iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

State Department Moves Forward On Construction Of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline

Keystone Xl Obama

First Posted: 08/26/11 03:11 PM ET Updated: 10/26/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- The State Department on Friday released its final environmental assessment of the Keystone XL, removing a major barrier to the construction of the 1,700 mile oil pipeline, which would stretch from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast.

In a report consistent with the agency's earlier findings, the final Environmental Impact Statement found the proposed pipeline would have "no significant impact" to the vast majority of resources along the pipeline corridor, and suggested moving forward on the project with limited modifications.

Kerri-Ann Jones, assistant secretary of the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, emphasized that no final decisions have been made.

"This is not the rubber stamp for this project," Jones told reporters in a conference call on Friday. "The permit for this project has not been approved or rejected at all ... we will continue to have more discussion."

The department will open the discussion up to a public comment period, slated to run through early October, with public meetings in Texas, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Washington, D.C.

While refining oil from Canada's tar sands will generate significantly more greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of final product than the production of conventional oil, authors of the report argued that if the oil were not extracted by the Keystone XL, it would be transported to refineries by other means, including barges and tankers.

Further, according to the State Department's analysis, potential spills "would likely be limited." Another TransCanada pipeline known as the Keystone I has experienced 14 spills since it began operation just over a year ago, including one 21,000 gallon spill in Ludden, N.D.

While the Department's report "recognizes the public’s concern for the Northern High Plains Aquifer System," which supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska as well as 30 percent of water used in the U.S. for irrigation and agriculture, it found that "no sole-source aquifers, or aquifers serving as the principal source of drinking water for an area, are crossed by the proposed pipeline route."

Federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency -- which has already deemed the State Department's previous environmental assessments inadequate -- will also be consulted. Other issues to be considered include economic impact as well as foreign policy.

“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, international program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement Friday.

“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," she added. "The public has made their concerns clear and the administration seems to have ignored them. If permitted, the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be a dirty legacy that will haunt President Obama and Secretary Clinton for years to come."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will make a final decision on the project by year's end.

Read the full EIS report here.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- The State Department on Friday released its final environmental assessment of the Keystone XL, removing a major barrier to the construction of the 1,700 mile oil pipeline, which would st...
WASHINGTON -- The State Department on Friday released its final environmental assessment of the Keystone XL, removing a major barrier to the construction of the 1,700 mile oil pipeline, which would st...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 740
  • 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 »  (13 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stacy slay
I don't need no stinkin' badges.
12:44 PM on 09/07/2011
Here is a little history on you "climate expert"

Investor's Business Daily reports that a 1971 Washington Post scare piece entitled "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming" fretted that burning fossil fuels discharges particles into the atmosphere that reflect the sun's rays back into space. Emissions over 5–10 years supposedly "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

The NASA research behind this hysteria was supported by a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," the same guy who now refers to those who won't drink the global warming Kool-Aid as "court jesters."

And you huffpuffers wonder why normal people think you "science" is a scam.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
10:20 AM on 09/11/2011
Sorry to be blunt, but you have either been misinformed, or you are lying.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=11

"However, James Hansen wasn't an author of the Rasool paper and never made any ice age predictions. So what was his involvement? According to Investor Business Daily, "Aiding Rasool's research was a 'computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen'." [ UPDATE - James Hansen explains in more detail about his program used in Rasool's paper ] As Tim Lambert succintly puts it at Deltoid, "By their logic, if I borrow a pen from you, you must agree with everything I write with your pen."

James Hansen never predicted an ice age.

In fact, a small percentage - something like 5 out of 50 peer reviewed papers - predicted cooling. Publications like the Washington Post and TIME took the more sensationalist headline, and ran with what they thought would sell papers.

They are not valid sources of scientific information.

You seem to be committed to getting your science reporting from sources that SAY science is a scam - is it any wonder they report in such a way as to confirm their own bias? As long as you continue to use sources like that, you will continue to lie, intentionally or not.
09:14 AM on 09/03/2011
Can someone tell me what our National Strategic Energy Policy is? I want to know the goal and objectives of such policy. Strategic Policy generally means a 3-5 year plan which includes the sustainability and measured capacity of the policy.
11:57 AM on 08/30/2011
I recently heard a career petroleum engineer say that tar sands oil has more carbon to change climate and pollute the air and is more corrosive on pipelines. What is smart about that pipeline? It's all about $$$$$.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:48 PM on 08/30/2011
"career petroleum engineer"

"career" is the key word in that statement.
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
11:46 PM on 08/29/2011
I suppose the cancers induced by runoff into drinking water will also be "limited".

Who's first?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ao Escobar
I'm a guy, from a place, doing a thing.
06:48 PM on 08/30/2011
Tag your it
photo
CindyinFL
Hater Hunter!
10:06 PM on 08/29/2011
This would be news if for some reason the construction of the pipeline was stopped. Big oil wins again....nothing new here folks.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bon1042
09:04 PM on 08/29/2011
thank god for Germany !!!
04:26 PM on 08/29/2011
Great support for renewables in Germany

A new study shows wide support for energy transition toward renewables. According to the study, 94% of Germans say that the development of renewables is "important" or "very important". 65% say they would tolerate eco-power plants and facilities in close proximity.

As reasons for their approval, 4 out of 5 Germans name climate protection and safe conditions and possibilities for future generations. Other points include participation in energy supply (66%) or independence of energy imports (65%).

What I find especially encouraging is the awareness that the shift to renewables will come at some financial costs, and the willingness to shoulder them: 79.4% think that the EEG reallocation charge of 3.5 cents per KWh is "appropriate" or even "too low" (!).

Can't find an article in English yet, a German one is here:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,783173,00.html
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
11:35 PM on 08/29/2011
thank you so much. Drop the URL into http://translate.google.com
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
11:37 PM on 08/29/2011
F'd and Fav'd
04:25 PM on 08/29/2011
German 1st Half Renewable Power Production At Record High

FRANKFURT -- Renewable energy sources like wind or solar farms produced around 14% more electricity in Germany in the first half 2011 than in the same period a year-earlier, marking an all-time high, the country's energy industry association BDEW said Monday.

Renewable energies produced around 57.3 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, or 20.8% of Germany's total power output in the first six months of the year, the BDEW said in an emailed statement, citing its most recent preliminary estimates.

In the first six months of last year wind and solar farms, hydro electric and biomass power plants and waste incineration plants produced around 50.4 billion KWh, or 18.3% of the country's total power production during that period, the industry group said.

Wind power generation--by far the biggest source of renewable energy--rose 13.1% to 20.7 billion KWh, the BDEW said.

Photovoltaic solar power plants increased power production considerably to 9.7 billion KWh, up more than 76% on the year, due to the continued strong expansion of rooftop installations and a sunny spring, the BDEW said.

It also said that solar power production exceed that of hydro electric plants for the first time due to dry weather conditions.

http://de.advfn.com/news_German-1st-Half-Renewable-Power-Production-At-Record-High_48984079.html
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
11:44 PM on 08/29/2011
the amazing thing is that Germany is trying. And doing well at it. If USA actually lifted its own finger and stopped wallowing in Chinese loans they could easily surpass Germany's success.

Americans don't want it, sadly
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:07 PM on 09/26/2011
Americans are too busy listening to the main stream media owned by corporations. They don't have to think - others do it for them. If each of us called our representatives then there might be some chnge.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
g-moi
Let's GoGreen. We Can Do It.
02:57 PM on 08/29/2011
The proposed pipeline would have "no significant impact" to the vast majority of resources along the pipeline corridor

They thought the Gulf would be safe, and that the Exxon Valdez wouldn't leak and the list goes on and on until one day, there is no more water, there is no more air
02:22 PM on 08/29/2011
- Keystone will mean tens of thousands of jobs
- Significant reduction in the importation of middle east oil
- And a distribution system for untapped energy reserves in the Western US states. Estimates show these reserves have the potential to replace all foreign energy sources

OH MY GOD THIS MUST BE STOPPED...JOBS?...REDUCTION IN FOREIGN IMPORTS?...DOMESTIC ENERGY SOURCES?

OH MY GOD ... THE HORRORS
photo
Andy Hecker
Welcome to Eaarth
04:01 PM on 08/29/2011
Exciting! Please cite a source for these jobs? The best I can find from TransCanada is they expect 20,000 construction/manufacturing jobs while the pipeline is being run. None of those positions will be necessary once the pipeline is complete, as their other pipelines are controlled from a room in Houston.
http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/know_the_facts_kxl.pdf

In addition, the put the economic impact into perspective, TransCanada says the pipeline will be worth $20-Billion to the US economy. Remember that the US government is paying the oil and gas industry between $10- and $41-Billion per year in subsidies and tax breaks. Will we really notice the 'speed bump' in the economy from this pipeline build?
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/innovation_governance_energy.cfm
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year
04:16 PM on 08/29/2011
Priceofoil.org? environmental law institution? Gee Andy, is it possible those websites could perhaps ...just maybe...possibly have an agenda?

But I will play your game because I am smarter than you and certain to win.

One of my sources for the jobs and the economic impact is...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...Senator Max Baucus.

I will wait until you have time to go to www.imgreenandcompletelyinsaneandmakeupfactsandfigurestohidethedecline.com to find how the heck you are going to respond to Senator Max Baucus.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bon1042
08:59 PM on 08/29/2011
http://vimeo.com/27902739
01:28 PM on 08/29/2011
If you still drive stop complaining. The supply will be sucked to the very last drop as long as there is demand. It is up to us to change, not the government or the corporations. There is no such thing as alternative energy when the 'alternatives' create as much or more pollution in development/manufacturing including getting rid of the non-alternative then keeping the non-alternative which is true about everything from hybrid cars to solar panels. The solution is simple, but you don't want it. If you do, you know what to do and it has nothing to do with what governments and corporations are or are not doing.
photo
soitgoes12
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself
01:47 PM on 08/29/2011
"alternative energy when the 'alternatives' create as much or more pollution in development/manufacturing including getting rid of the non-alternative then keeping the non-alternative"

This statement proves you know nothing about Tar Sands or Mountain top removal
02:12 PM on 08/29/2011
Why? Because you think I'm defending those things? My point is that it's up to us, as the consumers of this culture to take responsibility.
09:50 PM on 08/31/2011
Are you aware of what he's referring to?
Does anyone know how much energy cost there is in creating a solar panel, or a wind turbine? Or the horrible chemicals that go into making a Prius or electric car battery/powercell? Or the extra amount of electricity which must be generated at a source a thousand miles away to power that "plug-in" carbonless car?
I've never even seen anyone run a study on these, and I suspect people are afraid to learn the answers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bon1042
08:44 PM on 08/29/2011
that's right... but have you noticed that the facts on the Keystone XL pipeline project is being blacked out in the mainstream news media !! The very large majority of American citizens know NOTHING about this pipeline.

The ONLY news I've seen on it was late last week on MSNBC with Chris Hayes filling in for Lawrence O'Donnell's The Last Word. Chris interviewed Bill McKibben. And it's ironic since Chris Hayes is with The Nation Magazine the first progressive news magazne in existence since the Civil War with famous journalists like Ida Tarbell who exposed John D. Rockefeller's monopolizing oil in PA and driving smaller wildcatters out of business. Also the "robber barons" and monopolies in general which resulted in T. Roosevelt breaking them up.
10:02 AM on 08/29/2011
Another move to the center by the Obama team. Lib's must be ready to slit their wrist...continued drone strikes, oil pipeline approval, War Powers Act ommision. Just like Bill Clinton Obama becoming republican lite. Love it!
01:34 PM on 08/29/2011
Democrats and republicans are the same.
07:48 PM on 08/30/2011
What center?
10:37 AM on 08/28/2011
So tell me this.. If we are being asked to lower our carbon footprint.. why is is so hard if not impossible to find a reliable, affordable and consistent source of alternate power ( solar or wind).

Do you know if you wanted to create a DC powered home, refrigeration and air-conditioning requirements make this all most impossible to do without grid power. This is assuming the local building code even ALLOWS you to make a "green" home. I don't see industry rushing to produce DC appliances for homes. The government is in the way of green technology as they have huge tax revenues from the oil industry to loose.

Due to the fact the government can't work with "green" technology the old way of doing things will have to continue , I just hope this pipeline can be made safely as there is plenty to loose if it fails. The alternative is using barges that too can sink or leak AND use fuel to move.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stacy M
11:25 PM on 08/28/2011
What tax revenue? We subsidize our oil industry!
photo
Andy Hecker
Welcome to Eaarth
04:18 PM on 08/29/2011
One does not need to move to a DC home to go off-grid. The power inverters on the market today produce AC power that is MUCH better quality and more stable than that supplied by the power grid. One can start with basic conservation methods and cut their energy demand up to 40%. That reduces the size and $$ of the solar panels and balance of system components. Most folks running batteries use lead-acid, and good quality batteries will last 15-20 years. Lead acid batteries are recycled in the developed world at about the 98% level.

Maybe it's perceived as difficult for 'everyone' to switch to a sustainable lifestyle, but 'anyone' can do it today - there's no new tech or development or study necessary. The rest is that whole 'big journey starts with single footstep' thing. :)

http://www.nickel-iron-battery.com/Nickel-Iron-Solar-Chicago.pdf
http://www.homepower.com
http://www.earthship.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rubiconski
On Crisis Standby Mode
04:38 AM on 08/28/2011
I honestly don't see how ANYBODY could think this would be okay! This goes beyond politics, this is the planet! The future of the WORLD depends on this decision - for centuries to come.

How very discouraging.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EdRea
Trees are our native friends.
04:48 AM on 08/28/2011
They do it for the political endgame of saying, "look, we did something for the economy".
The benefit to the economy, itself, being negligible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gevan
Give bees a chance
05:02 AM on 08/28/2011
State sez that the Canadians will continue to despoil their piece of the planet whether the pipeline is built or not.