Skip to footer

Is the Keystone XL pipeline worth it?

The Keystone XL pipeline gains new endorsements as environmental opposition grows. Putting ecological implications aside for a moment, is the Keystone XL pipeline, and the tar sands production that goes with it, a good financial investment?

|
Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press/AP/File
A Nexen tar sands facility is shown near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. Are investments in the Keystone XL pipeline and other tar sands projects, worth the time, energy and money it takes to make so-called "unconventional" oil conventional?

[Editor's note: This piece was updated on Feb. 28, 2013 to change "synthetic oil" to "synthetic crude oil" in the third paragraph.]

The Keystone XL pipeline has garnered support from the governor of Nebraska, more than half the US Senate and – as of Monday – the Business Roundtable, a group of prominent business leaders.

The pipeline would increase domestic production and give Canada open access to world energy markets, the association of chief executive officers of leading US companies said in a report Monday.

Although major business leaders support the pipeline, it's not so clear that they would invest in it. The Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry synthetic crude oil from Canada's tar sands to Texas refineries, is vulnerable to a downturn in oil prices. The crude it carries has smaller profit margins than conventional oil or even so-called tight oil from shale formations. 

So while those tar sands (also known as oil sands) make money at current prices, it's outlook is more iffy if oil prices fell – or if a big carbon tax was enacted.

The reason is that tar sands projects have to consume a lot of energy to create energy. Using an energy accounting method called "energy return on energy invested" or EROEI, economist Robert Rapier at Consumer Energy Report has calculated that tar sands have an EROEI of 2.9/1. That means it takes a gallon of gasoline to create 2.9 gallons of gasoline. By contrast, a conventional light, sweet oil well can create about 6 gallons of gasoline for every 1 gallon of gasoline is uses.

Their break-even point is somewhere between $60 and $100 a barrel, according to Wood Mackenzie, an Edinburgh-based energy consultancy. The range is so wide because it depends on the extraction method and scope of the tar sands project.

With West Texas Intermediate crude trading above $90 a barrel so far this year, the prospects look encouraging. But when prices briefly tumbled below $80 a barrel last summer, it tested the resolve of investors backing tar sands projects and put the future of some projects in question. It was a reminder of the uncertain economics of tar sands production.

“Oil sands projects display some of the highest break-evens of all global upstream projects,” according to a June 2012 report by Wood Mackenzie. “The potential for wide and volatile differentials could result in operators delaying or cancelling unsanctioned projects.”

Writing in the Motley Fool last October, Aimee Duffy warns of the rising production costs and dropping oil prices, but says there is still promise in Canada's oil sands.

"Canada is still a very strong market, with plenty of potential," Duffy wrote. "However, these are real risks that should be monitored, and investors must be careful banking on an industry that isn't as straightforward as perhaps it has been in the past."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Is the Keystone XL pipeline worth it?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0227/Is-the-Keystone-XL-pipeline-worth-it
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe