Countdown Is On For Keystone XL; But How Many Jobs?

Jan 5: On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law a bill requiring approval of the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days unless he determines the pipeline would not serve the national interest. On January 4, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee posted its new Keystone XL clock to track how much time has passed since the day the President signed the bill demanding action on the project that they say will "create tens of thousands of jobs and significantly increase America's energy security."

 

The President reluctantly agreed to the Keystone XL provision that was attached by Republicans to the payroll tax reduction bill which he supported [See WIMS 12/16/11]. Earlier, the President said he would veto any Keystone XL amendments to the bill and had delayed the Keystone XL decision until further environmental review could be made to satisfy major concerns raised by the Nebraska Governor and environmental groups [See WIMS 12/8/11]. The delay was expected to extend well into 2013, while the various agencies examined in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. [See WIMS 11/14/11 & WIMS 11/11/11].

 

    Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "The clock is now ticking, and soon, President Obama must finally make a decision on the long-awaited Keystone XL pipeline. After waiting more than three years for this pipeline while the country faces prolonged unemployment, the American people are fed up with the president's inaction on a project that can quickly create jobs. The president is now required by law to approve the project unless he believes it is not in the national interest, and with millions of Americans still out of work this New Year, our national interest would clearly be well served when the president says yes to tens of thousands of new shovel-ready jobs. Republicans and Democrats alike agree this is a win-win for America."

 

    During the heat of the highly controversial debate on the issue a principle argument has been the number of jobs created by the project. The State Department estimated the number of construction jobs at 5,000 to 6,000; however, as the debate has continued the number of jobs to be created by the project has increased to 20,000; to tens of thousands; to hundreds of thousands and has high as 250,000 or more. Most of the high-end estimates have been reported by TransCanada, the project developer.

 

    A recent study by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute entitled, Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, provides an in-depth look at the numbers and the uncertainty surrounding many of estimates. The 40-page paper indicates, "The purpose of this briefing paper is to examine claims made by TransCanada Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute that, if constructed, TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline will generate enough employment to kick-start important sections of the US economy through the creation of tens of thousands -- perhaps even hundreds of thousands -- of good, well-paying jobs for American workers." The main points in the briefing paper are summarized as follows:

• The industry's US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs.
• The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department.
• The company's claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
• There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL -- steel pipe -- will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.
• The industry's claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.
• KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work.
• KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.
• Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity.
• Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase both the risk and costs of further climate instability.
• By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.

    The paper concludes, "Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. As noted. . . it is unfortunate that the numbers generated by TransCanada, the industry, and the Perryman study have been subject to so little scrutiny, because they clearly inflate the projections for the numbers of direct, indirect, and long-term induced jobs that KXL might expect to create. What is being offered by the proponents is advocacy to build support for KXL, rather than serious research aimed to inform public debate and responsible decision making. By repeating inflated job numbers, the supporters of KXL."

 

    Access a release from House Energy and Commerce Committee GOP leadership (click here). Access the House Energy and Commerce Committee tracking clock and related information (click here). Access the complete Cornell paper (click here). Access a lengthy StarTribune/Washington Post article "Fact checker: Keystone pipeline jobs claims" (click here). Access a pro-industry article on the KXL project from the Washington Times (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2055 (click here). [#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/KXL]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

WIMS Environmental HotSheet 2/3/14

<> Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) - US Dept. of State Final Supplemental EIS; Fact Sheet; and US DOS: Keystone Project Site.

·   Remarks on the Release of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone Pipeline - Remarks on the Release of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone Pipeline; Kerri-Ann Jones Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Via Teleconference January 31, 2014

·   TransCanada Corporation welcomed the U.S. Department of State's latest environmental analysis of the Keystone XL Pipeline

·   Keystone pipeline: Obama?s unpleasant options 

·   White House: Obama awaits more Keystone reviews; timing unclear -

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama still wants to hear from other federal agencies before deciding whether to accept the State Department's finding that the Keystone XL pipeline would have no major impact on climate change, his top aide said on Sunday.

<> Friends of the Earth Responds to Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement - Today the State Department will release its Environmental Impact Statement for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Below is a statement from Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica: "The State Department’s environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline is a farce. Since the beginning of the assessment, the oil industry has had a direct pipeline into the agency. Perhaps

·   President Has All Information Needed to Reject Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline- The following is a statement by Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, international program director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, on the State Department’s final environmental impact statement for the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline

·   Obama Administration Pushes Disastrous Keystone XL Closer to Approval

<> Committee Leaders Respond to Final Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement - WASHINGTON, DC – House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders responded to the U.S. State Department’s release of the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Keystone XL pipeline application, which includes the proposed reroute through Nebraska. “Finally, after months of unexplained delays, the State Department has issued its fifth and final environmental. . .

·          Boehner: President Obama Out of Excuses on Keystone Jobs - House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement today after the State Department issued its latest report on the Keystone XL Pipeline: “President Obama is out of excuses.  The fact that he has let a final decision on the Keystone pipeline project – and the more than 100,000 jobs that come with it – languish for more than five years is 

·   Sen. Murkowski Comments on State Report on Keystone XL - U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) commented on the Obama administration’s release of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the Keystone XL Pipeline 

<> Keystone XL Pipeline Passes Supplemental EIS - AFPM Calls on President Obama to End Delay of Approval - Keystone XL Pipeline Passes Supplemental EIS - AFPM Calls on President Obama to End Delay of Approval 2014-01-31 American Fuel &amp; Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President Charles T. Drevna issued the following statement on the Keystone XL Pipeline Supplement EIS. . .

·          Obama administration moves closer to approving Keystone XL - American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard welcomed the outcome of the Department of State’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Keystone XL pipeline.

<> Senator Boxer's Statement on the Latest Development on Keystone XL Pipeline

<> Senate Continues Farm Bill Consideration Monday, February 3, 2014 - The Senate stands adjourned until 2:00pm on Monday, February 3, 2014. Following any Leader remarks, the Senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. The time until 5:30pm will be equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees. . .

<> The Global Climate in Context — 2013 in Review - In a not-so-extraordinary 2013 calendar year, IPCC’s higher estimate of potential sea-level rise by 2100 — in a worst case, up to one meter — may be the most notable in terms of the planet’s overall climate developments. 

<> Lake Ice In Northern Alaska Shows A “Dramatic” Decline In 20 Years, Study Finds - Mendenhall Lake in Juneau, Alaska. CREDIT: AP Photo/Becky Bohrer Winter ice cover on Alaska’s lakes has declined over the last 20 years, a new study has found. The study, published in The Cryosphere, looked at radar satellite radar imagery from lakes in Alaska’s North Slope and found a decrease in “grounded ice” — or ice frozen completely to the bottom of a lake — of 22 percent. . . 

<> Natural Gas: A Bridge to the Future or Bridge to Nowhere? - In his latest State of the Union address, President Obama once again called natural gas a "bridge" to the clean energy future. But is the resource really all the industry claims? We'll take a nuanced look at dynamics in the natural gas market, and ask whether it's helpful or hurtful to renewable energy. We'll also discuss the energy and climate piece of Obama's State of the Union Speech,

<> Nuclear vs. renewables: Divided they fall - Climate activists have split into two warring camps. That plays right into the hands of fossil fuel interests. . .

<> Canadian Arctic Warming Unprecedented In 120,000 Years - Recent warming has been unprecedented in speed, scale, and cause. Last year, we reported on a study that found the rate of warming since 1900 is 50 times greater than the rate of cooling in the previous 5000 years, which threatens to destroy the stable climate that enabled civilization. . .

<> Solutions for a Sustainable Future - What are the 100 solutions that can make real a sustainable society? Sustainia and partners now launch a global campaign to find the questions. The goal is to identify a guide to the world’s 100 leading sustainability projects and technologies across sectors as food, fashion, energy, smart homes.

<> World Wetlands Day 2014 Focuses on Wetlands and Agriculture - February 2nd each year is World Wetlands Day, the Ramsar Convention chose Wetlands & Agriculture as the World Wetlands Day theme for 2014.

<> SAB Report- Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of EPA Planned Actions in the Spring 2013 Unified (Regulatory) Agenda and their Supporting Science

<> SAB Report - Concern about the Future of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program

<> Final report of CRC-9 meeting released - The final report of the ninth meeting of the Chemical Review Committee has been published in the six official UN languages.

<> Lower emissions cap for Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative takes effect in 2014 - (Mon, 03 Feb 2014) Initiative (RGGI) cap and trade program for carbon dioxide (CO2) decided to lower the program's emissions cap by 45% starting in 2014. RGGI is intended to limit CO2 emissions from electric power plants in the Northeast.

Keystone XL Decision Will Test President's Climate Change Pledge

Jan 23: Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), John Hoeven (R-ND), Max Baucus (D-MT.) and a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama urging him to approve the Keystone XL pipeline following Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman's approval of the route through Nebraska Tuesday [See WIMS 1/22/13]. In one day's time, the letter gained 53 signatures, a majority of the U.S. Senate. Senators in addition to Murkowski, Hoeven and Baucus who attended the news conference included, Mark Pryor (D-AR), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), David Vitter (R-LA), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). The full text of the letter reads as follows:

Dear Mr. President:

"Nebraska recently approved a new Keystone XL Pipeline route. Four and a half years after TransCanada first applied for a Presidential Permit, and a year since you denied their original request, the project still awaits your approval. Nebraska has now addressed the outstanding concerns you raised when you denied the permit, and we therefore urge you to finish expeditiously the review process and approve the pipeline. Specifically, the new pipeline route in Nebraska avoids the Sand Hills, which you cited as a concern in your denial. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality determined the pipeline would have minimal environmental impact and would generate significant economic benefits in the state of Nebraska. This is on top of the thousands of good-paying union jobs and millions of dollars in economic development for our country as a whole, none of which cost any taxpayer money. The pipeline is also a major step toward American energy security. Canada plans to develop this oil resource and the only question is whether we receive the oil from our friend and ally or whether Canada is forced to look for new partners in Asia because we turned them away.

"On March 22, 2012, you directed federal agencies to accelerate approval of vital energy infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline.  We strongly urge you to direct the State Department to accelerate the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and quickly complete the National Interest Determination. 

"This should be able to be done quickly since your administration has previously made a National Interest Determination on the same key factors relevant to Keystone XL.  In 2009, with respect to the Alberta Clipper Pipeline, the State Department 'found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States' worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.'

"The factors supporting the National Interest Determination in 2009 are just as relevant today.  Some constituencies have called on you to deny the pipeline and the jobs and energy security associated with it.  Because the pipeline has gone through the most exhaustive environmental scrutiny of any pipeline in the history of this country, and you already determined that oil from Canada is in the national interest, there is no reason to deny or further delay this long-studied project.  

"We ask you not to move the goalposts as opponents of this project have pressed you to do. We urge you to choose jobs, economic development and American energy security.  It is vital for the country that you promptly finalize the SEIS and the National Interest Determination and approve the pipeline.     "The State Department has said that it would issue the final SEIS before the end of the first quarter of 2013.  After four and a half years of study, we urge you to stick to your deadlines.  The American people need a timely decision on the Presidential Permit.

"Thank you for your consideration."

    Last November, Baucus and Hoeven organized a bipartisan letter signed by 18 senators, nine Republicans and nine Democrats, calling on the president to approve the Keystone XL project once Nebraska's concerns were addressed. They also asked to meet with the president to discuss the project, but to date they are still awaiting a response from the White House.

    On the House side, Energy and Commerce Committee Republican leaders pledged continued action in support of the Keystone XL pipeline following Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman's approval of the proposed reroute of the pipeline through the Cornhusker state. Now that the Nebraska process is complete, the next step is for the president to approve the Presidential Permit. Full committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Lee Terry (R-NE) issued a statement following the governor's announcement saying:

    "Today marks another milestone on the long and tumultuous road toward the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Nebraska has now given its stamp of approval of the landmark infrastructure project, which should alleviate the president's concerns over the proposed route. The pipeline route has been thoroughly studied and found to be environmentally sound. Keystone XL will help create thousands of American jobs and put us on a path toward North American energy independence. This pipeline is clearly in our national interest and it is critical for our economy and our national security that it be approved immediately. We will continue to fight tooth and nail for this pipeline and the jobs it will create and will pursue additional legislation to ensure it is approved and built to completion."

    Additionally, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued a release calling on President Obama to immediately approve the project. He said, "Nebraska's approval of a new Keystone XL pipeline route means there is no bureaucratic excuse, hurdle, or catch President Obama can use to delay this project any further. He and he alone stands in the way of tens of thousands of new jobs and energy security. Every state along the proposed route supports this project, as does a bipartisan coalition in Congress and a majority of Americans. I recognize all the political pressure the president faces, but with our energy security at stake and many jobs in limbo, he should find a way to say yes."

    The Nebraska approval, combined with the growing Congressional political pressure is setting the stage for a highly controversial decision by the President and his Administration -- particularly in light of the President's Inaugural commitment to address the issue of climate change [See WIMS 1/22/13].

    On February 17, President's Day weekend, 350.org, the Sierra Club and the Hip-Hop Caucus are organizing a demonstration at The National Mall, Washington, DC to protest the further development of the Keystone XL pipeline [See WIMS 1/15/13]. In anticipation of the demonstration, the Sierra Club Board of Directors has approved the one-time use of civil disobedience for the first time in the organization's 120-year history.

    On January 7, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and nearly 70 other national and regional organizations released a letter thanking President Obama for repeatedly raising the threat of climate change and highlighted specific actions he can take after his second inauguration to expand clean energy and curb pollution that is altering our climate. Among the specific actions recommended by the group to address climate change concerns they said, "the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in our national interest because it would unlock vast amounts of additional carbon that we can't afford to burn, extend our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels, endanger health and safety, and put critical water resources at risk." [See WIMS 1/8/13].

    On January 17, a release from NRDC indicated that scientists and advocates had unveiled new research from Oil Change International showing that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would damage the climate much more than previously thought, by dramatically expanding tar sands production and because it will lead to increased combustion of a particularly dirty form of oil -- petroleum coke -- known as petcoke [See WIMS 1/17/13]. They said, "The petcoke produced from the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would fuel 5 coal plants and produce 16.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, thus emitting 13% more carbon dioxide than the U.S. State Department has previously considered."

    According to TransCanada, the Keystone XL project developer, the proposed oil pipeline will transport oil from Hardisty, Alberta and Baker, Montana before reaching delivery terminals in Steele City, Nebraska. Keystone XL is estimated to cost about US$5.3 billion to build and will support the creation of 9,000 jobs on the American portion of the pipeline and about 2,200 on the Canadian side. The projected in-service date for Keystone XL is late 2014 or early 2015, subject to approval of the company's Presidential Permit application.

    Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman pointed out in a letter to the President that, "Construction of Keystone XL will result in $418.1 million in economic benefits and support up to 4,560 new or existing jobs in Nebraska. The project will generate $16.5 million in taxes from pipeline construction materials and is expected to yield up to $13 million in local property tax revenues in its first full year of valuation. Normal operation of the pipeline is expected to have no effect on ground or surface water quality or use along the pipeline route in Nebraska. In the unlikely event of a spill from the pipeline, impacts on water resources would be localized and would not impact the Ogallala Aquifer as a whole."

    Access a release from Sen. Murkowski and the letter (click here). Access a release from Sen. Hoeven including the letter and a list of signers (click here). Access the statement from House E&C Republicans (click here). Access a release from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access the release from Sierra Club and link to further details (click here). Access a release from NRDC and link to the complete letter with a list of signers and related NRDC blog postings (click here). Access a lengthy release from NRDC with links to related information (click here). Access the Oil Change International report (click here). Access an announcement from the Nebraska Governor and link to the letter to President Obama (click here). Access a release from TransCanada and link to the Presidential permit application and related information (click here). Access numerous WIMS blog postings on KXL (click here). [#Energy/KXL, #Energy/Pipeline, #Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a short time you can access the complete daily eNewsUSA issue (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

President Speaks Out On Keystone XL Pipeline

Jul 27: In a far-reaching interview with President Obama conducted by Jackie Calmes and Michael D. Shear of The New York Times. The interview was conducted at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., on July 24, 2013. The interview covers a number of key issues facing the country but also touches on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline issue. The following is the excerpt on the pipeline issue:

NYT: A couple other quick subjects that are economic-related. Keystone pipeline -- Republicans especially talk about that as a big job creator. You've said that you would approve it only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you to reach that decision?

MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, Michael, Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that's true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline -- which might take a year or two -- and then after that we're talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people.

NYT: Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve this.

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. But that is a blip relative to the need. So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can't ship some of that oil to world markets.

 

Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I'm going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.

 

NYT: And if they did, could that offset the concerns about the pipeline itself?

 

MR. OBAMA: We haven't seen specific ideas or plans. But all of that will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry's decision or recommendation on this issue.   

    Representative Lee Terry (R-NE), author of legislation in the House of Representatives that would approve the Keystone Pipeline, issued a statement in reaction to President Obama's interview with The New York Times saying, "The president conveniently chooses to ignore the construction jobs from steel, fabrication, and the rest of the jobs that would be created by our nation of builders if he would just approve the Keystone Pipeline. He also conveniently chooses to ignore the March draft EIS from his own State Department that said Keystone could create upwards of 42,000 jobs.

    "As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, my committee heard from the Obama Administration's own witness who testified before us that direct foreign investment from companies like TransCanada has dropped sharply in recent years. Down from 45% in 1980s, the world's direct foreign investment in the U.S. is now only 17%. Just like the President is doing to TransCanada and our nation's number one trading partner, he is telling the world that America is closed for business and we don't want your investments in our country or the jobs they would create".

    "With over 1,700 days of delays, the President is insulting Canada by saying that he needs to learn more about the project. What more could he learn after over 15,500 pages of reviews? In my opinion, the President now has zero credibility when he speaks about infrastructure projects creating jobs. What will it take for our president to focus on job creation and not job killing? President Obama needs to spend more time working with Republicans in Congress rather than traveling around the country reciting the environmental left's talking points and giving speeches that don't hire."   

    WIMS previously reported on a study by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute entitled, Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, provides an in-depth look at the numbers and the uncertainty surrounding many of estimates [See WIMS 1/6/12]. The 40-page paper indicates, "The purpose of this briefing paper is to examine claims made by TransCanada Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute that, if constructed, TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline will generate enough employment to kick-start important sections of the US economy through the creation of tens of thousands -- perhaps even hundreds of thousands -- of good, well-paying jobs for American workers." That report indicated, "The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department."

    The 40-page, detailed analysis also indicated that, "almost half (and perhaps more) of the primary material input for KXL -- steel pipe -- will not even be produced in the United States; [and] based on the experience of Phases 1 and 2, the final processing work for KXL will probably be performed in the US with most of the steel and pipe sourced from outside of the US (notably India and South Korea)." Thee report indicates that the claim of more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs "is misleading and erroneous on a number of levels."

    Access the complete interview text published in the NYT (click here). Access a release from Rep. Terry (click here). Access the complete Cornell paper (click here). Access the State Department KXL website for more information (click here). [Energy/KXL]

House Hearing & Major Debate Over U.S.-Canada Keystone XL Pipeline

May 23: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Chaired by Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY), is holding the eighth day of its hearings on the "American Energy Initiative" today. The hearing began at 3:00 PM and will focus on the discussion draft of legislation -- the "North American-Made Energy Security Act". The draft legislation aims to bring more North American oil supplies online by expediting the consideration of the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline expansion [See WIMS 4/26/11]. The draft legislation requires the President to issue a Presidential Permit decision no later than November 1, 2011. According to a Republican release the completion of the Keystone pipeline extension would more than double the current system's capacity, bringing 1.29 million barrels per day to into U.S. markets. 
 

    Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include representatives from: Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board; Murray Smith & Associates; TransCanada; United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters; IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates; and National Wildlife Federation. 
   

    On May 20, in anticipation of a hearing today on the draft legislation to expedite federal approval of the pipeline project, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Bobby Rush (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, sent a letter urging the Committee to request documents from Koch Industries relating to the company's interest in Canadian tar sands and the extent to which it will benefit if the Keystone XL pipeline is constructed.

 

    The letter to full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield, which references several related documents, indicates that, "According to Reuters, Charles and David Koch, the owners of Koch Industries, are 'positioned to be big winners if Keystone XL pipeline is approved' and would receive 'great financial opportunity.' Publicly available information indicates that the company is involved in several aspects of Canadian tar sands development. Koch's Pine Bend Refinery in Minnesota currently processes roughly 25% of the tar sands fuel imports to the United States. Koch owns Flint Hills Resources, LLP, in Calgary, Canada, which is 'among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters.' Flint Hills Resources also operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, where the Keystone XL pipeline will begin. According to the Government of Alberta, Koch Industries has both proposed and producing tar sands projects in the province. The Oil Sands Developers Group also indicates that Koch is a tar sands project developer. Koch's Corpus Christi refinery is positioned near the end of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and would be a potential buyer for the tar sands crude shipped through the pipeline."

 

    Waxman and Rush said, "In light of these reports, we asked our staff to contact Koch Industries to learn more about the company's role in the Keystone XL pipeline and Canadian tar sands.  Yesterday, our staff spoke with representatives of the company.  In that conversation, the Koch representatives would not answer questions about Koch's investments in Canadian tar sands. The Koch representatives said that the Keystone XL pipeline has 'nothing to do with any of our businesses' and that Koch had 'no financial interest' in the pipeline. They also stated that the company neither supports nor opposes the legislation we will be considering. . . 

 

    "However, Koch's representatives refused to answer questions about Koch's activities or interests in the Canadian tar sands.  They refused to confirm or deny reports that the company is developing tar sand projects. They also refused to say whether Koch Industries owns -- through a wholly owned subsidiary -- a terminal involved in the tar sands business." They said, "There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the published reports that Koch Industries would be 'big winners' if the pipeline is approved and the statement of the Koch representatives that the pipeline has 'nothing to do' with Koch's businesses. We do not presume that Koch's representations are inaccurate. But we were dismayed by the company's lack of candor in responding to staff's questions and believe additional inquiry is warranted." The Democratic Representatives requested that the Committee request a number of listed documents regarding the Koch brother involvement or interests in the Keystone XL pipeline project.

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement in advance of the hearing saying the "bipartisan" legislation that would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline by November 1, is "an important driver of U.S. economic growth and job creation." API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin said, "U.S. jobs supported by Canadian oil sands development could grow from 21,000 jobs today to 465,000 jobs by 2035. The Keystone XL pipeline has undergone extensive analysis and review over the last two years and it is time to focus efforts on creating jobs and strengthening our relationship with America's number one source of imported oil: Canada. Nearly 1000 U.S. businesses in 47 states already provide services, materials or equipment to Canada in support of oil sands development," said Durbin. "A recent survey of Americans showed that 85 percent believe that U.S. government policies should support the use of oil from Canada's oil sands. Other countries are looking out for their energy futures. The U.S. needs to as well." API also thanked U.S. Reps. Lee Terry (R-NE) and Mike Ross (D-AR) for their bipartisan support.

 

    Charles Drevna, President, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) also wrote and op-ed indicating in part, ". . .our good neighbor to the north is offering to sell us more oil taken from oil sands in Western Canada that would benefit the American people by strengthening our economic and national security and by creating desperately needed jobs for American workers. According to a study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute, more than 342,000 new U.S. jobs are likely to be created directly and indirectly between 2011 and 2015 because of Canadian oil sands development. In part this is because much of the money Americans send to Canada to buy oil is spent by Canadians on U.S. goods and services. All that's needed is U.S. State Department approval for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would act as a superhighway to bring oil from Alberta to our country . ."

 

    Peter Lehner, Executive Director, Natural Resources Defense Council issued a statement saying, "Tar sands oil is dirty and destructive, and the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline won't reduce gas prices. Instead, this pipeline will perpetuate our dependence on oil, with all its attending problems of climate change and high energy costs. Given the major consequences involved in locking ourselves into tar sands oil, this pipeline should not be rushed -- not through an expedited State Department process or through legislation. And yet recently the State Department issued a supplemental environmental review after the EPA deemed its first round inadequate. Unfortunately, the department failed once again to do its homework and only gave superficial treatment to serious questions of need, greenhouse gas emissions, pipeline safety, environmental justice around refineries, and alternative routes to the current proposal to cross the Ogallala Aquifer -- the source of freshwater for eight states. The department only gave 45 days for public comment and has completely disregarded the many requests from farmers and landowners for hearings . ."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to the draft legislation, a background memo, and witness testimony following the hearing (click here). Access the letter from Reps. Waxman and Rush (click here). Access the statement from API (click here). Access a number of statements for and against the XL project, including those from the NRDC and NPRA, posted on the National Journal Energy & Environment Experts blog (click here). Access the 4/22/11 FR announcement on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement  (click here). Access the State Department Keystone Project website for complete information (click here). [*Energy/TarSands]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

More Mixed Reactions To State Department Project XL Decision

Nov 10: House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican leaders expressed deep disappointment in response to the Administration's announced delay of the Keystone XL pipeline decision [See WIMS 11/11/11]. On November 10, the State Department announced that it had determined it is necessary delay the project which could extend well into 2013 while it examines in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills area of Nebraska. The State Department noted that the Sand Hills area includes a high concentration of wetlands of special concern, a sensitive ecosystem, and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater. The final decision had originally been scheduled for the end of this year. The President issued a statement in support of the State Department decision.

 

    In a release, the Republican members including Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and Representative Lee Terry (R-NE) said, "Instead of approving the pipeline, and allowing this construction project to move forward and create a massive infusion of American jobs, the President refused to issue a decision on the Presidential Permit and continued to delay the project by directing the State Department to come up with an alternate route."

    The Republican Members said further, "The Keystone XL pipeline gives the President the unique opportunity to create thousands of jobs and advance our nation's energy security. All he has to do is say 'yes' and the jobs will come. Unfortunately, his plan to re-route the pipeline would delay a final decision until 2013. This is conveniently past election day, but far too long to make workers wait. Today's announcement doesn't get us any closer to a solution and does nothing to increase our nation's energy security or create needed jobs. All it does is kick the can down the road at a time we can least afford such inaction.

    "With a sluggish economy and stubbornly high unemployment, more delays are simply unacceptable. The Keystone XL pipeline is a shovel-ready jobs stimulus that won't cost taxpayers a dime. Construction of the pipeline will directly employ 20,000 Americans and create more than 100,000 spin-off jobs. Manufacturers and labor unions are begging the President to approve the pipeline so they can get blue-collar Americans back to work. Each day the President delays the project is another day an American worker remains unemployed.

    "This project has undergone more than three years of study since the application was submitted in September 2008, and about a year ago, Secretary Clinton said she was inclined to approve the pipeline. The President says we can't wait for jobs, but his decision to delay this project is jeopardizing the entire project and harming our energy and economic security in the process. Several analysts believe a delay of this magnitude could effectively kill the pipeline. If we don't import Canada's oil, China gladly will. The President's window of opportunity is quickly closing, and by refusing to make a decision, he is all but painting it shut. Bipartisan legislation sailed through the House once this year already, and we won't hesitate to act again to do whatever we can to move this job-creating project forward."

    The Democratic Ranking Member of the Committee, Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a very brief statement on the project saying, "The State Department recognized today that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline threatens our health and security. We can act to avoid catastrophic climate change or we can lock in a 100-year dependence on tar sands -- the dirtiest, most carbon-polluting oil available -- but we cannot choose both. As the State Department further evaluates this misguided proposal, it must thoroughly and impartially address how the pipeline would exacerbate climate change, as well as other concerns."

    TransCanada Corporation, the project developer issued a lengthy release indicating that it has spoken with the State Department (DOS) and will have conversations with the DOS in the coming days to discuss next steps. The company said it has been informed that further analysis of route options for the Keystone XL pipeline need to be investigated, with a specific focus on the Sandhills in Nebraska.

 

    Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer said, "We remain confident Keystone XL will ultimately be approved. This project is too important to the U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national interest of the United States for it not to proceed." But Girling acknowledges while Keystone XL remains the best option for American and Canadian producers to get their oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast, the announcement by the DOS "could have potential negative ramifications, especially where shippers and U.S. refiners are concerned." He said, "Supplies of heavy crude from Venezuela and Mexico to U.S. refineries will soon end. If Keystone XL is continually delayed, these refiners may have to look for other ways of getting the oil they need.  Oil sands producers face the same dilemma -- how to get their crude oil to the Gulf Coast. If Keystone XL dies, Americans will still wake up the next morning and continue to import 10 million barrels of oil from repressive nations, without the benefit of thousands of jobs and long term energy security. That would be a tragedy."

 

    On November 10, Nebraska's Republican Governor Dave Heineman issued a statement regarding pipeline siting legislation being developed in the State. He said, "Yesterday the Legislature's Natural Resources Committee made a very important decision when it advanced pipeline siting legislation to the full Legislature for debate. I appreciate the extensive discussion that went into making this decision. The issue of pipeline siting legislation deserves a thoughtful and thorough debate by the full Legislature. Senator Langemeier's bill, LB 4, is a good starting point for the discussion. I want to commend Nebraskans for sharing their thoughts and concerns at the Legislature's committee hearings this week. Their comments were serious and sincere." Governor Heineman did not comment specifically on the State Department decision.

 

    Nebraska's Democratic Senator Ben Nelson issued a statement saying, "For more than a year, Nebraskans have voiced concerns about the proposed route of the pipeline. I have been in regular communication with the Department of State urging them to extend the comment period to allow Nebraska state agencies to comment, and to conduct hearings in Nebraska to hear firsthand from Nebraskans. The State department has responded to those concerns. Today's decision now allows the State of Nebraska another opportunity to exercise its authority and take action on behalf of Nebraskans, rather than waiting until it's too late. The State Department noted today that state laws govern routes of interstate pipelines, but Nebraska currently has no such law or process in place. It is my hope that the State of Nebraska will use the State Department's decision today to protect the interests of Nebraska citizens by exercising its authority to determine the appropriate pipeline route in Nebraska, and that the State Department will support Nebraska's decision. As I've said before, this is a fundamental states' rights issue."

 

    Nebraska's Republican Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) sent a brief letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the State Department's announcement on the decision to delay saying, "If the announcement is a sincere effort to identify a better route within my state, I applaud the decision. I am concerned, however, that the Department's move today may serve only to delay the final decision until after the Presidential election. . . Considering your agency has studied the proposed route for several years, keeping it under consideration makes no sense given today's announcement. Please therefore consider this letter a formal request that the Department of State immediately acknowledge that the current route is no longer being considered." Senator Johanns said, ". . .while I oppose neither the development of the oil that will flow in the pipeline, nor the pipeline itself, I am convinced that the propose rout is the wrong route and should be rejected."

    Note: For additional reactions from other interests see the WIMS posting [See WIMS 11/11/11].

    Access the statement from the Republican Committee Members (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Waxman (click here). Access the release from TransCanada (click here). Access the TransCanada Keystone XL project website (click here). Access the statement from Gov. Heineman (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Nelson (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Johanns (click here). Access the State Department announcement (click here). Access complete details and background from the DOS Keystone XL Pipeline Project website (click here). [#Energy/Pipeline, #Energy/OilSands]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

State Department Issues Draft EIS For Keystone XL Pipeline

Mar 1: The U.S. Department of State (DOS) released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) late Friday afternoon in response to TransCanada's May 2012 application for the Keystone XL pipeline that would run from Canada to Nebraska. The document is a draft technical review of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project, including: impacts from construction, impacts from potential spills, impacts related to climate change, and economic impacts.

 

    A 45-day public comment period will begin when U.S. EPA posts the Draft SEIS on its website, a process that generally takes about one week following today's submission of the document to that agency. Specific instructions about how to submit comments will be provided via the Federal Register and on the State Department Keystone XL website. After the end of the public comment period, the Department will consider comments received and prepare a Final SEIS. The National Interest Determination period will begin following the release of the Final SEIS, during which time the Department will obtain the views of other agencies about whether to grant or deny the permit.

 

    In releasing the draft SEIS, Kerri-Ann Jones the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at DOS conducted a press briefing teleconference to explain the release and the process going forward. The pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canada border near Morgan, Montana, passes through Montana then South Dakota and Nebraska, and terminates in Steel City, Nebraska.

 

    The first question from the press related to one of the major issues raised by environmental organizations in opposition to the pipeline -- i.e. about the greenhouse gas emission impacts of the tar sands in the pipeline. DOS responded:

". . .the greenhouse gas question and the relationship to climate is a very important topic, and what we have done in the draft supplemental is we have looked at the greenhouse gas impact from a number of ways, both the overall lifecycle of greenhouse gas emission related to the oil that would be moving through this pipeline, as well as how the construction of the pipeline might influence the overall development of the oil sands.

 

"And I think that this has been an area of great interest, and as I said in my opening comments, this is a draft SEIS, and it's a preliminary document. We're very anxious to have a lot of public comment. But with this preliminary analysis, we find in this draft that the approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including this proposed project, really remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil in the U.S. But let me reiterate that this is a draft document, and we're anxious to get a lot of comments from the public and to have a lot of discussion about this document. . ."

    The second question indicated that according to the DOS analysis it looks like "part of what the analysis is showing is that, in fact, in terms of the next decade, we would not need this pipeline to get the 830,000 barrels of oil a day to the United States." DOS responded:

"You raise a good question. Certainly, that is one of the areas we look at in the draft and that's sort of in the discussion where we look at alternatives. We have a very robust discussion of alternatives, including the no-action alternative, where what we look at is what would happen if this pipeline were not to be built, what would happen with other forms of transport, not just pipelines, but rail and barge. And also we look at what would happen to -- with the existing pipeline structure. Would there be other changes or modifications for that? So there is a tremendous amount of analysis in this draft on that very issue, and I would refer you to that. . ."

    Considering the fact, that the document was just release and very few people had a chance to even begin review it, a question was asked, "We literally have only just opened this report up and it's very dense and very comprehensive. But could you tell us, overall, if you found the environmental impact of the pipeline would be significant or would it meet the standards that you need for an eventual approval to go ahead?"

Well, as I said in my opening remarks, again, this is a draft. And so while there is a section where there is a summary discussion, I don't think it's -- I think it's somewhat premature to get into that, because we feel that we need to have a public debate. We covered a range of issues regarding what could be environmental impacts, covering what's been already mentioned on this call -- greenhouse gases and climate considerations -- as well as groundwater, as well as the ability when you're passing through somewhat fragile areas, the effects on threatened and endangered species. So I would just refer you to the summary piece and just say I think it's premature at this point to really try to come down with strong conclusions, as we want to make sure we get a lot of comments on this and we have a full public debate about the document.

    Section 4.15, Cumulative Effects Assessment of the SEIS, presents information and analysis regarding indirect cumulative impacts and life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions including the potential impact of further development of the oil sands on climate change. Environmental groups have argued that Keystone XL tar sands project would pipe some of the dirtiest oil on the planet through the breadbasket of America to be shipped overseas through the Gulf of Mexico. It would be a disaster for our climate, producing tar sands crude that kicks out two or three times as much carbon pollution as producing conventional crude oil [See WIMS 2/19/13].

 

    DOS indicates in the SEIS, that previous comments received included requests for analysis of the potential climate impacts of increasing development of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) oil sands associated with the proposed Project. DOS says, "While such a broad review is typically beyond the scope of NEPA, this Supplemental EIS nonetheless presents information and analysis related to the proposed Project's potential life-cycle climate impacts." Among some of the findings, the SEIS concludes:

• it is unlikely that the proposed Project construction would have a substantial impact on the rate of WCSB oil sands development
• Producing a barrel of premium fuels (i.e., gasoline, diesel, and kerosene/jet fuel) from bitumen produces roughly the same amount of petroleum coke as a barrel of premium fuels refined from heavy crudes, such as Venezuelan Bachaquero or Mexican Maya.
• The relative GHG-intensity of both reference crudes and oil sands-derived crudes will change differently over time. Conventional (deep) crude reservoirs require higher energy intensive secondary and tertiary production techniques as the reservoirs deplete and as water cut of the produced reservoir fluids increases. Oil sands surface mining is expected to have a relatively constant energy intensity long into the future.

    Obviously, many groups, organizations and legislators are reacting to the draft SEIS release -- too many to cover in-depth here. The following are a few representative reactions:

 

    TransCanada Corporation, the project developer responded to the draft SEIS saying in a release, "While TransCanada is still reviewing the DSEIS, it builds on more than 10,000 pages of review already completed for Keystone XL. The DSEIS reaffirmed that 'there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed Project route.' It noted that Keystone XL would result in no 'substantive change in global GHG emissions' and it is 'unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.' Finally, it also noted that 'the denial of a Presidential Permit would likely result in actions by other firms in the United States (and global) petroleum market, such as use of alternative modes to transport WCSB and Bakken crude.'"

    Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer said, "Completing the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Keystone XL is an important step towards receiving a Presidential Permit for this critical energy infrastructure project. No one has a stronger interest than TransCanada does in making sure that Keystone XL operates safely, and more than four years of exhaustive study and environmental review show the care and attention we have placed on ensuring this is the safest oil pipeline built to date in the United States."

    The House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) issued a statement saying, "The SEIS findings confirm what we already knew --   this pipeline is safe and in the best interest of the American people. There are no legitimate reasons not to move forward on the landmark jobs project. The president should stand up for families and immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline.  It has been over four years since TransCanada first applied for a permit to build this pipeline that will bring jobs and energy security to America. At a time when gas prices are rising toward $4.00 a gallon, we must use every available tool we can to increase America's access to affordable and secure energy supplies. It should be a no-brainer to approve Keystone and accept Canada's oil. The Obama administration's unnecessary delays have prevented the pipeline's construction from moving forward, and in turn, put the project at risk. As China covets Canada's abundant oil resources, we can't afford to wait any longer.

    "The SEIS findings suggest the president should approve the pipeline's permit, but we were in a similar situation last year and the president chose to ignore the evidence and reject the middle class jobs project. Sadly, there is still no guarantee this pipeline will be approved absent an act of Congress. We fear the delays have allowed the opposition to grow so out-of-control that congressional action is still necessary to get the pipeline built."

    E&C Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued a brief statement saying, "The draft impact statement appears to be seriously flawed. We don't need this dirty oil. To stop climate change and the destructive storms, droughts, floods, and wildfires that we are already experiencing, we should be investing in clean energy, not building a pipeline that will speed the exploitation of Canada's highly polluting tar sands."  

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement saying, "No matter how many times KXL is reviewed, the result is the same: no significant environmental impact. The latest impact statement from the State Department puts this important, job-creating project one step closer to reality. Nebraska has finished its final Keystone XL assessment and the governor has given it his full support. The last approval needed is by President Obama, and we urge him to do so as soon as possible. The president could truly implement his 'all of the above' energy strategy by approving Keystone XL. We hope the president will choose to side with the American people who strongly support the pipeline in poll after poll. The project will create thousands of good paying jobs for the safest, most highly trained workers of the building trades at a time when construction workers have an unemployment rate higher than the national average. Keystone XL will also enhance our energy security. It would be a win win for the U.S."

    Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, issued a statement saying, "The Environmental Impact Statement released today is long overdue, and continues to build a strong case supporting the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL project has become one of the most closely examined infrastructure projects in our nation's history -- and it continues to pass with flying colors. Once again, the State Department has confirmed that this project is environmentally sound. The Keystone XL pipeline will make more Canadian and U.S. oil available to us—oil that will not need to be imported from unfriendly places.  It will create thousands of jobs and generate millions in revenue for state and local governments that badly need them. We'll be working over the next 45 days to ensure that the voice of the majority of American people, who favor this project, is heard loud and clear by the Obama Administration."

 

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) indicated that its experts have begun analyzing the draft SEIS and indicate that they have found numerous major flaws, including:

• Climate Impacts:  The analysis minimizes the climate impacts of up to 830,000 barrels per day of tar sands -- which has been termed "the dirtiest oil on the planet" due to its high-carbon liabilities. Building this pipeline would be the same as putting 6 million new cars on the road. And that doesn't even account for emissions that come from petroleum coke, which would increase carbon pollution from Keystone XL by an additional 13 percent. But the draft SEIS discounted this carbon pollution. 
• Tar Sands Development: The State Department analysis specifically avoids the impact that this project would have in empowering a tripling of tar sands oil production by noting that the oil would be delivered in other ways, despite very clear evidence and press reporting in Canada to the contrary.
• Water Impacts: In a significant change from the first environmental impact study, the State Department now acknowledges that the acidic and corrosive properties of diluted bitumen (a rawer form of tar sands oil that would flow through the pipeline) has elevated safety risks compared to conventional oil, and requires new response strategies to deal with spills in water. The ongoing cleanup of the nation's biggest inland oil spill two and a half years ago -- in Michigan's Kalamazoo River -- illustrates the danger underplayed in the draft report.

    Access the DOS press briefing (click here). Access a DOS brief fact sheet on the draft SEIS (click here). Access the detailed draft SEIS with executive summary, each section and appendices (click here). Access the DOS Keystone XL New Application website for updates and links to information (click here). Access a release from the E&C Committee Republicans (click here). Access a release from the E&C Committee Democrats (click here). Access a release from TransCanada (click here). Access the TransCanada KXL website for more information (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access a release from NRDC with links to further analysis (click here).  [#Climate, #Energy/KXL]

 

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

• White House News
• Congressional News
• Federal Agencies News
• Industry News
• Enviro Group News
• Air Quality News
• Hazardous Waste News
• Transportation News

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals