August 27, 2011 in Nation/World

Pipeline overcomes hurdle

Environmental review complete
Neela Banerjee Tribune Washington bureau
 
Doubled oil-carrying capacity

Calgary-based TransCanada wants to build a massive pipeline to carry crude oil extracted from tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas. The pipeline, which would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma, would carry an estimated 700,000 barrels of oil a day, doubling the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada.

WASHINGTON – The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast would not pose “significant impacts” on the environment, the State Department concluded, removing a major barrier to construction of the $7 billion project.

The 1,700-mile-long pipeline has become a deeply fraught issue in part because the oil would be extracted from oil sands in Alberta. Oil sands are an unconventional source of crude oil that need to be mined from the earth, which environmentalists say would lead to the destruction of vast swaths of Alberta’s forests and pollution of waterways.

The conclusion caps a final environmental statement the State Department published Friday as part of its review, required because the pipeline crosses a national border.

The final environmental impact statement is not the last word on the project. The State Department now needs to determine if Keystone XL is “in the national interest,” which would entail consideration of economic, diplomatic and energy security concerns, as well as public input from hearings to be held along the proposed pipeline corridor. A final decision on the permit is expected by year’s end.

Still, Keystone XL’s supporters said the State Department decision catapulted the project toward eventual approval.

“We believe that this is a major step forward,” said Michael Whatley, executive vice president for the Consumer Energy Alliance, an oil and gas advocacy group, “but clearly is not the last step.”

The final decision threatens to turn into a political liability for President Barack Obama, whatever the outcome.

If the administration fails to issue a permit, it could bolster Republican and corporate claims that Obama has failed in job creation. Business has poured millions of dollars into information and lobbying campaigns asserting the pipeline will create hundreds of thousands of construction jobs in the Midwest and secure oil from a friendly, democratic neighbor.

If the administration does issue the permit, it risks alienating the environmental base that helped bring Obama to power in 2008 and whose energy and money the president desperately needs in 2012. This week, more than 300 activists have been arrested for protesting in front of the White House against the pipeline.

“It’s hard to point to any one issue as a litmus test,” said Sierra Club President Michael Brune, “but I have to say this will be the most important environmental decision the president will make between now and the election.”

Environmentalists also contend that tar sands extraction releases more greenhouse gases than pumping conventional crude oil would. Midwesterners are also concerned that Keystone would pass through the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, the region’s main source of drinking water.


There is one comment on this story. Click here to view comment >>

Get stories like this in a free daily email