7 Facts That Weren’t In The New State Department Report On Keystone XL

[kristopher]

7 Facts That Weren’t In The New State Department Report On Keystone XL
BY RYAN KORONOWSKI ON JANUARY 31, 2014 AT 4:36 PM

The State Department released its final supplemental environmental impact statement on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline on Friday. Critics and supporters of the pipeline alike have awaited the report, ever since President Obama last year singled out carbon pollution as a parameter in Keystone’s national interest calculation.

The newly-released report admits to the obvious: that “the total direct and indirect emissions” of the project “would contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions.” But in its final analysis, it says the proposed pipeline is “unlikely to significantly affect the rate of extraction in oil sands areas,” and does not look at the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the tar sands oil that would flow through it.

The pipeline’s prospects remain a mystery, much like they were when the draft environmental impact statement was released last year: it still says that the pipeline is not a big deal, will not appreciably increase carbon pollution, and will not have a significant environmental impact. But the report does not consider a scenario in which smaller amounts of tar sands oils are extracted, transported, and consumed. Every single scenario measured in it assumes that a Keystone XL-sized amount of tar sands oil will get burned.

But there are seven important facts that the state department’s survey left out:
1. Keystone XL, Not Rail, Is the Only Feasible Option
The final EIS says that “rail will likely be able to accommodate new production if new pipelines are delayed or not constructed.” This argument is also put forward by supporters, and essentially says that if the tar sands oil will not be exported via this pipeline, it will just be shipped away via railway — meaning approval of the project will not result in significant carbon pollution increases. Yet an analysis by Reuters’ Patrick Rucker found that rail transport is too expensive and just is not feasible. Industry officials we very skeptical about adopting crude-by-rail as an alternative, meaning that oil companies with a stake in the dirty tar sands deposits see Keystone XL as essential to getting that oil to market.

2. KXL’s ‘Alternative,’ Shipping Oil by Pipeline or Rail, Is Dangerous

.....

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/31/3231991/keystone-national/

[defacto7]

1. K & R