Critical Part of Keystone Report Done by Firms with Deep Oil Industry Ties
Source: Inside Climate News
The State Department's recent conclusion that the Keystone XL pipeline "is unlikely to have a substantial impact" on the rate of Canada's oil sands development was based on analysis provided by two consulting firms with ties to oil and pipeline companies that could benefit from the proposed project.
EnSys Energy has worked with ExxonMobil, BP and Koch Industries, which own oil sands production facilities and refineries in the Midwest that process heavy Canadian crude oil. Imperial Oil, one of Canada's largest oil sands producers, is a subsidiary of Exxon.
ICF International works with pipeline and oil companies but doesn't list specific clients on its website. It declined to comment on the Keystone, referring questions to the State Department.
EnSys president Martin Tallett said he couldn't talk about the proposed pipeline, but he pointed out that in addition to working for the oil industry, his company also works for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and the World Bank.
(emphasis added by me)
Read more: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130306/keystone-xl-eis-state-department-transcanada-oil-tar-sands-industry-ensys-energy-koch-brothers-exxonmobil-bp-obama
Don't mind the noise. I'm just breaking shit.
think
(11,641 posts)Crooks and Liars. So Fitting.....
Duval
(4,280 posts)I'm linking this to Facebook. I feel just like your picture up there!!
forestpath
(3,102 posts)timdog44
(1,388 posts)"We don't do advocacy," Tallett said. "Our goal is to tell it like it is, to tell the way we see it
If we were the pet of government agencies or oil companies, the other side wouldn't come to us."----
He says this as if there actually were different sides of the issue with the agencies and industries involved. From all I have seen, they are all sharing the same bed. The other side would be environmental groups and private land owners.
progressoid
(50,011 posts)NO WAY
antigone382
(3,682 posts)I know it sounds somewhat insignificant. But "tar" more readily gets across what we're dealing with here: sticky black gunk that has to be heavily processed (in an extremely energy intensive manner) to get any useful energy out of it. "Oil sands" to me sounds much less icky. It's similar to how they like to rename mountaintop removal mining as "mountaintop mining" or even "mountaintop development."
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)to the Texas and Louisiana coastal export refineries. Refineries owned by various 1%ers and China oil importing businesses.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)hue
(4,949 posts)Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)EVERY SINGLE consulting firm has evil clients.
ALL OF THEM.
If you're qualified to prepare a document for a project of that magnitude, then you've worked with big oil companies before.