Posts tagged “Keystone XL”
I started to go with “Fiddling While Rome Burns” in the title, but I know many people who would take great exception to the notion that the Keystone XL protesters are fiddling. Indeed, they do not believe they are fiddling. They believe they are standing up for the most important cause of our generation. Yet, as I argue in this column, the fire in Rome is burning faster than ever. Except in this case, Rome is China and what they are burning is coal.
In my most recent column – Why Environmentalists are Wrong on Keystone XL – I argued that the level of attention environmentalists are devoting to stopping the Keystone XL pipeline expansion is grossly disproportionate to the impact that the project can possibly have. I provided some numbers to support my argument, and observed that those opposing the pipeline are generally making emotional arguments.
As if to emphasize that point, the comments and emails that I got from people who were unhappy with my article were almost exclusively emotional in nature. Comments like “this post is dumb” and “we have to stop the dirtiest, filthiest oil on the planet” were typical. But nobody challenged the numbers. CONTINUE»
If not for the US government’s latest demonstration of incompetence that played out at the end of last week (a.k.a. sequestration), the top news story might have been a report issued by the US State Department late Friday.
The report was the Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline project, and it was unwelcome news for environmentalists who have been protesting the crude pipeline extension that would link Canada’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
It may seem arbitrary, given the large number of oil and gas pipelines that already criss-cross the US, that this particular one has generated such a high profile debate around energy security and the environment. But this debate isn’t really about a pipeline. This pipeline isn’t going to make or break the development of Canada’s oil sands, nor — as I will show here — is it going to make a measurable difference with respect to climate change.
Normally when I list the Top 10 stories of the year, I close the post by making predictions for the upcoming year. For 2012, my predictions were:
- President Obama will easily win reelection, which means that energy policies will likely continue along the current trajectory.
- The Keystone Pipeline project will be approved (although that decision may still slide into 2013).
- Natural gas prices will remain low, averaging below $5/MMBTU for the year.
- Oil prices — both West Texas Intermediate and Brent — will average above $100/barrel in 2012.
- We will look back on the fact that Newt Gingrich was once the leading Republican contender for president and have a good laugh about it.
Those predictions were correct for the most part. The first and third were correct, I believe the second will ultimately be correct, the fourth was mixed (Brent averaged above $100 and WTI averaged about $94), and the 5th just depends on one’s personal opinion. In my opinion, it is correct.
However, when I listed the Top 10 Energy Stories of 2012 — as voted upon by readers — I failed to list my predictions for 2013. So here they are:
- Brent and WTI crude prices will both average less in 2013 than in 2012.
- The Brent-WTI price differential — which has widened substantially in the past two years — will narrow in 2013.
- The average annual price of natural gas — as measured by the Henry Hub Gulf Coast Natural Gas Spot Price — will be higher than in 2012.
- The Obama Administration will approve the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline.
- US oil production will continue to grow (but at a slower pace than in 2012), reaching the highest level since 1995.