TribLIVE

| USWorld


 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

New 'pollutant' issue emerges in Keystone pipeline controversy

Daily Photo Galleries

By The Washington Post
Saturday, Jan. 19, 2013, 7:26 p.m.
 

With the State Department close to completing a new environmental impact statement on the revised Keystone XL pipeline plan, environmental groups are struggling to keep pressure on the Obama administration to block the 1,700-mile-long project that would link Alberta's oil sands to Texas coast refineries.

Last week, an advocacy group, Oil Change International, released a report that said estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands development failed to include emissions from a byproduct of refining oil sands crude — a coal-like substance known as petroleum coke.

When burned as fuel, petroleum coke — or petcoke — emits 5 to 10 percent more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than coal, the report by the Washington-based group says. And though some of the plentiful petroleum coke produced by oil sands upgraders or refineries is stored, much of it is sold at low prices to power plants or industry.

The report asserts that counting petroleum coke use would raise estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands development by 13 percent beyond earlier estimates used by the State Department.

The Oil Change International report isn't the first or only one highlighting petcoke.

Deborah Gordon, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who wrote about the petroleum coke issue in a December report, said that if Keystone XL begins moving diluted raw bitumen to the United States, “this co-product —which is essentially 90-plus percent carbon and a dirtier substitute for coal — can no longer be ignored.”

TransCanada dismissed the Oil Change International report as “the latest attempt by professional activists who oppose Keystone XL to change the discussion” and said that “there is nothing new in this document.” The company said that crude derived from oil sands was no worse than heavy oils from California, Mexico or Venezuela.

Supporters of the pipeline say that President Obama should approve the project anyway.

“It once again boils down to a political decision by the White House: Will they follow what's in the best interest of the country or will they follow other political pressures?” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute.

 

 
 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Nation

  1. Threat leads to evacuation of Sandy Hook school
  2. Murder charges dropped against sergeant who shot 2 unarmed Iraqi boys
  3. First Ebola case in U.S. confirmed in Dallas
  4. Secret Service chief endures blistering glare of Congress’ questions over White House breach
  5. Medical marijuana use to get court test in Colo.
  6. New York City mayor boosts city’s living wage to $13.13
  7. Panel says Wis. lawmaker likely broke House rules by advocating for companies in which he owned stock
  8. Search of unsecure federal labs finds vials of more deadly pathogens: Ricin, botulism, plague bacteria
  9. Security whips up service problems at CIA Starbucks
  10. Pentagon review puts Gitmo transfers on ice
  11. Feds say $100M in data hacked
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.