulf Coast, there would be little to no change in the overall GHG intensity of the US crude slate." THIS IS NAÏVE AS WELL.

Comments welcome.

Tom Harris
International Climate Science Coalition
www.climatescienceinternational.org

Related articles

FEATURED EVENT

GasPro North America

Sign-up for the Free Daily HP Enewsletter!

Boxscore Database

A searchable database of project activity in the global hydrocarbon processing industry

Poll

Should the US allow exports of crude oil? (At present, US companies can export refined products derived from crude but not the raw crude itself.)


68%

32%




View previous results

Popular Searches

Please read our Term and Conditions and Privacy Policy before using the site. All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws.
© 2014 Hydrocarbon Processing. © 2014 Gulf Publishing Company.