• October 25, 2014

Keystone XL oil pipeline clears significant hurdle

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:30 am

WASHINGTON — The long-delayed Keystone XL oil pipeline cleared a major hurdle toward approval Friday, a serious blow to environmentalists’ hopes that President Barack Obama will block the controversial project running more than 1,000 miles from Canada through the heart of the U.S.

The State Department reported no major environmental objections to the proposed $7 billion pipeline, which has become a symbol of the political debate over climate change. Republicans and some oil- and gas-producing states in the U.S. — as well as Canada’s minister of natural resources — cheered the report, but it further rankled environmentalists already at odds with Obama and his energy policy.

The report stops short of recommending approval of the pipeline, but the review gives Obama new support if he chooses to endorse it in spite of opposition from many Democrats and environmental groups. Foes say the pipeline would carry “dirty oil” that contributes to global warming, and they also express concern about possible spills.

Pushing back on the notion that the pipeline is now headed for speedy approval, the White House said the report isn’t the final step and noted that the report includes “a range of estimates of the project’s climate impacts.” Only after various U.S. agencies and the public have a chance to weigh the report and other data will a decision be made, said White House spokesman Matt Lehrich.

“The president has clearly stated that the project will be in the national interest only if it does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,” Lehrich said.

Republicans and business and labor groups urged Obama to approve the pipeline to create thousands of jobs and move further toward North American energy independence.

The 1,179-mile pipeline would travel through the heart of the United States, carrying oil derived from tar sands in western Canada to Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Canadian tar sands are likely to be developed regardless of U.S. action on the pipeline, the report said.

The report said oil derived from tar sands in Alberta generates about 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming than traditional crude. But the report makes clear that other methods of transporting the oil — including rail, trucks and barges — would release more greenhouse gases than the pipeline.

© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

1 comment:

  • Alvin posted at 10:54 am on Sun, Feb 9, 2014.

    Alvin Posts: 207

    Some of the objections to this pipeline I agree with, not because of the reasons stated, but due to the fact that this pipeline is a boon doggle. First let me say that I doubt if any of the oil goes to refining here in the states because none of the oil is capable of being ran in the refineries. There are too many obstacles, problems, with this slake crude to run it in the states. So it'll be exported. So we run an 1100 mile pipeline just to see the oil exported. Second, they are saying 40,000 to 80,000 jobs. Well, as I understand it, The pipeline is already completed between Oklahoma and Wyoming so the only portions that remain to be completed are from the beginning of the pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Oklahoma to the gulf coast. Another tidbit on the pipeline, as I understand it, is the U.S. has given Canada a free ride in regards to spillage and what the consequences would be. In regard to the massive numbers of people that would be employed, ranging from thousands to a couple of hundred. A couple of hundred is what I'm thinking. It would not take that many employees to maintain pressure booster stations and intermediate storage tanks if necessary. As to the pipeline moving across the plains, I think it's chancy at best.
    As to what the cost of gasoline and diesel will be 'if' the pipeline gets the go ahead, the prices you will see are roughly the prices you're see today. Gasoline will remain relatively the same. Diesel, since none of the stateside refineries is set up to run and produce diesel, the cost will remain basically what it is today, so produce price will remain high. So running the XL pipeline will benefit 'the few'.
    For the reasons stated here, I am against the pipeline.

     

Featured Events