iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

TransCanada Pipeline Project: Company Announces New Plans For U.S.

MATTHEW DALY   02/27/12 06:30 PM ET  AP

WASHINGTON — The White House on Monday welcomed a Canadian company's plan to build an oil pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas after President Barack Obama blocked the larger Keystone XL pipeline from Canada.

The new proposal by Calgary-based TransCanada does not require presidential approval because it does not cross a U.S. border. The 485-mile pipeline is expected to cost about $2.3 billion and be completed next year, pending approval by federal, state and local governments.

The Obama administration had suggested development of an Oklahoma-to-Texas line to alleviate an oil bottleneck at a Cushing, Okla., storage hub.

Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline last month, citing uncertainty over a route that avoids the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region in Nebraska. He said there was not enough time for a fair review before a looming deadline forced on him by Republicans. The action did not kill the project but, for the second time in three months, put off a tough choice on the pipeline project, which has become the focus of a heated political fight.

Pipeline supporters – including congressional Republicans and many business and labor leaders_ call it an important job creator, while opponents say it would transport "dirty oil" from tar sands that requires huge amounts of energy to extract. They also worry about a possible spill.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that Obama was pleased with TransCanada's latest announcement.

"Moving oil from the Midwest to the world-class, state-of-the-art refineries on the Gulf Coast will modernize our infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage American energy production," Carney said in a statement. "We look forward to working with TransCanada to ensure that it is built in a safe, responsible and timely manner, and we commit to take every step possible to expedite the necessary federal permits."

TransCanada said Monday it still hopes to build the full 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil derived from tar sands in Alberta, Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. The proposed $7 billion pipeline would run through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas before reaching Oklahoma.

The company said it is working with Nebraska officials to find a route that avoids the Sandhills region.

Carney said Obama's Jan. 18 decision to delay the pipeline "in no way prejudged future applications" by TransCanada for the full, 1,700-mile project.

"We will ensure any project receives the important assessment it deserves, and will base a decision to provide a permit on the completion of that review," he said.

Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and CEO, said the Oklahoma-to-Texas pipeline will transport growing supplies of U.S. crude oil to meet refinery demands in Texas.

"Gulf Coast refineries can then access lower-cost domestic production and avoid paying a premium to foreign oil producers," he said, adding that the project should reduce U.S. dependence on crude from outside North America.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the White House comments puzzling.

"The president is so far on the wrong side of the American people that he's now praising the company's decision to start going around him," Boehner said, adding that Obama "can't have it both ways. If the president thinks this project is good for America, he knows how to make it happen right away. Until he does, he's just standing in the way of getting it done."

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called the announcement "great news" for his state. Inhofe said the pipeline could create more than 1,000 construction jobs in Oklahoma alone.

"Of course, this smaller pipeline would in no way replace the need for the larger Keystone XL project, but a pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf is a no-brainer," Inhofe said. "Even as President Obama squandered the best job-creating opportunity he has ever had by rejecting Keystone, he still made a commitment to `partner' with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security. In Oklahoma we are taking him at his word."

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, international program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the new, shorter pipeline was "a ploy" to avoid State Department review of the Keystone XL project, which she said would raise U.S. oil prices, send tar sands oil overseas, endanger U.S. homes and waters and contribute to worsening climate change.

"What part of "no" does TransCanada not understand?" she asked.

The Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, said the pipeline would still travel through wetlands and habitat for imperiled species such as the whooping crane, piping plover and a rare minnow known as the Arkansas River shiner.

"This isn't the time to be cutting corners on protecting our wildlife and environment," said Noah Greenwald, director of the group's endangered species program. "The Obama administration should be willing to take a hard look at this project and make sure it follows laws that protect clean water, wetlands and endangered species."

___

Follow Matthew Daly on Twitter: (at)MatthewDalyWDC

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — The White House on Monday welcomed a Canadian company's plan to build an oil pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas after President Barack Obama blocked the larger Keystone XL pipeline fro...
WASHINGTON — The White House on Monday welcomed a Canadian company's plan to build an oil pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas after President Barack Obama blocked the larger Keystone XL pipeline fro...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 84
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
D-Driller
my micro-bio is empty
04:32 AM on 03/01/2012
I am against the Keystone pipeline, because I believe that plentiful Canadian oil will keep us from fully exploiting our own domestic energy supplies. Having said that, I am unsure why there are people on here who are against the US exporting refined products. We pay X for a bbl of oil, and sell it for X+Y. We are bringing money into the country, providing jobs, and have increased the tax base at the expense of foreigners and not, for once, American citizens. It is not unlike most other industries, say the heavy equipment industry. We import foreign steel, and that is unfortunate, but if we then turn that steel around into a finished product of much higher value and export it, it's beneficial to the country. Where things become damaging to the nation is when you import something, and sell it here - we don't benefit from that at all - that hurts us. Buying a foreign made car, for example, hurts us all as a nation. Buying parts of that car, assembling it here, and then EXPORTING that car to another market, at a profit, is beneficial. If you want to lower gas prices, taking crude and gasoline off of the commodities market is about the only way you are going to do it, in addition to permitting more refineries and pipelines to get it to where it can be refined easily and shipped to market.
10:04 PM on 02/27/2012
I am new to the HuffPost. I am from Oklahoma . Someone needs to do some investigating reporting. Cushing, Okla. has been pipeline exchange center for generations. I believe that such and effort would find that Tar-Sand oil is already flowing to Gulf Coast other refineries from there.
photo
Snoopie141
Please don't follow shiny objects.
12:29 AM on 03/21/2012
Yeah, They (Cushing OK) are known as the PIPELINE CROSSROADS....but supposely all those tanks in Cushing as sitting full but no way to get to a refinery?? I knew they were building it at least 2 weeks ago....it is called the Keystone Pipeline and probably be a section of the Keystone XL. But for those that think that it will decrease prices...its not ..all the oil/gas experts here are saying that our prices in Midwest could go up as much or more then .60 cents a gallon. Its going to the Free trade zone and being sold on the global Market.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Fanney
Scribbler
07:47 PM on 02/27/2012
What republicans and those backing the pipelines won't tell you: the oil bottleneck at Cushing is lowering us oil prices by 15-20 dollars per barrel. Build the pipelines and that oil goes on the global market. Prices will rise.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gottlieb
hated by left since 1973 and right since 1982
photo
Snoopie141
Please don't follow shiny objects.
12:32 AM on 03/21/2012
Think Obama needs to take the oil/gas subsidies now.....
07:44 PM on 02/27/2012
Let's set the record straight. On two different occasions, Reps Gerry Connolly and Ed Markey have introduced amendments to prevent the export of Keystone Oil, and to keep the oil in the United States. Both time the Republicans blocked these amendments.

In addition, oil companies are exporting record amounts of diesel and gasoline. So extending the existing pipeline from Cushing to Port Arthur will NOT bring cheaper gasoline - because much of the petroleum and petroleum products will be exported.

So the GOP is lying.

I might add that the GOP and the Tea Party both depend on high gasoline prices because the higher the gasoline, the bigger their political campaign contributions. Jim Inhofe in particularly benefits from oil company contributions. (Check out the fact yourself from the Center for Political Reponsiveness.)

So once again the GOP is lying to the public.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mary Hue
keeping it real
04:23 PM on 02/28/2012
Protect the aquifer at all costs, water is more precious than oil, you can live without oil, you die without water...I don't particularly savor the thought of drinking cleaned sewage water. Maybe for the crops but no thanks for life.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Austintatious
05:17 PM on 02/28/2012
Of course, the GOP is lying. It's what they do. Just as Barack Obama and the Dems are lying. It's what they do. And, if reelected, Obama WILL approve the pipleline, something he's been planning to do all along.
05:47 PM on 02/27/2012
Drag.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jwald1
Badges? I don't need no stinking badges!
05:45 PM on 02/27/2012
This is how I feel on the subject, maybe the most incredible video I have ever seen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGeXdv-uPaw
04:59 PM on 02/27/2012
How frustrating.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mhh310351
Roosevelt Democrat
04:38 PM on 02/27/2012
Keystone South?

gives Canada 80% of what they want.
04:36 PM on 02/27/2012
Personally I think Obama will approve it.

The thing he is waiting for the right timing. If we waits until closer to the elections and approves it, he not only takes away ammunition from the right, but he will get a nice boost in the polls.

Then he will go back to the environmentalists and explain that he does care about the environment, and that is why he requested further environmental studies.

Just wait and see.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
05:19 PM on 02/27/2012
Yup, in our backyard. Kill our land, our ecosystems, our strands in the web of all life, and America is clapping for it. And we'll get four more years of a president, about as ecologically literate as any Repub. Obama is following many of the same eco destroying pursuits as Bush ever did.

America, destroying the eco-nomy of a living, life supporting planet for energy. They'll have to say enough is enough when it's all gone, and mankind is dying from lack of water, a scrambled atmosphere and a dead biosphere. Our terrestrial ecosystems support the vast majority of all life on Earth. When man kills ecosystems for any reason, he is essentially killing that much of the living, body and face of Mother Earth.
photo
baxtron
tek phlarpt
01:37 PM on 02/28/2012
didn't read the article? sounds like most posters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jambala99
A GOP vote is a character flaw at this point.....
04:22 PM on 02/27/2012
Another Hair Brained plan by stupid p.h.u.c.k.t.a.r.d.s......
03:47 PM on 02/27/2012
Sneaky foreign oil. You get in every single time, don't you? Why doesn't this require presidential approval, it's still U.S. soil that Canada is renting to screw up.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
03:33 PM on 02/27/2012
OK, Carney is missing the fact that if Canada's tar sands were burnt all at once it would tip global temperature past the point that scientists predict will spell big climate trouble. Bill Mckibben, on the other hands, seems to be shifting his focus to coal, which if burnt would raise global temps way past that. So this is crunch time in the struggle to keep fossil fuel in the ground. Bill had better have a good action plan for this one!
03:20 PM on 02/27/2012
In a way, this could be good.

Lots of us already dislike TransCanada, and now this Canadian multinational is going to use eminent domain in Texas and Oklahoma, and piss off those people too.

Plus raising gas prices in the heartland will push more people toward efficiency and alternatives.

Let's keep the spotlight on them! Clean energy now!
02:36 PM on 02/27/2012
Tar sand oil requires more energy to extract than the oil itself produces.  It makes absolutely no sense to extract that substance for energy.  It makes even less sense if it has to be piped across the continent just to be refined and exported.
02:53 PM on 02/27/2012
If that were true, nobody would bother to extract it.

Unless there were massive government subsidies or arbitrary rules to require it's use - like corn based ethanol.
03:14 PM on 02/27/2012
It is true.  Tar sand oil has to be heated up to a very hot temperature in order to be extracted.  They use natural gas for the heating, and it costs more energy to heat the tar sands than the oil produces.  The plan is ridiculous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
03:44 PM on 02/27/2012
the only reason this is remotely feasible is because they can charge MORE for the oil. as our ability to extract the easy, light sweet crude is reduced as we come down the peak oil slope (for that type of oil) we will see shale extraction and tar sand crude production decimate the earth's landscape because there is money in it, period. doesn't matter if it's a one to one ratio of energy vs what's extracted. they're going to try to do this everywhere possible touting it as the way to 'save our way of life'.

rather ironic this will be what assist in accelerates our demise.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PEM1019
Retired HealthCare Provider, Passionate Liberal
04:13 PM on 02/27/2012
Lightningbolt, YOU said it all in 3 sentences... Fanned and Faved. The republicans who are screaming about President Obama delaying the pipline forget to tell Americans that oil will be sold on the world market...not in the US so it will not cut our dependence on foreign oil nor will it reduce our gas prices. No refineray is going to see it for a lower price if it can get a higher one on the world market. So those of you who like to blast President Obama about this pipeline should read some facts before you spew.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
04:25 PM on 02/27/2012
Of course oil will be sold on the world market - that's how the oil market works.

Oil produced in Canada will largely be consumed in the US - there's no point shipping it further than necessary.

Every day the US imports 10 million barrels of crude oil, and 2 million barrels of refined products a day, and exports 3 million barrels of refined products. The oil sands is a drop in the overall bucket.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gottlieb
hated by left since 1973 and right since 1982
12:30 PM on 03/04/2012
Those who like to "blast" President Obama don't need facts since they have their ideology to do their thinking.

Facts are just too amazing and confusing for some people especially when it comes from well known sources which are hard to attack as radical socialist environmentalists. Here is an example.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/keystone-oil-pipeline-seen-raising-gas-prices-in-midwest-energy.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:21 PM on 02/27/2012
"Moving oil from the Midwest to the world-class, state-of-the-art refineries on the Gulf Coast will modernize our infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage American energy production," Carney said in a statement."

Now try this, ""Moving oil from the Canada to the world-class, state-of-the-art refineries on the Gulf Coast will modernize our infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage American energy production," ...somehow the administration would deny that's true...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trepasky
Sanity is neither free nor easy
02:59 PM on 02/27/2012
The difference is that US oil is not Canadian oil. Comparing the benefits/risks are not as simple as your post would imply.

As we all know most if not all of the oil from Canada will be tax free, processed and exported to other countries.
03:31 PM on 02/27/2012
The oil being referred to as "Midwest" in Carney's quote is Canadian oil (as well as US) already being delivered in there by the first Keystone pipeline, so teletom is correct.

You do realize that the Keystone XL pipeline is the second pipeline? One was built some time ago, crosses the Ogallala Aquifer, and otherwise is no different than the one everybody is going ballistic over this time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
05:21 PM on 02/27/2012
The Department of Energy and State Department disagree. Canadian oil will replace OPEC oil.

Oil sands will "fill a gap being created by declining supply from traditional heavy crude suppliers, notably Mexico and Venezuela, a gap it is projected would otherwise be filled by increases in other foreign supplies, notably from the Middle East."
http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/AssmtDrftAccpt.pdf
03:47 PM on 02/27/2012
It isn't true. Money going to Canada, is money going to Canada, not money going to America.