Questão nº 20
Questão de Língua Inglesa · CESGRANRIO ANP 2016 (nº 20)
Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline
Why Keystone XL Is DeadPresident Obama announced Friday morning that he has denied TransCanada's permit application to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline in the U.S.
"The State Department has decided that the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interest of the United States," Obama said. "I agree with that decision."
Obama said America is a global leader on taking action on climate change, and approving Keystone XL would have undercut that leadership. Some crude oil needs to be left in the ground to keep the climate from warming further, and rejecting Keystone XL will help meet that goal, he said.
Among the reasons for rejecting Keystone XL, Obama said the pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to the U.S. economy, nor would it increase U.S. energy security or help to lower gas prices, which have already declined dramatically over the last year.
TransCanada said in a statement that it "would review all of its options in light of a permit denial for Keystone XL," including the possibility of filing a new permit application for a pipeline.
"TransCanada and its shippers remain absolutely committed to building this important energy infrastructure project," TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said in a statement.
State Department officials said at a news conference Friday that TransCanada is free to apply for a new permit to build a cross-border pipeline and it is up to the company to do so.
The $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline was slated to stretch 1,179 miles from east-central Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast. It would transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the Canadian tar sands to refineries near Houston. Proposed in 2008, the 875-mile section between the Canadian border and Steele City, Neb., needed State Department approval because it crossed an international border.
Other parts of TransCanada's Keystone Project between central Nebraska and Texas have already been built and are carrying tar sands oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast today. Environmental advocates have rallied against the unbuilt portion and urged the Obama administration to reject it, saying emissions from the production and burning of tar sands oil it would carry could worsen climate change.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated that the tar sands oil the pipeline would carry is highly damaging to the climate, emitting about 1.3 billion more tons of greenhouse emissions over the pipeline's 50-year lifespan than if it were carrying conventional crude oil. The production of tar sands oil releases 17 percent more CO2 into the atmosphere than the average barrel of crude oil produced elsewhere, according to the State Department.
"Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would be inconsistent with stabilizing global warming below dangerous levels," Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann said. "I am pleased that the administration has made good on their promise to take seriously the task of acting on climate by rejecting the construction of the pipeline."
After reading the 10th paragraph of the text (lines 48-56), one can infer that
- Athe pipeline would release 1.3 billion tons of greenhouse emissions in 50 years if it carried tar sands oil.
- Bthe pipeline would release 1.3 billion tons of greenhouse emissions in 50 years if it carried conventional crude oil.
- Cthe pipeline would release the same volume of greenhouse emissions in 50 years no matter what kind of oil it carried.
- Dgreenhouse emissions would be increased in about 1.3 billion tons in 50 years if the pipeline carried tar sands oil. (alternativa correta)
- Egreenhouse emissions would be increased in about 1.3 billion tons in 50 years if the pipeline carried conventional crude oil.
Resposta comentada
Gabarito Alternativa D
Conceito-chave: A pegadinha está na diferença entre "emitir 1,3 bilhão de toneladas" (total absoluto) e "aumentar em 1,3 bilhão de toneladas" (diferença extra). O texto diz que o óleo de areias betuminosas (tar sands) emitiria 1,3 bilhão de toneladas a mais do que o petróleo convencional ao longo de 50 anos — ou seja, é um acréscimo, não o total emitido.
- (A) Incorreta: Afirma que o total emitido seria 1,3 bilhão de toneladas, mas o texto fala em aumento (diferença) em relação ao convencional, não no total absoluto.
- (B) Incorreta: Erra ao atribuir o aumento de 1,3 bilhão ao petróleo convencional, quando o texto diz que o tar sands é que causaria esse acréscimo.
- (C) Incorreta: Contradiz o texto, que afirma explicitamente que o tar sands emite 17% mais CO2 que o convencional, logo os volumes não seriam iguais.
- (D) Correta: Reproduz exatamente a informação do 10º parágrafo: a EPA calculou que o tar sands elevaria as emissões em ~1,3 bilhão de toneladas a mais em 50 anos, comparado ao petróleo convencional. A banca trocou "emitiria" por "seria aumentado em" para testar se você lê com precisão.
- (E) Incorreta: É o distrator mais tentador, pois inverte o sujeito: o aumento de 1,3 bilhão não se aplica ao convencional, mas sim ao tar sands. A armadilha é você ler rápido e associar "1,3 bilhão" a "convencional" por estar no final da frase, sem notar que o texto compara os dois tipos de óleo.
Fonte: CESGRANRIO ANP 2016 Conhecimentos Comuns (Técnico em Regulação). Reproduzida para fins de estudo.