Keystone XL Report by U.S. Avoids Conclusion, Angering Opponents

[highplainsdem]

Source: Bloomberg

A long-awaited assessment of TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline by the U.S. State Department made no specific recommendation on the project, cheering oil companies and outraging environmentalists.

The draft analysis, which will begin a public comment period on the pipeline, examined the revised route TransCanada proposed after President Barack Obama blocked an original path amid concerns it posed a threat to an aquifer in Nebraska.

-snip-

The analysis said that while oil sands mining releases more greenhouse gases, “the project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude refined in the Gulf Coast area.”

-snip-

Environmental groups such as Sierra Club and 350.org called the State Department’s analysis incomplete, and warned that building the pipeline would exacerbate global warming.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/keystone-xl-environmental-report-said-to-be-issued-today-by-u-s-.html

---

I've already posted about the Sierra Club's response in GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022447031

That has links to a Washington Post story, and the State Dept. release.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Follow the money.

Environmentalism gets little more than lip service from the "New Democrats."

[blm]

2. Hillary chose a firm friendly to the Keystone deal for the assessment. That deal was already made

long ago, but, she needed some distance from it so she can get through the Dem primary. She was ready to sign it four years ago, and this 'assessment' was just stalling to avoid the pictures of her signing the deal.

[Beacool]

10. Again with that?

How many times do we have to have this discussion?

It will be up to Obama to approve or not approve this deal.

[blm]

14. State Dept had the responsibility to provide the analysis TO the President. What did she provide

to the president in way of analysis and advisement?

Is Hillary's pr team now claiming that the most 'independent' and 'influential' Sec of State really wasn't?

[Beacool]

15. Blah, blah blah.

Why bother with reality?

[blm]

16. Reality is this assessment friendly to Keystone as INTENDED by Hillary Clinton when she

tapped the firm to craft the assessment. She wanted an assessment friendly to Keystone deal to hand to the president. That's REALITY, Beacool, you know it and you just can't admit it that your favorite politician was up to her hairline in developing this information handed to the president.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/keystone-state-department-inspector-general_n_1080334.html


Sanders and Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., requested the review, saying they were disturbed by media reports that a company that performed an environmental review on behalf of the State Department had listed pipeline developer TransCanada as a "major client." Two other senators and 10 other House members – all Democrats – also asked for the IG review.

In a letter last month, the lawmakers asked the inspector general to look at all contractual or financial relationships between the consultant, Houston-based Cardno Entrix, and TransCanada.
They also asked for a review of State Department emails involving a TransCanada lobbyist who had worked in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

Houston-based Cardno Entrix worked on the environmental impact study for the pipeline and helped conduct a series of public hearings this month. The State Department has said the company was one of three consultants TransCanada recommended for the pipeline project, although U.S. officials made the final decision. The company was hired in December 2008 under the administration of President George W. Bush. The firm also worked on the original Keystone pipeline starting in 2006.

Jim Teitt, director of client services for Cardno Entrix, said Monday that the firm listed TransCanada as a client because of its work on the original Keystone project.

Clinton told The Associated Press last month that that she had no reason to believe there was a conflict of interest involving the TransCanada lobbyist, Paul Elliott.
>>>>>

[Beacool]

18. That article is from 2011.

Nothing inappropriate was found and the review proceeded as planned. It will be up to Obama to make the final decision.

Is that too hard to understand? If he approves it, take your outrage on the president.

Gee................

[blm]

19. Of course not...and leave Hillary who orchestrated the positive 'assessment' out of the equation,

because we all know she never was the most 'independent' and 'influential' Sec of State in history...at least, not on THIS project that she presided over specifically to FAVOR Keystone deal, right, Beacool?

Are you AGAINST the pipeline, Beacool? Did you let Hillary know that you were against it and use some of your energy to tell her how you felt, Beacool? Probably not. You save your energy to attack those who criticized her support for Keystone and the underhanded way she went about procuring an 'assessment' that also favored Keystone deal BEFORE that information was handed over to the President.

But....I'm sure you can convince yourself that Hillary's hands are spotless. In fact, I'm sure you'll join in with the other Clintonites and smear it all as Kerry's fault.

[Beacool]

20. Who is blaming Kerry for anything??????????

You deal in an alternate world of your own making.

Good-bye. I'm done with you.

[blm]

21. You just can't handle anyone who sees through the machinations of your heroes.

.

[Beacool]

22. No, I just can't deal with people who are nuts.

[blm]

23. You can't rebut with FACTS. If you could you would, but, you don't

so you revert to moronic attacks. True to form, Beacool. True to form.

[Pancho Schneider]

3. I don't know why people assume Obama will approve this project

I personally think he will reject it. Let's be patient. No conclusion only means the conclusion isn't there yet.

[freedom fighter jh]

4. The hope was that this study would find that the pipeline would have an impact on the climate.

An earlier study came out in the summer of 2011 finding that the project would not have an impact on the environment. But that study did not consider climate change. President Obama sent the study back to the State Dept., telling them both to find a route that was less environmentally sensitive and to consider climate change. So it was only in those two areas that changes were anticipated.

They found another route. And now this draft supplementary study finds no impact on the climate. See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/03/205562.htm . Specifically, they find that pipeline construction "remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands." That is, it looks like the tar sands (or oil sands or whatever you call them) will get developed with or without the pipeline so the pipeline itself will not have an effect on climate. And this study does not seem to state any other reason to stop the pipeline.

They do ask for public input. Perhaps State can still be swayed.

There is the coming national interest determination. I suppose the project could be stopped at that stage. But there would have to be some basis for it to be stopped at that point, some official government recognition of the damage that this project will do.

[jbp23]

6. Wake Up!

Last edited Sat Mar 2, 2013, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Lord, your naive. When there were thousands of protesters in D.C. a few weeks ago protesting the Keystone Pipeline Obama was out golfing with oil executives.

[forestpath]

9. +1

[blm]

17. The INFORMATION in the analysis being handed to the president is friendly to the deal.

Exactly the way Hillary intended when she tapped a firm friendly to Keystone to do the assessment. She was ready to do this deal 4 years ago, and nothing changed, but the turning over of a lengthy report that assessed the impact - a report that just happens to coincide with what Hillary wanted n the first place.

Why do you think the 'assessment' was delayed for so long? 2016 Dem primary voters?

[Jumpin Jack Fletch]

5. "If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate." James Hansen

[glinda]

7. +1

[forestpath]

8. I'm shocked.

[daleo]

11. If it won't have any effect on tar sands development, why do it at all?

They can't have it both ways on this.

[freedom fighter jh]

12. They found the weakest link in the anti-pipeline argument.

They do not deny exploitation of the tar sands would accelerate climate change, contributing to the destruction of the planet as a human habitat. Instead they deny that pipeline construction would accelerate exploitation of the tar sands. Hey, it's not like tar sands use depends completely on the pipeline -- just look, the tar sands are being mined already, without a pipeline. Why assume the pipeline will make a difference in how much is mined?

My understanding is that the big tar sands money is in shipping the stuff off to China. This could be done either via the Keystone XL pipeline route, the oil first going through the pipeline to Texas for refining and then getting shipped to China, or via a land route (not sure what kind -- pipe, rail, or road) west across Canada for shipment from Canada's west coast. I understand that Canada's First Nations are fighting the second plan tooth and nail, and that they may prevail, since there is a fair amount of provincial control in the Canadian government -- and not many people live in those northern provinces except Indians, so Indians have some political power. So if both the Canadian route and the XL pipeline fail, then it's a whole lot harder to use the tar sands and therefore less worthwhile to mine them -- so without one of these forms of transport to the Pacific Ocean the tar sands will likely be mined a whole lot less than they would be if one of those routes to shipment to the Far East were in place.

Can anyone correct my impression or add facts or sources or any kind of additional information?

We've got to make the case that this pipeline would accelerate tar sands mining and use.

[karynnj]

24. Nicely laid out - the report assumes away all that you lay out clearly

[patrice]

28. Please check out the HuffPo piece that I linked below. nt

[warrior1]

13. why don't the candian's ship their tar sand oil

across their country to the coast in trucks then to oil tankers at sea?

[patrice]

27. This is also about buying up U.S. refinery capacity. Please see the HuffPo article I linked below.

[patrice]

29. Oh yeah, and also about LNG for China. nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

25. The Koch bros. could save $2 billion a year via the Keystone XL pipeline -Greg Palast

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022420517

They're just going ahead and building it regardless. The Koch brothers want it so it's happening.

[patrice]

26. Keystone is a spiked harness for the U.S. economy to PULL the world economy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737642