Keystone Pipeline Advances in Revised Environmental Study
A revised environmental study issued today by the U.S. State Department reaffirms support for a proposed TransCanada Corp. (TRP) pipeline that would deliver crude oil from the oil sands of Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement backs the conclusion of last year’s initial draft, which found that the pipeline would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.”
The 1,700-mile pipeline would cut through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. A Department of Energy report made public in February said that the pipeline, combined with efforts to reduce U.S. demand for oil, “could essentially eliminate Middle East crude imports longer term.”
The State Department, in a news release, said it expects to decide whether to approve the pipeline by the end of the year. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in October that the department was “inclined” to approve the pipeline to reduce reliance on Middle East oil.
Republicans in Congress have pushed for swift approval of the project, which they say will help reduce energy costs and create 118,000 jobs. Environmentalists have expressed concern that the pipeline would increase air pollution and greenhouse gases, and pollute an aquifer in Nebraska that provides drinking water for 2 million people.
From Alberta
The Keystone XL pipeline would funnel up to 700,000 barrels of crude a day extracted from tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas, according to the State Department. The agency has jurisdiction over whether the project can proceed because the pipeline would cross an international border.
Oil sand is like black tar melded onto sand and clay. Critics argue that refining the sand creates more greenhouse gases than traditional crude oil processing and point to the risk of leaks in the 1,711 miles long, 36-inch wide pipe.
Utah and a few other states have oil sand reserves. They do not rival Canada’s, which are the largest in North America.
Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, international program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the report, the second of its kind on the proposed pipeline, is incomplete.
It’s “as inadequate as their first go-round, with the State Department merely paying lip service to critical issues such as pipeline safety,” the way it will cross over aquifers and questions of environmental justice around refineries that will handle the oil sands, Casey-Lefkowitz said in a statement.
Environmentalist Concerns
The NRDC and other environmental organizations, as well as senators from Nebraska, which the pipeline would cross, have written to the State Department asking that these issues be addressed, Casey-Lefkowitz said.
“Apparently, they did not get the message,” she said.
The State Department has held more than 20 public comment meetings along the pipeline route in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, as well as in Washington, D.C., according to a statement on their website.
A notice in the Federal Register will be posted on April 22, giving the public 45 days to comment on the proposal. After that, federal agencies with an interest in the pipeline, including the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, will have 90 days to comment on whether the pipeline is in the national interest.
To contact the reporters on this story: David Lerman in Washington at dlerman1@bloomberg.net
Nicole Gaouette in Washington at ngaouette@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net
Rate this Page