• 3 minutes e-car sales collapse
  • 6 minutes America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide
  • 11 minutes Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
  • 22 mins How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
  • 1 day Bad news for e-cars keeps coming
  • 13 days What fool thought this was a good idea...
  • 1 day The U.S. Is Determined to Revolutionize Its Microchip Industry
  • 11 days A question...
  • 15 days Why does this keep coming up? (The Renewable Energy Land Rush Could Threaten Food Security)
  • 16 days They pay YOU to TAKE Natural Gas
Robert Rapier

Robert Rapier

More Info

Premium Content

Keystone XL’s Miniscule CO2 Impact and the Bigger Picture

A Disproportionate Response

I had intended to write an article today outlining some potential solutions to the Midwest’s ethanol predicament, but some recent exchanges on Twitter prompted me to postpone that for a week.

The issue in question involves various comments I have made about the Keystone XL pipeline. I have argued that while Keystone XL has mobilized a lot of passion and energy, its threat is minuscule compared to the world’s growing carbon dioxide emissions from coal. Thus, I believe most of the effort being directed at stopping Keystone XL would be better directed at the world’s coal emissions.

Some took exception to this. Some who are spending their time and energy on Keystone XL argued that Keystone XL really is a big deal, while others noted that a heroic effort is being expended to combat coal consumption. So, I have done a few calculations to illustrate my argument.

Related Article: A New Oil Pipeline could be Devastating for the Railway Industry

The Warming Potential of the Athabasca Oil Sands

You may recall that a paper from the University of British Columbia estimated that burning the entire 170 billion barrel Athabasca reserve could raise global temperatures by 0.03°C. If you could actually burn all the oil in place, the calculated global temperature rise could be as great as 0.50°C. But you have to take into consideration the amount of time this would actually take. Even if Canada’s oil industry grew to 10 million bpd (putting it on par with Saudi Arabia and Russia), it would take slightly over 500 years to produce the 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in place. And that’s making the unrealistic assumption that you could produce all the oil in place.

Here is a more defensible assessment. In 2012, Canada produced 3.74 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil. The oil industry there has been increasing production by 3.1% per year over the past decade. At that growth rate, Canada could reach Saudi Arabia’s production level in 2045. If we assume that level of production could be maintained, it would take until 2070 to produce the 170 billion barrel Athabasca oil sands reserve. At that point, the temperature impact is estimated to be 0.03°C — not even measurable against the background noise.

Of course that’s also looking at the entire Athabasca reserve. Keystone XL’s impact would be a tiny fraction of that. But even if we assume the worst case — that Keystone XL is the only option that will enable the growth of the oil sands and that there will be no other routes out — we get a temperature impact so low that isn’t measurable six decades from now.

The Relative Carbon Dioxide Impacts

Now consider the carbon dioxide impact of oil sands versus coal. Per the US Environmental Protection Agency, consumption of a barrel of oil produces 0.43 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Oil sands are more carbon intensive to extract, adding an additional 17% to the overall carbon footprint of the barrel of oil. So let’s assume that consumption of a barrel of oil sands produces 17% more, or 0.50 metric tons of carbon dioxide per barrel. That means consumption of the 170 billion barrels of Athabasca oil sands could result in an additional 85 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere. For just Keystone XL, over the course of 30 years it would carry oil that would generate 3.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Make no mistake, that’s a lot. But it’s relatively small given the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, hence the small temperature impact.

Now, let’s compare coal. Again, using the same EPA reference, burning a metric ton of coal produces 2.56 metric tons of carbon dioxide. In 2012, the world consumed about 7.6 billion metric tons of coal, which means 19.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide was emitted. At that rate, the world’s coal consumption emits as much carbon dioxide as the entire Athabasca oil sands reserve every 4.4 years — and the global rate has been accelerating. Or, in terms of just Keystone XL, the emissions from 30 years of transported crude is equal to a bit over 2 months of global coal emissions.

In other words, during the past few years, while the Keystone XL protesters were marching on the White House, the world dumped an Athabasca-sized amount of carbon dioxide in the air from just coal. That’s why I say that the Keystone XL is a relatively minor issue. While our attention is focused on that, we are being buried in carbon dioxide from coal — and I am trying to call attention to that.

Rapidly Growing Asia Pacific Demand is the Driver

The primary source of new carbon dioxide emissions is the developing Asia Pacific region, which is where the majority of the world’s coal is consumed.

Related Article: Why Coal will Remain the Basis of Electricity Generation for Most of the World

Asia Pacific is on a trajectory for 50% of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2020

Asia Pacific’s energy consumption is on the rise across the board, and the region consumes nearly 70% of the world’s coal, and that number has been growing rapidly as countries in the region industrialize. To me this is the problem that requires immediate, undivided attention, yet it receives a fraction of the coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Disproportionate Threats


This should demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that Keystone’s XL’s threat — even the threat of the entire Athabasca reserve — is insignificant when placed up against coal. That doesn’t mean Keystone XL is undeserving of any attention, but I view this like a triage situation where the biggest threat should have the biggest focus. Coal can single-handedly obliterate the 2°C warming target agreed to under the Copenhagen Accord. Oil sands can’t. But while environmental groups have been fighting a battle to stop Keystone XL, the world has been losing a war against coal.

Disproportionate Visibility

The only outstanding item is whether Keystone XL does receive the bulk of the attention despite being a minor part of a much bigger problem. Some people vigorously protested my assessment, and suggested that this maligns many efforts going on to reduce coal consumption.

I don’t doubt that. I consider myself to be part of that effort. But how does one quantify this? It’s pretty subjective. But in the media, including in social media where environmental NGOs are very active, discussions of Keystone XL dominate. It is getting the lion’s share of the attention, partially because Keystone’s threat is being so grossly exaggerated. If people were as panicked over coal consumption as they are over Keystone XL, it would be a good start, but it deserves 100 times the attention of Keystone XL. It seems to me that Keystone XL has the laser-focus of environmental groups everywhere in a way that global coal consumption does not.

Rally the Troops for a Skirmish

Others will argue that the Keystone XL is part of a movement that will move on to bigger and better things, or that it is an easy symbol around which to rally forces. To that, I simply say that the clock is ticking. Don’t rally around a minor threat just because it happens to be the battle you think you can win. If you have a threat that can kill you, and one that can hurt you, my immediate concern is for the one that can kill me. Even if I succeed in rallying attention to the one that can hurt me, I may still die in the process.

By Robert Rapier

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Lee James on February 13 2014 said:
    I agree with Mr. Rapier that perhaps Keystone is not the Mother of all fossil fuels battles. I see it as a rallying point. We do need to turn some fossil fuels trains around.

    If an alien landed in the Alberta tar patch, what would it say? "What are they after down there, with all that heavy equipment? They stab the planet like mosquito Earthlings -- all for sand and clay... but its full of... tar!! No one wants to live around there now, but look at all the humans with colorful bowls strapped to their heads. -They'll never believe us back at base."

    I look at the entire unconventional oil gambit similarly. It is getting downright "Rube Goldberg." Process control is bound to slip with the onslaught of growing complexity: deep, deep underground and undersea, high pressures, copious fresh and contaminated water, bitumen that can't flow through a pipe... I wonder what it costs to do all that fancy extraction and processing?

    Cost and profits will be what 2014-15 are all about -- gallons of additional production, but at what cost? Unconventional petroleum is expensive -- expensive for operations and for only partially tallied environmental damage.

    Since mid-April of last year, the S&P 500 Energy sector began to trail the whole market, instead of lead it. Today, the trend is the same: lagging. Of the eleven (11) S&P sectors, Energy comes in next to the last for the last 12 months, and dead last for the last 3 months.

    For a whole host of reasons, it is time to accelerate transitioning to alternatives to fossil fuel. Alternatives include renewables and just plain managing and arranging our lives to live smarter.

    Back to the S&P 500. Look up "S&P Global Clean Energy Index." Clean energy pulled way ahead of the whole market and the fossil fuel sector last April. It may come down, but alternatives to fossil fuel are our sensible future.
  • jan on February 13 2014 said:
    There are many good reasons to say "no" to Keystone.

    The IEA estimates that Keystone would harvest 3 times the carbon that would take us over 2 degrees C, the absolute limit for a catastrophe we might survive. If we're lucky.

    See: "IEA acknowledges fossil fuel reserves climate crunch"

    We are warned by our most trusted messengers, such as NOAA, NASA, the Royal Academy of UK (SIr Isaac Newton was president), National Academy of Sciences (Einstein was a member) the World Bank, the IMF, American Academy of Pediatrics.
    Not industry hacks.

    And it would strip forests the size of Florida, forests that might have absorbed enormous quantities of CO2 before they were removed as "overburden". Would Keystone "replace" those forests? They say they will.

    Even 2 degrees itself may be too high - a "prescription for disaster" says Dr. James Hansen, chief climatologist at NASA (ret.)

    This is not a smart gamble - for ourselves our children and theirs.

Leave a comment

EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News