iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Keystone Pipeline: Democrats Seek Halt To Permitting Process

Keystone Pipeline

First Posted: 06/01/11 09:38 PM ET Updated: 08/01/11 06:12 AM ET

Nearly three-dozen Democratic members of Congress appealed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson this week to halt all permitting consideration for a contentious pipeline that would link oil reserves in Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf coast.

In a letter led by Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, the lawmakers argued that the environmental assessments prepared by the State Department for the project -- known as the Keystone XL expansion -- have so far proven woefully inadequate and that questions raised by lawmakers over the last year have been ignored.

Because the pipeline would cross the border into the United States from Canada, the State Department must issue a so-called "Presidential Permit" for the project to proceed.

"We just don't believe there's been enough of an investigation or study done to make sure that this project is environmentally and economically appropriate and favorable to the people of the United States," Cohen told The Huffington Post. "We're just asking that the State Department and the EPA do a study that's in compliance with the law."

The letter comes just two weeks after Republicans in the house floated a draft measure that would have a decision on the Keystone permit expedited by no later than November 1, 2011.

"The development and delivery of oil and gas from Canada to the United States is in the national interest of the United States," the draft bill declares, "in order to secure oil supplies to fill needs that are projected to otherwise be filled by increases in other foreign supplies, notably from the Middle East."

The State Department prepared an initial Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone project in April 2010, and after criticism from environmental groups, members of Congress and the EPA, it published a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project a year later.

In this week's letter, the Democratic lawmakers argue the new draft still falls short, and with the 45-day public comment period on the document coming to a close on Monday, they seek to scrap the permitting process entirely until a more thorough environmental vetting can be done.

Among their requests:

-- Analyze the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Keystone expansion, including the significantly higher emissions that come with tapping Canada's tar sands.

-- Work with the Department of Energy to determine whether the Keystone pipeline expansion is necessary and in keeping with the nation's goal of reducing oil imports.

-- Examine alternate routes for the pipeline, including those that avoid environmentally sensitive areas like the Sandhills region of the Ogallala Aquifer.

-- Allow for a full 120 days of public review, and hold field hearings in each state where the pipeline would pass.

Should any of these requests be granted, it is almost certain that any permit approval would be delayed well into 2012.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Nearly three-dozen Democratic members of Congress appealed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson this week to halt all permitting conside...
Nearly three-dozen Democratic members of Congress appealed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson this week to halt all permitting conside...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 458
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
11:13 AM on 06/05/2011
BEING A DEMOCRAT, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THESE PEOPLE ARE AGAINST INCREASING THE OIL SUPPLY. SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT COMPETITION--COULD IT BE THE US CONTROLLED OIL COMPANIES? MORE SUPPLY SHOULD MEAN LOWER PRICES.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
DANIELISTICALL
HISTORY IS BUT A FABLE AGREED UPON,,NAPOLEON
06:26 PM on 06/05/2011
there are only two american oil companies,,,,Haliburton and brown and root
photo
steve11407
pending approval and won't be displayed until ...
11:17 PM on 06/03/2011
This should play well with the everyman voter giving up eating out or weekend recreation to buy gas.
01:58 AM on 06/03/2011
God made man, in his image, and gave him stewardship of the environment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William J Unverferth Sr
Snark attack.
07:43 AM on 06/03/2011
... don't forget mastery of it as well. "And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Not all translations have replenish that is mostly the KJV. But they all have mastery.
12:53 PM on 06/03/2011
Stewardship requires replenishment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anne Mccormick
09:03 PM on 06/02/2011
here's the thing. China is making moves on the Tar Sands in Alberta. China has been roaming around the world securing access to any available oil it can get its hands on. i doubt the people in Alberta really care who buys their oil; China or the United States.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/chinas-big-move-into-alberta/article1532062/
06:16 PM on 06/07/2011
Here's the thing. Tarsands oil and gasoline refined from tarsands oil can go to China from the Gulf Coast just as easily as from British Columbia. So why should we enable that by allowing a Canadian company to condemn a couple thousand miles of land for this pipeline?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindstr7
07:32 PM on 06/02/2011
Considering Koch brothers' efforts to push back regulation on environmental responsibility, we can be sure that any issues that WILL arise from this pipeline will not be addressed in a responsible manner. They'll just form a new "grass roots" "movement" and call it something like American's for Responsibility, or Progressives for Progress. Something that means completely the opposite of what their true intent is.
photo
CTDFalconer
Think twice, post once.
06:48 PM on 06/03/2011
You can bet they already have plans in place.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindstr7
11:38 PM on 06/03/2011
Refreshing to get a reply from a person of sound mind today. Its been a tough day swatting the sock puppets posing as disaffected Obama supporters. I feel like Obama girl (my cape is shredded and my resolve is flagging). Big fan of yours btw.
05:22 PM on 06/02/2011
It doesn't matter democrat or republican, they need to use common sense and build the pipline less than 100 miles east of the proposed route. This would take it out of the aquifer. Transcanada already has a pipeline across Nebraska, but it's not in the middle of the aquifer, spend the money and make a little less profit next year and avoid contaminating the largest source of underground water in America. But common sense is lost with both the democrats or republicans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
04:59 PM on 06/03/2011
I was for it at first then I decided to be against it because Canada cannot get it to the world market the mid western refineries are getting a deal!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Danek Greori
03:13 PM on 06/02/2011
Are people really so self-involved and short-sighted as to condemn the Democrats for putting concern for the environment of our own country and drastic implications this project could have over whether or not the price of gas rises again?

Listen up people, oil is a non-renewable resource. Logic (and common sense) will tell you that prices are going to rise again and again, whether it's tomorrow or a month from now. So complaining about gas prices not being kept low is just an exercise in idiocy.

Constructing an oil pipeline that cover a sizable portion of the North American CONTINENT is something that is ill-advised at best, but regardless should be done with the highest level of criticism and scrutiny possible.
07:12 PM on 06/02/2011
Asiable portion of the of the NA continent? A 36' wide pipe running along unusable land is not exactly covering the continent. A solar farms generating a comparable amount of energy that the pipeline will carry would cover half the state of Kansas. Are you ready for that, plus the cost of the panels and oh, they have to be replaced in 15yrs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Danek Greori
09:12 PM on 06/02/2011
Sizable? From Canada to Texas, several thousands miles, yes that is sizable. Who mentioned a solar farm? This is about a pipeline that would be cutting through a large of two countries. Read the comment you're replying to more carefully next time before you go off ranting about things no one mentioned or addressed
12:59 PM on 06/03/2011
I had no idea you were a committee of one, who knows more than all the people working with energy companies about how to address the needs we the great unwashed: affordable energy.

Sorry, pal, I'll trust the genius, creativity and hard work of professionals to meet our energy needs, and that includes stewardship over our natural resources.

Hand it over to you and your committee, "the earth is finite!", NOTHING would ever get done, you'd spend all our resources on your "safety net", nothing on the risk, reward and growth of DEVELOPMENT, ie, the pursuit of happiness!
photo
CTDFalconer
Think twice, post once.
06:53 PM on 06/03/2011
You can't seriously be implying that petroleum is infinite? All the easy to get oil has been gotten. That's why we're even bothering to mess about with the horrifyingly problematic Alberta tar sand. There is no denying the fact that we have to figure out what comes after petroleum. The sooner the better.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindstr7
03:09 PM on 06/02/2011
Sign the Petition:

http://kochbrothersexposed.com/tellclintonno/
07:13 PM on 06/02/2011
Loon site
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindstr7
07:20 PM on 06/02/2011
Then you'll fit right in.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
05:03 PM on 06/04/2011
Maybe you can help me out. Where's a petition I can sign that says that the concerns regarding crude oil pipelines are totally overblown?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindstr7
05:23 PM on 06/04/2011
Look around on the Koch-funded websites, I'm sure you find tons, but they'll probably be found in one of the multitude of Koch's front groups....something like Americans for Responsible Resources or Americans for Clean Crude, or American's Who Are Suckers for the Koch Brother's Profit Wh0res Who Really Just Hate Liberal Minded People So We'll Vote for Anything They Oppose. Good Luck!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindstr7
03:08 PM on 06/02/2011
Finally this story is getting some coverage!

http://www.thenation.com/video/160862/koch-industries-tar-sands-pipeline-threatens-destroy-midwest-aquifer

Sign the petition to tell Clinton to STOP the pipeline:

http://kochbrothersexposed.com/tellclintonno/
07:18 PM on 06/02/2011
Oh gee, a private sector company making a profit? We can't let that happen. They are investing their OWN money not the taxpayers.....what a novel idea in the age of Obama.
btw..a piple doesn't run through an aquifer, but over a granite enclosed body of water deep underground.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindstr7
07:22 PM on 06/02/2011
When they keep their hands out of my politics, I'll keep my hands off their profits.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barrashee
02:21 PM on 06/02/2011
The Tea Party wants to starve the Goivernmnet, the Dems want to starve the economy--wonder what the GOP wants to starve? Ilegal immigrants?
Welfare families?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:07 PM on 06/02/2011
Why on earth would we want the most expensive and least quality crude available?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wsmith3023
Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin
03:00 PM on 06/02/2011
Because we used up all of the good stuff. We are addicted to oil in every facet of our lives. We don't want oil wells in our back yard. The US dollar has become worthless to many of our other importers.
We could continue to import the sour crude from Venezuela.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edy Kel
04:47 PM on 06/02/2011
We import most of our oil from Canada and Mexico. I'm not sure if we import oil from Venezuela, though. If we do, it would be very little.
07:20 PM on 06/02/2011
At $100 bucks a barrel, I wish I had one in my backyard
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William J Unverferth Sr
Snark attack.
07:49 AM on 06/03/2011
It's not that expensive compared to the purchase price, they still make a hefty profit. It's not the lowest quality crude by far and actually it's not that bad to refine. Lastly any time you increase supply it puts downward pressure on the market price. Only a fool would think that is a bad thing.
02:02 PM on 06/02/2011
Will the Dems stop at nothing to increase the price of gas?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:01 PM on 06/02/2011
Lol, so much polarity in every comment. And always a hate-spewing liberal to reply to each comment.
photo
Fnordpocalypse
THEY LIVE - WE SLEEP
03:37 PM on 06/02/2011
here, have some puppy dogs and fairy dust to make you feel better.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olitenup
01:08 PM on 06/02/2011
We need to become less dependent on oil/gas/coal and sooner the better.

Did anyone see the article where the Saudi prince iterated he wants oil prices to come down so Americans will stay dependent on oil and not develop alternatives?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wsmith3023
Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin
03:03 PM on 06/02/2011
We are repeating history. We went through this same exact scenario in the 70s. As you say, the saudis have us right where they want us. We will send every last penny we have to keep our cars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edy Kel
04:56 PM on 06/02/2011
Saudi does own a sizable amount of stocks in the US, and if they so chose to, could create havoc in our economy by cashing them out immediately. We saw a glimpse of what an act could do to our economy a few years back when thousands of foreign investor's cashed out their stock, making the whole financial crisis even worse, which led us to our current economic state.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rwextthoughts
slowly the swamp is draining
12:42 PM on 06/02/2011
these Dems want a ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAY public review,,,,,,120 days

Yet these same dems wouldn't put ObamaScare Healthcare on line for 72 HOURS,,,, AND PELOSI SAID THE BILL HAD TO BE PASSED SO WE COULD FIND OUT WHAT IS IN IT
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edy Kel
12:59 PM on 06/02/2011
Yes, Obamacare was based off of Romneycare, a republican version of the health care reform they passed. And now those very same Republicans, conservatives, who frightened people over Obama care, want to reform medicare by giving the elderly vouchers - I'm sure they'll get one "free to die one". Aren't they nice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wanderland
Generic white guy
02:00 PM on 06/02/2011
Developing massive tar sands mines and the associated pipeline have much more permanent and far-reaching consequences than any healthcare bill, which has yet to go into effect.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barrashee
02:23 PM on 06/02/2011
Its hard to imagine something more permanent than death.