Avalon gets $2.5 million from Sibelco to advance non-JV projects
The companies are partners on the Separation Rapids lithium project in Kenora, Ontario, which is currently in the drilling stage.
The controversial Keystone XL pipeline could result in four times more greenhouse-gas emissions than previously thought, according to a new study by researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute.
U.S. State Department findings earlier this year that the pipeline would make no significant difference failed to account for an increase in the amount of oil on the market as a result of the proposed infrastructure, the study says.
Such an increase could reduce oil prices, spur consumption and lead to more emissions, write researchers Michael Lazarus and Peter Erickson.
The co-authors used existing data from previous research and international agencies that mathematically illustrate the way oil prices affect consumption.
“We find that approval of the Keystone XL pipeline could lead … to an increase in global GHG emissions four times as big as prior analyses have concluded,” the study says.
“This finding—developed here using a simple supply and demand model—points to the need for greater availability and transparency of oil supply and demand analyses,” it says.
Canada’s government claims the study’s conclusions were derived from false assumptions, according to The Canadian Press.
Ottawa “agrees with the U.S. State Department analysis that Keystone XL will be safer and less emitting than alternative options,” according to an email from Natural Resources Canada quoted by the news agency.
According to the study, Keystone XL’s yearly carbon impact could reach 110 million tonnes versus the State Department’s largest estimate of 27 million tonnes.
The Stockholm Environment Institute is a non-profit, international research group based in Sweden whose work receives both public and private support.
3 Comments
nobody24
How absurd, more oil on the market = lower prices… and this means more pollution?
I realize greens are not too bright, but do they actually believe if keystone is NOT built the oil sands will “go away” ? Hmmm maybe if I believe in something, the greens would “go away”…. nope, doesn’t work either way, the oil sands are Not going away, and, unfortunately greenmorons and fear-mongers aren’t going away either
OwainS
It strikes me that this argument would apply to ANY new source of energy coming onto the market that displaces a traded commodity, renewables included.
If this line of reasoning is carried through, then renewables won’t reduce carbon emissions nearly as much, and will take a lot longer to replace fossil fuels. Implying that the only quick way to cut carbon emissions would be a severe supply side squeeze. Don’t see that policy getting cheered on by many people.
Swedesforkeystone
Let the clowns in Stockholm (hey man, let’s toke another one) have their way. Let’s get rid of anything that emits green house gas emissions, cars, rail, buses, trains and airplanes.
So, in essence back to the horse and buggy – perfect! By the way, how much greenhouse gas does a horse produce in a day?
Last, travel to Sweden and see the “green” hole that it is.