Keystone study flawed

The Spokesman-Review published an article that stated the U.S. State Department issued an environmental study stating the Keystone Pipeline would have no negative environmental impact. There were facts left out of this study that your readers should know.

The study was on the environmental impact of the work that would have to be done building the pipeline only, not on the risk of pipeline rupture and spills (ask the people of Arkansas about tar sand pipeline spills), and not on the impact on the environment of the tar sands after it has been refined, meaning the increase in carbon …

The Spokesman-Review published an article that stated the U.S. State Department issued an environmental study stating the Keystone Pipeline would have no negative environmental impact. There were facts left out of this study that your readers should know.

The study was on the environmental impact of the work that would have to be done building the pipeline only, not on the risk of pipeline rupture and spills (ask the people of Arkansas about tar sand pipeline spills), and not on the impact on the environment of the tar sands after it has been refined, meaning the increase in carbon dioxide released from this type of tar sand oil when used (17 percent more carbon released upon use than light crude oil).

The article also did not mention the study was done by a contractor, Environmental Resources Management, that has monetary connections to TransCanada, the energy-based conglomerate behind the proposed Keystone Pipeline project. The article also failed to mention that Energy Resources Management lied to the State Department, stating they had no financial dealings with TransCanada when filling out the application to do the study.

This study was just another swindle by the energy corporations aimed at fooling the public.

David Randall

Spokane