This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Why Approving Keystone XL Was A No-Brainer

Robert Rapier's picture
Proteum Energy

Robert Rapier is a chemical engineer who works in the energy industry. Robert has over 20 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy...

  • Member since 2018
  • 724 items added with 199,799 views
  • Mar 10, 2022
  • 730 views

Some readers won’t get past the headline before rendering the opinion that I obviously don’t care about climate change. That is false. My views on climate change are entirely compatible with the points I am about to make.

In fact, my points are also compatible with the views of the Biden Administration. Just this week at a press briefing, in response to questions about restricting Russian oil imports, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said “We don’t have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy and that would raise prices at the gas pump for the American people around the world because it would reduce the supply available.”

Read that last bit again, and think about what canceling Keystone XL actually does. It reduces the supply available. So let’s talk about the strategic interest in ensuring that we get the oil we need from friendly sources — while simultaneously working to reduce the need for that oil.

People often admit to me that the Keystone XL itself wasn’t that important. Stopping it was more about what Keystone XL represented. This is a good point. I am going to argue the opposite. The arguments I am going to make here aren’t specific to Keystone XL, but are rather about what it represented — a strategic insurance policy with negligible downside.

First, I don’t believe Keystone XL would make a material difference when it comes to global carbon emissions. I have actually quantified this (source). Using the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline from the US State Department, I calculated that in the worst case, a completed Keystone XL could increase annual global carbon emissions by 0.07% by 2030.

In an alternate scenario where the oil finds its way to market via alternate pipelines, the carbon emission difference was 0.007%. We can’t even measure carbon emissions to that level of accuracy, so this is effectively zero.

As I wrote in the previous article, I always thought the win-win scenario was to build the pipeline, and then work hard to reduce demand for oil and ensure that the pipeline is never needed. But if it is needed, it’s there.

Why Canceling Keystone XL was the Wrong Decision

Let’s consider four scenarios:

  1. Build the pipeline and we don’t need it
  2. Build the pipeline and we need it
  3. Don’t build the pipeline and we need it
  4. Don’t build the pipeline and we don’t need it

The first scenario is that TC Energy (formerly TransCanada) builds the pipeline, but aggressive actions to combat climate change render it unnecessary. This means a private company took a risk, spent billions of dollars, hired a lot of Americans and used a lot of American resources, and the bet ultimately didn’t pay off. In this case TC Energy was the loser, but there was a significant economic benefit to the U.S.

The second is that the pipeline is built, and we find that when it is completed that the U.S. is still a net importer of crude oil. In this case, the oil that Keystone would have provided is just going to displace some other oil from somewhere else. We will be getting more oil from a friendly ally (and more domestically as well) and less from the global markets. Based on Jen Psaki’s comments this week, the Biden Administration should like either of these two scenarios.

The third scenario is that the pipeline isn’t built, but we find that demand for oil imports still exists when it would have been completed. Then we have a situation like we have today, where we are importing oil from countries that in many cases have foreign policies that are hostile to the U.S. There was this naïve belief that if Keystone XL was blocked, then the oil wouldn’t be produced. If the demand is there, the oil still going to be produced. It’s just going to come from places like Russia, and some of it will be transported via more carbon intensive (and more dangerous) methods like truck and rail.

The final scenario is that the pipeline isn’t built, but oil demand has declined and it isn’t actually needed. The main winner there is TC Energy, who saved billions not building the pipeline. The main losers are the U.S. workers and industries that would have supported building the pipeline.

In none of these scenarios does building Keystone XL dramatically increase U.S. oil consumption, nor does blocking it dramatically decrease U.S. oil consumption. Building could have helped alleviate dependence on overseas oil if that dependence still existed upon completion. Not building it could increase dependence on foreign oil.

It Was Also a Political Mistake

That leads me to the final reason this was a big mistake. The average person isn’t going to do a deep dive into the reasons that gasoline prices have spiked. They are going to see that spike, and look for an easy scapegoat. Even though canceling Keystone XL has no bearing on the current gasoline price spike, for many people it seems like basic common sense that it must have had an impact.

When I am discussing gasoline prices with people, inevitably someone will blame the cancellation of Keystone XL. That’s totally inaccurate, but the appearance is there superficially. I will say that in a few years, the failure to have Keystone XL in place could be a contributor to higher gasoline prices. If the demand is there, and it is more expensive to ship oil from Russia, for example, then gasoline prices are going to be higher.

Many environmentalists will acknowledge that, and say this is just fine with them. Higher gasoline prices should lead to more conservation. That’s true, but it also leads to losing elections, and the loss of the ability to pursue your agenda.

Ultimately, canceling Keystone XL was about sending a message. But when you weigh the actual impact versus the political impact that many got from the message, it was just the wrong decision to cancel it.

Finally, this entire analysis doesn’t even consider the $15 billion TC Energy is seeking in damages from the U.S. government for the cancellation of the project under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement. If they are awarded damages, then the decision changed what would have been a positive for the economy into a significant net negative.

Follow Robert Rapier on TwitterLinkedIn, or Facebook.

Robert Rapier's picture
Thank Robert for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Graeme Tychsen's picture
Graeme Tychsen on Mar 12, 2022

Dear Mr Rapier humankind is faced with managing its psyche, now in sweeping and jostling scope. Humankind's ingenuity is often overwhelmed by its entailing pivotal incapability, which is the flaw of fossil power, highlighted by your article. If the application, of effort, required for current power supply, was no more than rearranging sand grains on the beach, probably nothing further would arise. The modern world is built on, maintained on, and run on colossal power, at fingertips, taken for granted, that is, not really comprehended, changing Earth itself. Despite the phenomenal ingenuity in extracting and burning for today's power, it is not an exercise, the production of such power, in such way, that imparts the capability, of maximum control by humankind, the bedrock for such vast power use. The strictly scientific US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to which nothing is close to be within its infinite shadow, of a more than weighty economic burden, to protect and safeguard the US economy, and thus housed by the US Dept of Commerce, warns and warnings bind to be heeded, and no one but no one is in a position to not comply, the warning, there is no scope for any expansion of fossil power. While time is spent on the pros and cons of the pipeline, noting that as a matter of fact the pipeline's emissions harm may be neutral it diverts from the main effort required, apart from other environmental concerns of Earth groaning under relentless demands made on it. And it is not at all clear there is another power world. This is not in support of the fossil one, which the body says is not possible.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »