State Dept. report favors U.S.-Canada oil pipeline

[lostinblue 1,989]

WASHINGTON — The State Department today removed a major roadblock to a planned $7 billion oil pipeline from western Canada to the Texas coast in a report that says the project is unlikely to cause significant environmental problems during construction or operation.

The thousand-page report on the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline says no significant problems have emerged since a similar report was issued last year.

Calgary-based TransCanada wants to build a massive pipeline to carry crude oil extracted from tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas. The pipeline, which would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, would carry an estimated 700,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada. Supporters say it could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

The project has become a flashpoint for environmental groups who say the pipeline would bring “dirty oil” that requires huge amounts of energy to extract and could cause an ecological disaster in case of a spill. Opponents of the pipeline have urged the Obama administration to block the project as a sign he is serious about protecting the environment.

Several hundred activists, including actress Margot Kidder and prominent scientists, have been arrested in recent days in protests outside the White House. Organizers say the protests are the largest acts of civil disobedience centered on the environment in many years.

TransCanada maintains that the project would create tens of thousands of jobs and would be built to strict environmental standards, including 57 conditions above those required by law.

For example, the company has agreed to build much of the pipeline 4 feet below ground, instead of the usual 3 feet. Depths will increase to 25 feet below ground at several hundred river crossings along the proposed route, which passes through the Ogallala Aquifer, an environmentally sensitive formation that provides groundwater to eight states in the Great Plains.

TransCanada also said it will allow an increased number of inspections and install a greater number of safety shut-off valves than usual.

The State Department report cites those conditions as among the reasons for its confidence in the project. The report endorses the current proposed route, which has drawn criticism from officials in Nebraska and other states as environmentally risky.

Kerri-Ann Jones, an assistant secretary of state, said the report was “not a rubber stamp for this project,” adding, “No decision has been made.”

The report, the third environmental analysis submitted by the State Department since last year, kicks off a 90-day review of whether the project is in the “national interest” before a final decision is issued by the end of the year.

If approved by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the pipeline could be completed in 2013. The department has authority over the project because it crosses an international boundary.

In in its analysis, the State Department dismissed concerns from environmental groups that the pipeline would increase emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Canada’s oil sands are likely to be developed with or without the pipeline, the report said, making concerns about climate change moot.

“There are alternatives to the pipeline to move that potential fuel around” to other locations, Jones said, including barges, railways and tanker ships.

The American Petroleum Institute said the report brought the pipeline one step closer to reality. Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said the pipeline would “bring American consumers a sure and steady supply of oil from our close friend and neighbor Canada.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council said the final report still “lacks a number of in-depth safety and pollution studies.” The NRDC said the report failed to critically review pipeline safety issues, added pollution to refinery communities, alternative routes and the impact to wildlife.

“Once again, the State Department has failed to do its homework, and they’re leaving the American public to suffer the consequences,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, the NRDC international program director. “It is utterly beyond me how the administration can claim the pipeline will have ‘no significant impacts’ if they haven’t bothered to do in-depth studies around the issues of contention. The public has made their concerns clear and the administration seems to have ignored them.”

Casey-Lefkowitz added the pipeline would leave a “dirty legacy that will haunt President Obama and Secretary Clinton for years to come.”

James Hansen, a NASA scientist who was an early crusader against climate change, said allowing the Keystone XL pipeline would be like accepting a dirty needle from a fellow oil addict, Canada.

“If Obama chooses the dirty needle it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing all along, with no real intention of solving the addiction,” he said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WASHINGTON — Crude oil from western Canada began flowing through a controversial pipeline in Kansas last week.

Supporters say that construction of the Keystone Pipeline — which flows down through the Dakotas and Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma — provided an economic boon, producing money and jobs.

But in Kansas, local officials along the pipeline's path think that the state sold them out — unnecessarily — to get the pipeline. Because of an exemption the state gave the company that owns it — Alberta-based TransCanada — the local officials won't see a dime in property taxes from the project for a decade, a loss they estimate at $50 million in public revenue.

"If we had that pipeline on the tax rolls this year, we could have cut our levy by 30 to 40 percent," said Dan Holub, a county commissioner in Marion County, Kan. "Rural counties don't have much of a tax base and a whole bunch of expenses. We've got 1,600 miles of road. People have got to be able to get to them."

Supporters of the pipeline deal counter that the company will owe taxes for 90 years after the abatement expires. They said the project also would help the state's shrunken oil industry.

But questions persist about whether TransCanada used the power of eminent domain improperly.

It used eminent domain to obtain an easement through Greg Roles' 160 acres of wheat and soybeans in Clay Center, Kan. He resisted TransCanada's $15,000 offer and now is suing the company in a case that could end up before the Kansas Supreme Court on appeal after he lost in district court.

"I'm the only guy who has tried to stand in front of them," he said. "I know I'm the only guy in Kansas. This deal just isn't right. Where are our elected officials?"

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/13/108558/canada-pipeline-deal-too-costly.html?storylink=MI_emailed#ixzz1WI8Y7yjq

[luckytxn 2,264]

No wonder the refineries have been in expansion this last year and are starting the hiring. Well that and the shale formations.

[scandal 951]

No wonder the refineries have been in expansion this last year and are starting the hiring. Well that and the shale formations.

Oh, yes, and the Hitler/Stalin voting bloc. Let's not forget them, that has something to do with it too. I think. Or, wait, maybe it's the obese tree-hugging global warming nuts. I get so confused. Being the inept moron idiot Socialist, and all. Maybe you can straighten me out. I'm sure you can. You do have all the answers, after all.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Oh, yes, and the Hitler/Stalin voting bloc. Let's not forget them, that has something to do with it too. I think. Or, wait, maybe it's the obese tree-hugging global warming nuts. I get so confused. Being the inept moron idiot Socialist, and all. Maybe you can straighten me out. I'm sure you can. You do have all the answers, after all.

Always glad to help.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

WASHINGTON — The State Department today removed a major roadblock to a planned $7 billion oil pipeline from western Canada to the Texas coast in a report that says the project is unlikely to cause significant environmental problems during construction or operation.

The thousand-page report on the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline says no significant problems have emerged since a similar report was issued last year.

Calgary-based TransCanada wants to build a massive pipeline to carry crude oil extracted from tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas. The pipeline, which would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, would carry an estimated 700,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada. Supporters say it could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

The project has become a flashpoint for environmental groups who say the pipeline would bring “dirty oil” that requires huge amounts of energy to extract and could cause an ecological disaster in case of a spill. Opponents of the pipeline have urged the Obama administration to block the project as a sign he is serious about protecting the environment.

Several hundred activists, including actress Margot Kidder and prominent scientists, have been arrested in recent days in protests outside the White House. Organizers say the protests are the largest acts of civil disobedience centered on the environment in many years.

TransCanada maintains that the project would create tens of thousands of jobs and would be built to strict environmental standards, including 57 conditions above those required by law.

For example, the company has agreed to build much of the pipeline 4 feet below ground, instead of the usual 3 feet. Depths will increase to 25 feet below ground at several hundred river crossings along the proposed route, which passes through the Ogallala Aquifer, an environmentally sensitive formation that provides groundwater to eight states in the Great Plains.

TransCanada also said it will allow an increased number of inspections and install a greater number of safety shut-off valves than usual.

The State Department report cites those conditions as among the reasons for its confidence in the project. The report endorses the current proposed route, which has drawn criticism from officials in Nebraska and other states as environmentally risky.

Kerri-Ann Jones, an assistant secretary of state, said the report was “not a rubber stamp for this project,” adding, “No decision has been made.”

The report, the third environmental analysis submitted by the State Department since last year, kicks off a 90-day review of whether the project is in the “national interest” before a final decision is issued by the end of the year.

If approved by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the pipeline could be completed in 2013. The department has authority over the project because it crosses an international boundary.

In in its analysis, the State Department dismissed concerns from environmental groups that the pipeline would increase emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Canada’s oil sands are likely to be developed with or without the pipeline, the report said, making concerns about climate change moot.

“There are alternatives to the pipeline to move that potential fuel around” to other locations, Jones said, including barges, railways and tanker ships.

The American Petroleum Institute said the report brought the pipeline one step closer to reality. Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said the pipeline would “bring American consumers a sure and steady supply of oil from our close friend and neighbor Canada.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council said the final report still “lacks a number of in-depth safety and pollution studies.” The NRDC said the report failed to critically review pipeline safety issues, added pollution to refinery communities, alternative routes and the impact to wildlife.

“Once again, the State Department has failed to do its homework, and they’re leaving the American public to suffer the consequences,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, the NRDC international program director. “It is utterly beyond me how the administration can claim the pipeline will have ‘no significant impacts’ if they haven’t bothered to do in-depth studies around the issues of contention. The public has made their concerns clear and the administration seems to have ignored them.”

Casey-Lefkowitz added the pipeline would leave a “dirty legacy that will haunt President Obama and Secretary Clinton for years to come.”

James Hansen, a NASA scientist who was an early crusader against climate change, said allowing the Keystone XL pipeline would be like accepting a dirty needle from a fellow oil addict, Canada.

“If Obama chooses the dirty needle it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing all along, with no real intention of solving the addiction,” he said.

Given that much of the pipeline infra already exists to be "branched from"--a little fact which escapes (or is suppressed by) many of those who make much noise on "enviro impact", no surprise.

:thumbs: I'm for it!