State Department has approved the #Keystone XL pipeline plan as being environmentally sound

[beachmom]

http://www.desmogblog.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-environmental-assessment-news

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-xl-pipeline-will-not-have-huge-impact-on-climate-draft-analysis-says/2013/03/01/715491b0-82a5-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

The State Department released a draft environmental impact assessment of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline Friday afternoon, suggesting that blocking the project would not have a significant impact on either the future development of Canada’s oil sands region or U.S. oil consumption.

The analysis, which will inform the decision President Obama must make later this year on whether to grant TransCanada the permit to construct the pipeline connecting Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries, does not give environmentalists the answer they had hoped for in the debate over the project’s climate impact. Opponents say a presidential veto of the project would send a powerful message to the world about the importance of moving away from fossil fuels and make it more difficult for Canada to export its energy-intensive oil.

This was done as a Friday news dump while Secretary Kerry is out of the country. Not great optics. However, it seems he had very little influence on how this report was made. According to this post, it was a corrupt process all having to do with the previous Secretary of State:

At the core of the scandal: the firm Cardno Entrix, allowed by the State Department to conduct the impacts review for the pipeline despite a stunning conflict of interest; emails between State Department staff and TransCanada lobbyist Paul Elliott, previously a top Hillary Clinton campaign aide, that indicate bias and complicity at State; a web of lobbyists and State Department employees cozy with the oil industry; and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who announced last year announced she was “inclined” to approve the pipeline even though the State Department’s review was not yet complete.

http://www.foe.org/news/blog/keystone-xl-pipeline-influence-scandal

[Smilo]

1. Nooooooooooooooo!!!!

This decision is wrong on so many levels.

Someone, somewhere is sitting in a back room counting their pay-off.

[ProSense]

2. According to Reuters this is not final

The State Department will release the assessment of TransCanada Corp's pipeline, which will examine a new route in Nebraska as well as emissions associated with the pipeline, the sources said.

<...>

A final decision on the line is not expected until mid-year. The draft assessment will be open to public comment, expected to last 45 days. After the assessment is finalized, the State Department will decide whether the project is in the national interest, a process that could also take more than a month.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/01/usa-keystone-idUSL1N0BTD8120130301

The delay was written about in this DK diary a few weeks ago

Keystone XL pipeline decision delayed until at least June
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/03/1184303/-Keystone-XL-pipeline-decision-delayed-until-at-least-June

[Kolesar]

3. The Clintons set it up before John Kerry took over

Or so I heard on DU last month...

[karynnj]

6. The only thing I remember Kerry saying was that he would wait until the report was issued

and that the process would be transparent. I wonder what he was speaking of with "the process". Could it mean the period where questions are asked?

Clinton has been in charge of this for years and she chose the company to do the assessment. But, the questions should be on the details of the report - not who wrote it or who assigned them to analyze it. The questions should be whether the analysis was comprehensive and did a reasonable job of choosing what potential problems need to be analyzed.

I think that people who oppose Keystone - including me - need to look to scientific experts to detail what factors were not considered or dismissed too lightly. I hope that is what will happen between now and summer. It has to be science and fact based.

[JI7]

4. since Kerry is currently Sec of State can't he do something about it ?

[blm]

5. Pretty sure he came into State knowing the deal was done, since it was done years ago.

This 'assessment' is from a firm chosen by Hillary that was friendly to the Keystone deal from the get go.

Kerry knows he will be the one to take the fall for her. We know him - we know he will, with the hope to be in a position later that can make a greater difference. I focking HATE how the Clintons USE good people.

[wisteria]

7. That is the truth! n/t

[Mass]

8. The report went for the worst approach, the one that hurts us more than anything.

Admit that tar sands is bad, then say, but anyway, it's going to happen, so why try to block it.

Hopefully, this is not set in stone, but I never got a good feeling for that.

[karynnj]

9. Agree completely

The question is whether that premise can be challenged. I was afraid that this is what they would do as it was what many proponents were saying.The problem that the researchers faced is that their assessment is that the project would have the same scope even if the pipeline were denied. This meant that they could make that assumption that with or without the pipeline, the same quantity of tar sands oil would be produced and used somewhere in the world. But, even with that assumption, it does not go as far as the proponents who makethe same assumption and then argued that the alternative was worse for the environment.

Even if you accept that this is the right way to look at it - assuming we can not control the Canadian company and being concerned with the INTERNATIONAL not NATIONAL impact, this STILL makes a very weak case that it will be just slightly worse than not doing it. One possible flaw is that they negated the risk of a spill IN THE US by saying there could be a spill in Canada or at sea. However, it might be that a spill at the port in Canada would greatly impact not just Canada, but much of the Northwest coast. One tangentially environmental issue is that this is a private company that will get all the profits from this oil, less whatever taxes Canada gets from them. Is there any payment to the US for the transport? (I assume that they will buy the right of way, but the risk is not just to the land directly under the pipeline. ) In addition, given that they get the lion's share of the profit, do they REALLY incur most of the risk? As a company, they can declare bankruptcy of the COMPANY, but not the executives or large investors, if there is a catastrophic spill.

Given that a realistic estimate of having just one major break in the pipe turns a "whatever" case (under the assumptions most favorable to it) to a negative case, one way to force inclusion of that risk in the pipeline company's cost benefit analysis is to require the pipeline company buy specified insurance to cover spills. (good NPR article on the Michigan spill - http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158025375/when-this-oil-spills-its-a-whole-new-monster ) To require insurance to handle n spills as big as the one in Michigan - that is taking years and more money than expected to clean up - as a condition for the pipeline seems reasonable. They need to preclude "self insuring" which would likely lead to the US/state/town having to foot the likely inevitable bill. My hope is that an insurance requirement could change the profitability -- leading to them abandoning the project.

I wonder whether the State Department can hold a hearing on this or whether the SFRC must do so. At this point, it is not even clear if SOS Kerry has even read the draft. I know that there is thought that the Kerry/Obama sign off is a done deal, but I think that this report "damns with (even less) than faint praise. In essence, it says that this project will create very few jobs, will make an admittedly dirtier than regular crude oil more available. How is this something that anyone not associated with the company thinks is a good idea?

One problem that Kerry and, even more, Obama has is that he already okay'd the building of the southern part of the pipeline. This may be part of what boxed in the researchers. In doing that, Obama kind of gave away the ability to challenge the entire idea of whether facilitating the dirty oil is acceptable. It leaves only the special environmental concerns that had stopped the northern part and reduces things to specific endangered areas - and they have rerouted the pipeline. This leads me to conclude that BLM is very likely correct that Clinton/Obama have already tacitly given away the ability to stop the pipeline. To do so after allowing the southern part to be built and demanding they determine an accept alternative route for the Northern portion would seem almost dishonest if they were really against the entire thing. It would seem that unless Kerry/Obama could defend something as being a previously not known negative, denying the pipeline would seem almost a breech of faith as Obama essentially encouraged the company to spend the money on additional studies and actually building the pipeline. Al in all, this stinks to high heavens.

[Mass]

10. The problem is that they assume the project is viable at the same scale without the pipeline.

This premise is by itself faulty. One of the reasons Canada wants the pipeline is that it is by far the least expensive way to move oil across the continent. There does not seem to have been an analysis of whether the same quantity of tar sands would be exploited without the pipeline.

This is however a preliminary report and there will be a 45 day comment period. Hopefully, voices will raise, but some people are set to ignore reality.

This has an impact in our Senate race where Markey is the only one opposing the pipeline while Lynch voted for it in the House saying it would create jobs (in Massachusetts?, really?).

[karynnj]

11. I agree and did challenge the assumption in another post

It seems logical that a higher cost to get it to markets would move the point where additional production (at increasing costs) would become uneconomical. It is hard to believe the difference would be as small as the report indicated.

I think the bigger problem is the Obama/Clinton political concessions that had the company create alternative plans and to be given permission to build part of the pipeline - both things that become worthless if the pipeline is rejected. The problem is that no political courage was expended over the last 3 years - making it harder to now challenge the production of tar sands oil itself.

I wonder if the best way to fight it is to suggest that Canada is using us as third world countries (and economically disadvantaged areas here) are used. Their pipeline would be going through pristine US land with the possibility of having a devastating leak that would destroy the land for at least decades. (Especially true if it is true that Canada would not allow a pipeline to its shore.) This is even more appalling as the oil is not the kind used much in the US. Why is the usually jingoistic right not concerned with this?

[blm]

12. They don't care that they will destroy Kerry's legacy on environmental issues. Clinton's a user and

she, no doubt, will use her publicity machine to make Kerry take the hits for her.

Obama will see it as a necessity to protect his presidency.

[karynnj]

13. Kerry does not have to approve of the project based on this report - and Obama can overrule a Kerry

recommendation not to proceed. Note - Kerry doing this would not hurt Obama any more than if he proceeds having the State Department in favor. In fact, perversely, it helps him with the Republicans while the Democrats will blame him either way. It also preserves Kerry's potential ability to work on climate change which Obama wants to do. As to Clinton, I suspect that she is too connected with it to argue she was against it. I do think that she, like Bill, would use anyone.

The likelihood is that just as the Republicans can ask the CBO to estimate the deficit effect of ACA sans all the reforms that drive down costs - getting an estimate that says that ACA adds to the debt, someone likely defined the assumptions of this paper - and as Mass said it was the worst possible case for showing a negative impact - because - by assumption - it eliminates the entire affect of the dirty Tar Sands oil. That someone likely has initials HRC.

Kerry already voted against Keystone and he wants to lead on climate change. I hope that Kerry was serious in having a transparent process on this. This is a draft and there is time for Q&A. If people here see through this - and question the assumptions, I assume that there are economists who can blast holes in that assumption.

What would be great is if Kerry held a hearing (if a SOS could do that) and was able to question things like that assumption.

[blm]

14. I just don't see it that way. I am certain Kerry accepted Sec of State KNOWING he'd

be taking the slings and arrows for Keystone deal. Come on...we KNOW him. And we've also seen him get used by political opportunists counting on his willingness to take hits in hope for a greater good he believes he can perform down the road.

[karynnj]

15. I think there will be a lot of pressure on him - from Democarts and Republicans in Congress,

from the industry, and from Canada to recommend this project.

He has held his cards close to his vest on this - not answering questions directly. He has spoken of a transparent process and not knowing what the study would show. He is very experienced at looking at these types of analyses and questioning the assumptions is as basic as you can get. I also hope that one very committed environmentalist is lobbying her husband pointing out that he knows what is right.

If it came down to whether it would hurt Obama if Kerry refused to approve it, I could see him approving it for all the reasons you suggest. I don't think it does because Obama can over ride any decision. I don't think, in spite of his excellent record, that Kerry approving it gives Obama any cover with environmentalists or the left. I think Obama is in a strange position on this as his recent comments on climate change really conflict with the idea of approving this. Not to mention, why throw away a valuable card for nothing.

Obama is in his second term, the question is whether - as Van Jones said he wants this to be Obama's pipeline. It is impossible to assume that in all future decades of use, it never springs a leak - devastating some part of the country. Does he want this as his legacy? Standing up and saying "no" - USING the lack of gains to the US in this report might be the best thing for him to do. The down side could be that Democrats will be hit with stopping that in 2014. That was threatened with ANWR as well - and it didn't really work. It could be that they would "punish" him by holding something else hostage - but they are already doing that with everything. In fact, if he has to do it, he likely would want to trade something big for it.

A cynical part of me could even see Kerry not approving it, giving his considerate opinion of why it is not in our interest - and Obama using overriding Kerry as a bargaining chip with the Republicans. (Note if Kerry approves it and Obama concurs, they get nothing from the Republicans in return.)

[beachmom]

22. Disagree. It would make the POTUS look weak if a member of his cabinet went a different

way than he plans to. Kerry is not the Attorney General, which has to maintain some independence. The SoS is the voice for the Administration overseas.

I completely agree with BLM's take on this. Just when I was kind of liking Hillary .... sigh.

[Mass]

16. Well, keystone will be the least of the problems.

Clinton's people are going around attacking Obama's foreign policy and making clear she has nothing to do with Afghanistan and the middle east policy. While I am certain that there may be some truth to the report (the White House is known to keep its cards close to its chest on these issues), it is interesting to see the juxtaposition of articles explaining what a rock star and a great SoS she was and how little influence she and the state department have on the big issues of the world. Kind of contradictory.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/04/the_inside_story_of_how_the_white_house_let_diplomacy_fail_in_afghanistan?page=0,0

[blm]

17. It's standard ops for them. They know how to work the press to play both narratives at the same

time. Who calls them on it publicly? Besides me. ; )

DU is proof of how easily they can manipulate the party and the press.

Personally, I expect to see Clintonites even sabotaging some global situations here and there the way Bush loyalists did. Especially when they see Biden as their political rival. Look how they attacked Kerry relentlessly within the party and sometimes publicly in the press. They will use their eager pets in the press to target Kerry, yet again, to undermine foreign policy goals that would reflect well on Obama and Biden.

[karynnj]

18. The question I have is which side leaked that she wanted to arm the Syrian rebels?

Last edited Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

No matter what happens in Syria going forward, I doubt that wanting (like McCain) to have armed the rebels - currently fighting among themselves- would play well in a Democratic primary.

This really makes no sense if the Clintons are behind it. The strongest case that she would have in running is if she is seen as the "heir" to both the Clinton Presidency and the Obama one. Taking the claims that are hers to take - that her travels restored the respect for the US from the Bush days would be the best way to add to her 2008 resume. (I would quibble that just having a generic Democratic President elected would have led to both the bulk of the improvement in the numbers and to the Democratic President getting the Nobel prize -- the intensity of Europe's dislike for Bush was such.)

I hope this is untrue - but it seems the norm for the Clintons. As far as Democrats go, my thought is that rarely have a couple been given so much and returned so little to others - unless it helped them in some way.

[blm]

21. That would be her side - she historically matches up with McCain

and she was always pro-use of force on Syria even during Bush's term.

[beachmom]

23. Relatedly, this seems to be threading the needle:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/world/middleeast/kerry-says-administration-backs-mideast-efforts-to-arm-syrian-rebels.html

Kerry Says Administration Backs Mideast Efforts to Arm Syrian Rebels

DOHA, Qatar — Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday that the Obama administration supports efforts by Middle Eastern nations to send arms to the opposition in Syria, and had had discussions with foreign officials to make sure those arms go to moderate forces rather than extremists.

“We had discussions about the types of weapons that are being transferred, by whom,” Mr. Kerry said after a meeting with the prime minister of Qatar, which has been involved in arming the Syrian opposition.

Mr. Kerry’s comments were the most direct public affirmation to date that the Obama administration supports efforts to arm the Syrian resistance, provided that the arms are sent by other nations and care is taken to direct them to factions the United States supports.

His comments appeared to signal a shift in the administration’s strategy on Syria, as well as a more transparent effort to coordinate American support for the opponents of President Bashar al-Assad with the efforts of other nations.

[beachmom]

24. Did you see Tommy Vietor's reply to that article?

https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/308575326852767747

It's like he got a readout of readout from someone who actually attended a meeting. Unsourced take on Obama's motives is wrong.

He's the former spokesperson for the National Security Council.

Article on him here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/us/politics/spokesmanship-over-ex-obama-aide-now-feels-free-to-speak.html

[karynnj]

25. Thanks - I did not see that or any other response to the

unsourced article. This comment is interesting in that it actually confirms what happened at the meeting - but says the unsourced take on the motives is wrong.

[blm]

26. There is only ONE reason someone would deliberately misstate motive -

It's clear Hillary intends to run to the right of Obama and allowing herself to be portrayed by surrogates as his victim at the same time.

[Mass]

19. Considering the choice of Moniz as Secretary of Energy, I guess this is a done deal.

Not that DOE has much to do with it, but because we can expect some consistancy. This guy supports tar sands and fracking. Not a good sign when it comes to environmental issues.

This said, it is probably less worse than the alternatives and environmental groups will keep quiet.

[MBS]

20. Yeah, I was depressed by the Moniz choice. n/t

[bananas]

27. Stephen Chu also indicated it was a done deal

https://mobile.twitter.com/drgrist/status/108972277130997760

David Roberts
@ drgrist

Steven Chu signals that the Keystone XL
pipeline is all but a done deal: bit.ly/qckrSM

6:39 p.m. Wed, Aug 31

[blm]

28. Last August. That deal had been brokered even before that. Thanks Hillary.

.

[bananas]

29. It was August 2011, not 2012

The tweet didn't include the year but it was made in 2011,
and the link it goes to is a news article from August 2011.

http://www.energynow.com/video/2011/08/31/chu-says-us-energy-security-trade-off-favors-oil-sands-pipeline

Chu Says U.S. Energy Security 'Trade Off' Favors Oil-Sands Pipeline

(video)
Length 2:04
Created 08.31.11
Reporter Thalia Assuras
Air Date 08.31.11

In an exclusive interview with energyNOW! anchor Thalia Assuras, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu says energy security concerns may help the Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline win approval.

“It’s certainly true that having Canada as a supplier for our oil is much more comforting than to have other countries supply our oil,” Chu said in the interview, part of an energyNOW! special on Canada’s oil sands and the Keystone XL pipeline debate which will air September 17 and 18 on Bloomberg Television and September 18 on WJLA ABC7 in Washington, D.C.

“It’s not perfect, but it’s a trade off,” Chu said.

The proposed pipeline, currently under review by the U.S. State Department because it crosses the nation's border with Canada, would bring crude from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast. Chu is one of eight cabinet members advising Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the project.

<snip>

[blm]

30. Missed year, but, it coincides with what I've been posting - deal's been done for years.

.