More

Keystone XL Pipeline: TransCanada Agrees To Move Controversial Pipeline Route

Keystone Xl Pipeline

GRANT SCHULTE   11/14/11 10:26 PM ET   AP

LINCOLN, Neb. — Canadian pipeline developer TransCanada will shift the route of its planned oil pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska, two company officials announced Monday night.

Speaking at a news conference at the Nebraska Capitol, the officials said TransCanada would agree to the new route, a move the company previously claimed wasn't possible, as part of an effort to push through the proposed $7 billion project. They expressed confidence the project would ultimately be approved.

Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada's president for energy and oil pipelines, said rerouting the Keystone XL line would likely require 30 to 40 additional miles of pipe and an additional pumping station. The exact route has not yet been determined, but Pourbaix said Nebraska will play a key role in deciding it.

The announcement follows the federal government's decision last week to delay a decision on a federal permit for the project until it studies new potential routes that avoid the Sandhills area and the Ogallala aquifer as the proposed pipeline carries crude oil from Canada to Texas Gulf Coast refineries.

Debate over the pipeline has drawn international attention focused largely on Nebraska, because the pipeline would cross the Sandhills – an expanse of grass-strewn, loose-soil hills – and part of the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies water to Nebraska and parts of seven other states.

Company officials had claimed that moving the route was impossible because of a U.S. State Department study which found the Sandhills route would leave the smallest environmental footprint.

Pourbaix said he was confident a new route would also avoid the parts of the aquifer that sit closes to the surface, which was a major concern cited by environmentalists and the region's landowners. He said moving it out of the Sandhills region would likely ease many of the concerns posed by landowners.

"We do remain confident that we could have built a safe pipeline through the original route that was approved by the State Department" in an environmental impact statement released earlier this year, Pourbaix said. "At the same time, it has always been a priority of TransCanada to listen to our stakeholders."

He added: "We're confident that collaborating with the state of Nebraska will make this process much easier."

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said any new route would require a supplemental environmental impact statement that likely would take more than a year to complete.

"Based on the total mileage of potential alternative routes that would need to be reviewed, we anticipate the evaluation could conclude as early as first quarter of 2013," Toner said in a written statement.

Delaying the decision on the pipeline went over badly in Canada, where it was seen as a signal that the country must diversify its oil exports away from the United States and toward Asia.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he made it clear in a weekend meeting with President Barack Obama that the nation will step up its efforts to sell oil to Asia since the decision was delayed, and would keep pushing the U.S. to approve the project.

"This highlights why Canada must increase its efforts to ensure it can supply its energy outside the U.S. and into Asia in particular," Harper said.

Harper said he emphasized the pipeline would mean economic growth on both sides of the border.

Business and labor groups who support the project say the environmental criticism is overblown, and based more on opposition to oil than the project itself. They say the project will create construction jobs, although the exact number is disputed.

Environmentalists and some Nebraska landowners fear the pipeline would disrupt the region's loose soil for decades, harm wildlife, and contaminate the aquifer.

The speaker of Nebraska's legislature, Mike Flood, said the state will conduct an environmental assessment of its own at state expense to determine a route that avoids the Sandhills area and other ecologically sensitive areas. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality will oversee the process, with collaboration from the U.S. State Department.

Noah Greenwald, a spokesman for the Center of Biological Diversity, said his group remains opposed to the pipeline and still believes it poses an environmental threat. The center is one of three environmental groups that have sued the U.S. State Department, seeking a judge's order to block the project.

"Even with the reroute, we still feel like we can push forward," he said. "We're going to keep up the public pressure on the administration as this moves forward."

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman had called a special legislative session to seek a legal and constitutional solution to the pipeline debate. But the session's stated goal – to enact oil pipeline legislation – has lacked a clear consensus about what, if anything, state officials ought to do.

Nebraska State Sen. Ken Haar of Malcolm, an outspoken pipeline critic, was pleased with Monday's announcement.

"It's good for the people of Nebraska. It's good for TransCanada," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Matthew Daly in Washington contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

LINCOLN, Neb. — Canadian pipeline developer TransCanada will shift the route of its planned oil pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska, two company officials an...
LINCOLN, Neb. — Canadian pipeline developer TransCanada will shift the route of its planned oil pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska, two company officials an...
Filed by Alana Horowitz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 647
  • 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 »  (10 total)
11:16 AM on 01/03/2012
Inexpensive and plentiful energy built America. Irresponsible NIMBY environmentalists and their misguided yet understandable machinations are by no means completely to blame for the crisis we currently find ourselves in. The workers of America, especially the middle class, are being squeezed by political vote-mining. Lobbyists from fossil fuel companies are succeeding in curtailing production in order to inflate prices. In fact, not one new refinery has been built since the 1970’s Jimmy Carter-induced and developed energy crisis. EPA regulation and government drilling and mining permits artificially control the flow and supply of desperately needed energy supplies. Why do you suppose that the government’s estimate of inflation does not include energy and food costs? The government's meddling in green energy projects - not the least of which is Obama's manipulative and illegal loan program - has done much to put alternative energy projects off-track and off-target. Can you say, “Chevy Volt, children?” We need an abundant oil and natural gas supply (and yes, coal) for at least the next fifty years during which time renewable energy sources can be developed and perfected. Our nation's economy and our very security are at stake in this dangerous and unstable time in the world's history.
10:55 PM on 12/13/2011
This whole fossil fuel thing is nuts. Is America populated by cave men or what. Spend a bunch of money on solar and wind like other countries and we won't be rubbing sticks together in some cave in 50 years. It works, it is clean and we have thousands of acres that are doing nothing, with plenty of sun and wind. But, as long as Americans keep electing oil company shills, it will never happen. This oil will never see the inside of an American gas tank. Few ,long lasting jobs will be created and it will do nothing to reduce the cost of a gallon of gas, It will create an over supply and they will get rid of it to other countries, probably China. They will limit the supply to keep the price high.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arigg
01:40 PM on 11/21/2011
we are NOT supposed to be using fossil fuels.
12:08 PM on 11/17/2011
It's NOT crude oil. It's TAR-SANDS oil!!! HUGE DIFFERANCE!!!!!!!! Youtube JOHN BOLENBAUGH if you want to see what a TAR-SAND SPILL does to a community and to the environment! SAY NO TO TAR-SANDS!

R.I.P the people of Battle Creek, Michigan...
04:25 PM on 11/16/2011
We need to approve this ASAP to create jobs and move on from relying on unstable countries for our oil. At least Canada is a friend.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lambdin1
What's this?
09:07 AM on 11/16/2011
But will not quit trying to build their Extra Large pipeline?!? GREED!
12:06 AM on 11/16/2011
- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he made it clear in a weekend meeting with President Barack Obama that the nation will step up its efforts to sell oil to Asia since the decision was delayed, and would keep pushing the U.S. to approve the project.

Getting refined oil to Asia what the XL is all about, and Harper is trying to use the threat of selling his dirty oil directly to Asia and bypass the US. How dumb does he think we are here in the US? Wait, don't answer that. There is an area in Nebraska that would be perfect to run the XL thru, a valley called Upyerass, Mr Harper.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonlady620
My karma will run over your dogma
01:52 AM on 11/16/2011
LOL
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lionfig
04:36 PM on 11/15/2011
They are going to spend $9 billion to "just" transport oil sands from Canada to Texas. That doesn't included the cost of mining oil sands or the cost of refining oil sands for a useful purpose or shipping it to the point of sale. $9 billion could build 15000 acres of solar panels and be generating clean energy immediately after construction. If fossil fuels are going to run out in 100 years, 100% of our energy needs will than need to come from renewables no matter the costs. So with very simple projects within 50 years at least 50% of our energy needs will have to/most come from renewables. I like the idea that all homes be fitted/built with solar panels (and small wind turbines) to give individuals more power over utilities companies. This would save on the need to use land that is needed for farming or recreation or just beauty. Just think if here in California during the housing boom developers were required to install solar panels with each new home with all the defaults in mortgages that would be like free solar power/energy.
show more show less
04:41 PM on 11/15/2011
In today's issue of the Lincoln Journal Star, an economist at UNL revealed that his research showed the Koch Brothers will benefit from both ends of the pipeline.
04:35 PM on 11/15/2011
Transcanada has agreed, as I understand it, to move the Nebraska portion of the pipeline out of the Sandhills but not out of the Ogalla Aquifer. Although Transcanada has loudly said it is the "safest" pipeline, they have also said its gonna leak. A local news report showed a man digging in the ground in the previous path of the pipeline and two-and-a-half feet down, the hole filled with water. No surprise to anyone living in Nebraska where there's an old saying that you can't put up a fence in the sandhills 'cause the postholes fill with water. And, the Sand Hills are so fragile, so prone to blow-away, that disturbing the top soil or the grasses that hold it in place is almost a sin and so we're all relieved the pipeline is moving. I still prefer the whole thing not be built.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lionfig
04:35 PM on 11/15/2011
They are going to spend $9 billion dollars on the Keystone pipeline to send more oil to Texas when Texas already has sources of oil in their state and from the Gulf. Texas doesn't need more fossil fuel energy jobs. Oklahoma and Illinios need these jobs. There is already a existing Keystone pipelines to refineries in Illinios and storage facilities in Oklahoma. With the money saved from not extending the pipeline to Texas you could build a state of the art oil refinery near the storage facilities in Oklahoma which would be more centrally located in the US than the port of Huston. Why send it to Huston unless you plan to ship that oil overseas? Sending Canadian oil sands to Texas was a political move by the Bush administration.
05:24 PM on 11/15/2011
Oklahoma and Illinois don't have oil refineries in foreign trade export zones administrated by US Customs and Border Protection and existing outside US territory for purposes of duties. Much of this oil is destined for export markets. Not only is the US agreeing to ship the stuff across environmentally sensitive areas, but we're also agreeing to forego revenues on export goods "finished" in America and shipped abroad. It makes no sense, and we wonder why the US has huge trade and budget deficits and is looking to sacrifice basic services, promised pensions, the right to organize, infrastructure spending, health insurance, air and water quality, and a great deal more just to make the numbers add up?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rybalaw
06:50 PM on 11/16/2011
The alternate plan is to simply build a pipeline from the Cushing OK hub to Houston. There already exists pipeline capacity from Alberta to Chicago and from Chicago to Cushing, OK
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JonnyTruant
Liberal because I value hard work and honesty.
04:22 PM on 11/15/2011
How about this one? Don't build it. Save the money and build some solar collectors and wind turbines, and use your government tax credits to help you develop some batteries or other synthesized material which would allow that energy to be made mobile. Hmmmm but that would require thought and hard work, wouldn't it. QQ
03:58 PM on 11/15/2011
Shifting the pipe will not address a number of other concernes about the project, concerns that Transcanada has not addressed.
1. They Keystone Project is not economically viable. Getting oil from tar sands requires the burning of a lot of fossil fuel, raising the price of gasoline. The Keystone Project is viable only with massive multi-billion dollars subsidies.

2. The Keystone Project would require infrastructure. Thanks to the GOP, our infrastructure is falling to pieces. If you compared Obama's proposals in the Jobs Act with what is needed according to the American Society of Civil Engineer, you will see that the Jobs Act is a rather timid proposal. In addition, you do not understand that global climate change will wreak additional damage to our infrastructure, so we will need to spend even more than we are doing how.

3. we already have existing pipelines carrying dil-bit Even though they quite new, they have already ruptured several times.

4. In order to boost profits, Oil companies will not install the proper safety equipment. The EPA lacks the independence, funding or manpower to monitor this pipeline. We need to cancel the pipeline until the EPA gets the power and resources it needs to do its job.



5. Transcanada has nothing absolutely nothing about global climate change. Furthermore, extreme weather conditions will wreak havoc on the existing pipelines, making ruptures and breakdowns more rather than less probable.

Let's support Obama's decision to delay the Keystone project until Transcanada addresses these concerns.
03:08 PM on 11/15/2011
Make them sign a contract that all the oil transported from Canada through the new pipeline be used for United States purposes only. We all know they just want to get it to the largest and best refineries in the world in Texas, to process into fuels and then ship right out of the gulf of Mexico to foreign buyers, who will pay more than they American market. They just want to use our land to do so! If it is truly for the purpose of weening us from our dependancy on foreign oil, then they should be happy to sign that contract. Somehow though, I doubt they will!
photo
dbw53022
Mostly optimistic. Sometimes sarcastic.
02:17 PM on 11/15/2011
Why isn't this oil being refined in Canada? Why is the pipeline necessary at all? If I were Canadian, I'd be screaming to build the refining facilities (create jobs) and mitigate some of the environmental hazards of a pipeline, all the while creating refining jobs, transportation jobs for Canadians....
10:31 AM on 11/15/2011
NO Pipeline...period Mr. Harper. I suspect that most of that oil will be sold to Asia anyway. This just makes it more convenient for you and the arrogant Koch Bros.