Letter | Published:

Impact of the Keystone XL pipeline on global oil markets and greenhouse gas emissions

Nature Climate Change volume 4, pages 778781 (2014) | Download Citation


Climate policy and analysis often focus on energy production and consumption1,2, but seldom consider how energy transportation infrastructure shapes energy systems3. US President Obama has recently brought these issues to the fore, stating that he would only approve the Keystone XL pipeline, connecting Canadian oil sands with US refineries and ports, if it ‘does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution’4. Here, we apply a simple model to understand the implications of the pipeline for greenhouse gas emissions as a function of any resulting increase in oil sands production. We find that for every barrel of increased production, global oil consumption would increase 0.6 barrels owing to the incremental decrease in global oil prices. As a result, and depending on the extent to which the pipeline leads to greater oil sands production, the net annual impact of Keystone XL could range from virtually none to 110 million tons CO2 equivalent annually. This spread is four times wider than found by the US State Department (1–27 million tons CO2e), who did not account for global oil market effects5. The approach used here, common in lifecycle analysis6, could also be applied to other pending fossil fuel extraction and supply infrastructure.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    , , , & Climate Change 2007: Mitigation (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  2. 2.

    & Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Assessment: A Guidebook Vol. 190 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995).

  3. 3.

    Building more just energy infrastructure: Lessons from the past. Sci. Cult. 22, 157–163 (2013).

  4. 4.

    Remarks by the President on Climate Change (Georgetown Univ., 2013);

  5. 5.

    Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project (US Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 2014);

  6. 6.

    & Implications of market-mediated emissions and uncertainty for biofuel policies. Energy Policy 56, 75–82 (2013).

  7. 7.

    World Energy Outlook 2013 (International Energy Agency, 2013);

  8. 8.

    The Climate Challenge: Achieving Zero Emissions (OECD, 2013);

  9. 9.

    & Effects of New Fossil Fuel Developments on the Possibilities of Meeting 2 °C Scenarios (Ecofys, 2012);

  10. 10.

    , & The supply chain of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18554–18559 (2011).

  11. 11.

    & Game theory and climate diplomacy. Ecol. Econ. 85, 177–187 (2013).

  12. 12.

    Letter to Jose Fernandez and Kerri-Ann Jones (US Department of State) : EPA Review of Department of State’s DSEIS for the Keystone XL Project (2013).

  13. 13.

    Microeconomics (Pearson Higher Education, 2007).

  14. 14.

    Understanding crude oil prices. Energy J. 30, 179–206 (2009).

  15. 15.

    & Shale oil impacting global markets. Oil Gas Financ. J. 10 (2013);

  16. 16.

    & The Impact of Powder River Basin Coal Exports on Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions (The Energy Foundation, 2013);

  17. 17.

    Price elasticity of demand for crude oil: Estimates for 23 countries. OPEC Rev. 27, 1–8 (2003).

  18. 18.

    , , , & Oil Price Developments (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2004);

  19. 19.

    Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels (US Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2008).

  20. 20.

    Getting Oil Out of Canada: Heavy Oil Diffs Expected to Stay Wide and Volatile 41 (Goldman Sachs Group Inc., 2013).

  21. 21.

    , & Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL) : A Potential Mirage for Oil Sands Investors (Carbon Tracker Initiative, 2013);

  22. 22.

    International Energy Outlook 2013 (US Energy Information Administration, 2013);

  23. 23.

    et al. CO2 emission mitigation and fossil fuel markets: Dynamic and international aspects of climate policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2013)10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.009

  24. 24.

    , , , & Fossil resource and energy security dynamics in conventional and carbon-constrained worlds. Climatic Change 123, 413–426 (2014).

  25. 25.

    Petroleum Production Under the Two Degree Scenario (2DS) (Rystad Energy, 2013);

  26. 26.

    , , & Can The US Get There From Here? Using Existing Federal Laws and State Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (World Resources Institute, 2013);

  27. 27.

    et al. Reconciling top-down and bottom-up modeling on future bioenergy deployment. Nature Clim. Change 2, 320–327 (2012).

  28. 28.

    , & Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J. Indust. Ecol. 18, 73–83 (2014).

  29. 29.

    Keystone XL Assessment (EnSys Energy & Systems Inc, 2010);

  30. 30.

    Reserves to Resources 2013: Oil, Gas and Coal Technologies for the Energy Markets of the Future (International Energy Agency, 2013).

  31. 31.

    Oil Insights: The Essential Oils of Brazil (CitiGroup Global Market Inc., 2013).

  32. 32.

    , & Biofuels for All? Understanding the Global Impacts of Multinational Mandates (Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue Univ., 2008).

  33. 33.

    Global 2014 E&P Spending Outlook (Barclays Equity Research—North America Oil Services & Drilling, 2013).

Download references


The authors would like to thank R. Plevin, T. M. Power and D. S. Power for their review and comments, M. Davis for her editorial acumen, and K. Tempest for his timely research support.

Author information


  1. Stockholm Environment Institute, 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, USA

    • Peter Erickson
    •  & Michael Lazarus


  1. Search for Peter Erickson in:

  2. Search for Michael Lazarus in:


P.E. and M.L. designed the research. P.E. designed and constructed the spreadsheet model. P.E. and M.L. analysed the results and wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Erickson.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history






Further reading