iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Keystone XL: State Department Pushes Back On Claims Of Bias In Pipeline Review Process

Keystone Xl State

First Posted: 10/05/11 05:22 PM ET Updated: 12/05/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- The State Department has begun to push back on claims by environmental groups that the process for approving a controversial oil pipeline has been mishandled and riddled with bias.

The pipeline project, known as Keystone XL, would deliver oil from Canada into the United States, and is subject to final approval by the State Department, which oversees any energy projects that cross national borders.

But environmental groups have charged that the department has long given disproportionate attention to the interests of the energy industry, and especially the pipeline's owners, Transcanada, in the review process. As early as last October, Secretary of State Clinton stated publicly that her agency was "inclined" to approve the project, even though an official environmental impact study had been recently challenged by the Environmental Protection Agency.

On Wednesday, the State Department made its first attempt to directly rebut the allegations, saying they "reject [the] accusations" of bias, and releasing a partial list of consultations held both in Washington and at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, which they said showed the department had met with industry groups and environmental groups in equal measure.

Of the 27 meetings held at the State Department headquarters in Washington, officials said, 11 were with oil industry groups, 10 were with environmental groups and three each were with Canadian government officials and Native American, or First Nations, interest groups.

"It's obviously their First Amendment right to say what they'd like to say," Victoria Nuland, a department spokeswoman, said of the claims by environmental groups. "We reject their accusations."

Earlier this week, the environmental group Friends of the Earth released a batch of emails -- the second in a growing cache of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act -- that they say shows clear bias on the part of State Department employees toward Transcanada, the pipeline's owners.

In the emails, an American staffer at the embassy in Ottawa can be seen chatting amiably about the progress of the pipeline's approval with Paul Elliot, a former aide to Secretary Clinton and now a lobbyist with Transcanada.

In one exchange from September 2010, the embassy staffer, Marja Verloop, cheers on Elliott after he secured support for the pipeline from Montana Sen. Max Baucus (D). "Go Paul!" Verloop wrote. "Baucus support holds clout."

Nuland told reporters Wednesday that the State department had conducted an internal review into the coziness indicated in the email exchanges and found nothing amiss.

"Our internal review concludes that her relationship with the environmental organizations was equally close and that she had very friendly relations with a broad cross-section of Canadian NGOs as well," she said.

Officials at the State Department have repeatedly insisted that the emails show just one side of the story, and emphasized that Friends of the Earth had technically only requested the release of emails between the government and employees of the oil industry.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the release of incomplete scheduling data will be sufficient to tamp down complaints of bias. On Wednesday morning, several environmental groups filed suit against the Obama administration in an attempt to block construction of the pipeline.

Nuland declined to comment on the suit, or to specifically elaborate on the topics discussed during any of the meetings, their relative lengths or the seniority of officials involved.

Although she mentioned "more than 150" additional meetings held at the embassy in Ottawa on the pipeline project, she declined to provide any further breakdown of who attended those meetings.

Earlier on the Huffington Post:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The State Department has begun to push back on claims by environmental groups that the process for approving a controversial oil pipeline has been mishandled and riddled with bias. Th...
WASHINGTON -- The State Department has begun to push back on claims by environmental groups that the process for approving a controversial oil pipeline has been mishandled and riddled with bias. Th...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 83
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
05:09 PM on 10/11/2011
This article fails to mention that the State Department assigned the environmental impact study to Cardno Entrix, a contractor with clear financial ties to TransCanada. Combined with the fact that TransCanada's chief lobbyist in Washington was a top official in Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign, the conflict of interest for the State Department in deciding the fate of this project seems blatantly obvious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/science/earth/08pipeline.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
11:37 AM on 10/09/2011
What baffles me is how this insane arrangement where the *State Dept* has been delegated authority for environmental review of any project is permitted. They have no technical experience in impact assessments! Yes, I understand that this crosses a border, but extrapolating that that the foreign affairs community should hold the ultimate decision of any such technical environmental issue is just dumbfounding. At a minimum where is the EPA or the presidents council on environmental quality? It just goes to illustrate the concern and conflict of interest that the international development community has often raised regarding the state department - short term politics reign over substance.
07:32 PM on 10/07/2011
The KEY is that you are trying to get oil from a STONE ... ANY QUESTIONS?
GET REAL!!!
This has nothing to do with jobs for americans as these are alchemists with apparent delusions of grandeur. The only jobs are temporary and pay < $10.00/hr.

s/XL
08:47 AM on 10/10/2011
Your knowledge is very shallow.
The oil is extracted from shell rock and will be transported through the pipeline as oil ,not rock or sludge.
The pay scale will very according to skills.
This Friends of The Earth or very ignorant about what they are talkig about and what they are saying.
No. 1 ; pipe lines cannot carry rock
No. 2 there may be $10.00 jobs but will also exceed $100.00 per hr due to skills and equipment furnished.
All this BS put out just shows how little people know or want to know.
Of course anyone can make a statment to what they feel but not to sound Dumb,ignorant or stupid real knowledge of what is being done is very easy to obtain.
NOT JUST MADE UP
Retired oil field
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
firstad
05:51 PM on 10/07/2011
Why, with GOP demands for more US Oil, are they supporting the Keystone XL pipeline? The oil will not be kept in the US, but sold by the oil companies to foreign countries. This will not strengthen US oil independence, but instead increase the ability of Exxon Mobile to sell our oil outside of the country. Exxon just gave 34,000 acres of US oil leases in trade to Russnit, Russia's largest oil producer. Those leases and the oil beneath will now belong to whoever Russnet decides should have it. The same thing will happen with the Keystone XL pipeline. Don't do this.
02:56 PM on 10/07/2011
There's only one way to prove that there is no corruption going on in the State Department: the pipeline permit must be denied.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:54 PM on 10/07/2011
I see opponents of the pipeline, having lost the argument on technical grounds ("an open pit mine the size of England", "Three times dirtier", "sucking the Athabasca river dry" -- yeesh), are now switching to the political arena.
photo
Kassandra
Your micro-bio is empty
07:43 PM on 10/06/2011
Green groups sue to stop Keystone oil pipeline work

"The hotly contested Keystone XL pipeline hasn't been approved for construction, but federal officials don't seem to care; they've allowed the pipeline company to mow down 100 miles of native prairie grasslands in Nebraska to clear the way -- before any public hearings were held on whether Keystone XL should move forward at all."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/10_-_October/Green_groups_sue_to_stop_Keystone_oil_pipeline_work/

No "bias"??????
12:11 AM on 10/10/2011
I dare say if they wanted to drill a well in your back yard you would whine and cry going to the bank with all the money.
Funny, Don't drill, don't pipeline ,don't ship but give me gas.
Get real
02:56 PM on 10/06/2011
Where is refined now? They have been scraping this crap for yrs now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olitenup
01:19 PM on 10/06/2011
Ah...you are busted Hillary.
12:26 PM on 10/06/2011
Don't these government people ever get tired of all the cheating, lying and deceiving? We, the public, are plenty tired of it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
clintnapril2
A clear conscience is a sign of a fuzzy memory.
12:08 PM on 10/06/2011
Lets get the project started. 20,000 jobs created at no cost to the tax payer. It will also generate tax revenues for the states and the feds. Also, lets re-open our national forestlands in Oregon and Washington to sustainable logging. Again, all private money funding this, it will create a tax base, and China is paying top dollar for lumber. It is actually a product we can export to them. Did I mention it would create jobs in cash strapped timber towns where the federal government has been paying because of the moratorium on harvesting..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
rocksage7
sustainability rocks
12:39 PM on 10/06/2011
you are so out there...lol....you would sell your soul.......
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
07:25 PM on 10/06/2011
The State Dept estimates that the pipeline will create 5-6000 jobs.

The constructi­on work force
would consist of approximat­ely 5,000 to
6,000 workers, including Keystone employees,
contractor employees, and constructi­on and
environmen­tal inspection staff.

p.25

http://www­.keystonep­ipeline-xl­.state.gov­/clientsit­e/keystone­xl.nsf/”
photo
Kassandra
Your micro-bio is empty
07:45 PM on 10/06/2011
Thank you.
Fanned
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
clintnapril2
A clear conscience is a sign of a fuzzy memory.
09:46 PM on 10/07/2011
I may stand corrected.. I'll look into that. However, what about all the local sources and such, when the pipeline gets anywhere near a small town? They have been hit hard, and this will increase their economy. Clint.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JordanPerry
Resist.
11:00 AM on 10/06/2011
The State Department had no idea people would rise against the tar sands or the pipeline. They look bad and disorganized right now because they thought they were in the clear for the project. But the lobbyist was a senior Clinton aide. She lost. So he wasn't in line for the "Best Gig Around". Instead, he got a dirty, second class, gig being the schill for the Keystone XL pipeline. His job, and make no mistake, was to take information around the normal channels to ensure success of the project.

The question here is basically: Would the politicians and business people involved in this lie in order to succeed? Anyone willing to say "no" to that question isn't being genuine. Clinton will try to cover, but do people really want to risk our species' future on a flawed, good-old-boy approval process? I say no. I hope you do to.
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
07:27 PM on 10/06/2011
You can say "no" directly to the State Dept until Oct 9th.

http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/CommentFset?OpenFrameSet
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mharley vet
“You can run, but you'll just die tired!"
10:49 AM on 10/06/2011
Looks like she just saw a mouse.
photo
Kassandra
Your micro-bio is empty
07:47 PM on 10/06/2011
LOL!
10:18 AM on 10/06/2011
I would consider any such approval an environmental act of terrorism by America and Canada on America soil.
It is not an either / or, from the Middle East or our northern border. Neither of these are safer than the other.
We have supplies now from both that can sustain us as we make our OWN GREEN ENERGY INITIATIVES .. wind, and the taking back of Solyndra. The Koch brothers may not have what is left of our land to destroy it. READ what is happening and what has happened to the environment in Canada from the start of this project and expect nothing less. This is a vote changer issue!
photo
Kassandra
Your micro-bio is empty
07:48 PM on 10/06/2011
It sure hasn't helped the Arctic Ozone layer.
photo
knewsreply
PhD: International Educator and Marketer
09:26 AM on 10/06/2011
Since we still use oil in the USA, I have to ask the question, "Should we purchase oil from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuela, etc. or should be promote the Transcanada Pipeline?” The answer may be in knowing which oil companies are financially supporting the lobbyists who are making the Transcanada Pipeline and environmental issue?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GrammaTina
10:24 AM on 10/06/2011
Not only does the pipeline NOT carry OIL (it carries a sludgy garbage that oil can be extracted from, and requires to be mixed with chemicals so the sludge can ooze across the United States), but any oil that IS extracted will simply be put on the world market with all the other oil. You have no choice where that oil comes from. Why do you think this pipeline (which has had pipeline failure in the portion that is already built. See http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_first_keystone_tar_sands_p.html ) is targeted to be built entirely across the US and down to a Texas seaport? So it can be shipped out, not trucked back up north.

Also consider why Canada, if this garbage sludge is so great, doesn't want to refine it there. Ask why First Nations does not want this stuff extracted and refined in their own land.
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
07:30 PM on 10/06/2011
Also, ask Canada why they don't just build a pipeline to their west coast...because the Canadians said no for environmental reasons.
photo
anishinabe65
Consciousness is irreversible
05:27 PM on 10/13/2011
Chii Megwetch Gramma Tina!