"This seems like the study REQUIRES the assumption that Canada will process the tarsands regardless -
or it has a very real negative impact. It also seems that sentence is pretty inconclusive " will probably" is not that strong - and, from the first paragraph, IF Canada doesn't process the tar sands or processes less of it without the pipeline, this becomes an argument that doing this facilitates the production of oil 5 to 19 % higher than OTHER CRUDE. (Ie it is dirtier than regular crude, which is dirtier than natural gas and all the alternative technologies."
Agree. It seems like a series of jumping through hoops to minimize the downsides without really addressing the actual environmental impact.
"It would seem that as the cost of extracting addition oil increases, a point is reached where it is not profitable to do so. If the distribution cost increases, that point comes earlier. "
Yup, but the emphasis seems to be on the either or (rail or pipeline) scenarios when it's clear that if rail is more cost effective and safe (the report admits less spillage likely by rail), no one would be having this debate.
<...>
The State Department considered two scenarios. First, if the Keystone pipeline is blocked, and other proposed pipelines go forward, tar sands production in Alberta “could decrease by approximately 0.4 to 0.6 percent” by 2030. A fairly small drop.
Alternatively, if Keystone XL was blocked and
all of the proposed pipeline capacity out of Alberta were restricted, then tar sands production would drop by 2 to 4 percent by 2030.
That’s a real dip, albeit a small one. In that second scenario, we would see a decrease of somewhere between 0.07 to 5.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030. At the high end, that would be like taking one million cars off the road. But that’s also equivalent to just 0.07 percent of current U.S. emissions.
Environmentalists, for their part, are hotly disputing this section of the review. The Natural Resources Defense Council, for one, has argued (pdf) the climate impact of Keystone could be at least six times as large as the State Department’s estimate.
Other groups are skeptical that the oil will flow no matter what if Keystone is blocked. “Canadian tar sands exports are blocked to the west by tribes that won’t sell out their natural resources to Big Oil, and blocked to the east by the European Union’s declaration that it won’t buy dirty tar sands oil,” said Jim Lyon of the National Wildlife Federation. “Without access to major U.S. export terminals from Keystone XL and other routes, tar sands production will be substantially slowed.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/01/state-department-keystone-xl-likely-to-have-small-impact-on-climate-tar-sands/
= new reply since forum marked as read
