It would seem that President Obama gave a tacit approval of the Keystone XL pipeline yesterday saying he would NOT approve the pipeline if it would “significantly exacerbate” the problem of climate change. The U.S. State Department’s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, finds that, “approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast Area.”

The final determination will rest on the President’s use of the phrase “significantly exacerbate.” While the phrase is very ambiguous, CEA’s analysis of the relevant environmental impact statements shows the project will not significantly contribute to U.S. carbon emissions.

During the construction period, GHG emissions from these sources and activities would be approximately 240,423 metric tons of CO₂e. Emissions during the operation of the proposed project would be approximately 3.19 million metric tons of CO₂e per year.” [ES-15]

All this discussion comes at a time when U.S. carbon emissions are around 5.2 billion metric tons, which is the lowest level in 20 years. This means that once constructed, annual greenhouse gas output from the pipeline will account for 0.0613% of U.S. carbon emissions.

Moreover, denying the pipeline would force refineries to continue to import heavier crudes from Mexico, Venezuela and potentially the Middle East. The GHG transport footprint of a barrel of oil from each of these importing countries is significantly higher than the transport footprint of oil imported from Canada.

Transporting crude from:

• Mexico is 13% more GHG intensive than transporting Canadian
• Venezuela is 26.4% more GHG intensive than transporting Canadian
• Nigeria is 90.5%  more GHG intensive than transporting Canadian
• Saudi Arabia is 194% more GHG intensive than transporting Canadian

What is the President’s definition of “significantly exacerbate?” Will he call for additional studies of the GHG emissions associated with the project? Will the administration rely on the already-completed GHG analysis of the project?

The National Academy of Sciences released a new report today, Special Report 311: Effects of Diluted Bitumen on Crude Oil Transmission Pipelines, refuting many claims that Diluted Bitumen or Dilbit from Canadian oil sands will corrode pipelines.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the bitumen imported into the United States is derived from Canadian oil sands. Canadian bitumen is both mined and recovered in situ using thermally assisted techniques. A large share of the bitumen deposits is too deep for mining, so in situ recovery accounts for an increasing percentage of bitumen production. Because mined bitumen does not generally have qualities suitable for pipeline transportation and refinery feed, it is processed into synthetic crude oil in Canada. Bitumen recovered in situ with thermally assisted methods has lower water and sediment content and is thus better suited to long-distance transportation by pipeline than is mined bitumen. Bitumen imported into the United States is produced in situ through thermally assisted methods rather than by mining. (Page 71)

Some critics claim that Canadian oil sands is different from conventional crude oil.  The National Academy report disputes this claim as well:

The dilution process yields a stable and fully mixed product for shipment by pipeline with density and viscosity levels in the range of other crude oils transported by pipeline in the United States. (Page 72.) 

The good news for people who are concerned about the safety of the Keystone XL pipeline is the National Academy study has similar findings to earlier studies.

TransCanada, the company building KXL points out on its blog:

Studies by petroleum chemical experts have also concluded that diluted bitumen behaves the same as other forms of crude oil and does not lead to more corrosion in pipelines. A study released earlier this year by the U.S.-based Batelle Memorial Institute concluded that “diluted bitumen poses no more of a corrosion risk to pipelines than conventional crudes.” Similarly, a study by Alberta Innovates found that diluted bitumen may actually be less corrosive to steel pipelines than conventional crudes. And an international standards organization has also concluded the same based on new research involving scientists from Natural Resources Canada.

Consumer Group Warns of Economic Impact of Price Spikes

Houston, TX – Consumer Energy Alliance’s Executive VP Michael Whatley released the following reaction to the proposals outlined in President Obama’s “Climate Change Action Plan.”

“Any proposal needs to be evaluated in terms of its impacts on American energy consumers as electricity costs can be a major drag on both household budgets and the bottom lines of farms, factories and businesses.”

Michael Whatley is a former Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Climate Change.

Consumer Energy Alliance will work with its over 300,000 grassroots members and 200 member companies in evaluating the proposal and making recommendations that best serve America’s energy consumers.

Consumer Energy Alliance President, David Holt, sits down and answers consumer questions. Shawn from Texas wants to know, “We hear a lot about natural gas, but that won’t help fill up my gas tank. Why do we need to drill for it?”

A few tips for you from the folks at DailyWorth.com:

A good way to cut down on your spending is to gradually target different expenditures. Lowering your energy bill is a nice option — not only is it a monthly expenditure, but you can also do some good for the environment while saving money. Here are some suggestions for reducing your electricity usage and costs:

1. Unplug when not in use. Even when they’re not in use, your electronics can still eat up electricity as long as they’re plugged in — yes, even chargers that aren’t connected to anything. There are many items we don’t think about unplugging, including microwaves, digital picture frames, and more. Even though the power lost by these “vampire” electronics may not be much, everything adds up.

2. Use a power strip. Get a power strip and try to plug as many electronics as you can into it. That way, it won’t be as arduous to individually shut off or unplug each appliance. You can turn them all off with one flick of the switch or unplug the power strip from its outlet to completely stonewall the “vampire” electronics.

3. Energy audit. An energy audit may be helpful in figuring out the problem areas in your home that you may be unaware of. The auditor will help advise you on how you can reduce energy consumption and how to ramp up efficiency when heating and cooling houses.

4. Replace your bulbs. Replace your lightbulbs with energy-efficient ones to save energy and money. An energy-efficient bulb uses 75 percent less energy than a traditional incandescent bulb and lasts six times longer.