Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 3, 2013
Keystone XL: State Dept. Finds No Significant Environmental Impacts
The Keystone XL pipeline now is four-for-four – that is, four environmental impact assessments by the State Department and four findings that the project wouldn’t have significant impacts. From State’s draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) released Friday:
The analyses of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed Project suggest that there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed Project route …
That conclusion is conditioned on assumptions including: the incorporation of 57 special conditions developed with the help of the Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration (which builder TransCanada already has agreed to incorporate in its plan), use of mitigation measures as required by permitting agencies and implementation of other measures to avoid or reduce environmental impacts that TransCanada included in its application for a presidential permit.
API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin:
“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.”
Other key points from the SEIS and a briefing by Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones:
- The project would potentially support about 42,100 average annual jobs across the U.S. over a one- to two-year construction period.
- The employment would potentially translate into approximately $2.05 billion in earnings.
- The project would represent direct spending on construction and materials totaling about $3.3 billion.
- Approval or denial of the project is “unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the (Canadian) oil sands, or in the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.”
The State Department next will open a 45-day public commenting period, and a final SEIS then will be produced. But the big picture remains unchanged: The president should approve this project. The other key development with the pipeline this week was the AFL-CIO’s announcement that it supports pipelines. “There’s nothing environmentally unsound about the (Keystone XL) pipeline,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
This is a project that would strengthen U.S. energy security through a closer partnership with Canada and greater development of its oil sands resources. That’s more than 800,000 barrels a day of North American oil, 25 percent of which would be picked up from North Dakota’s Bakken region. It would create jobs and help generate revenues for governments. Americans strongly favor this shovel-ready, thoroughly studied project – 69 percent in a recent poll. It’s time for the wait to end. Durbin:
“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.”
8 Comments on "Keystone XL: State Dept. Finds No Significant Environmental Impacts"
J-Gav on Sun, 3rd Mar 2013 8:44 pm
“Well, don’t that just make yer hind-end wanna chew tabacky!” as my grandmother used to say.
econ101 on Mon, 4th Mar 2013 1:08 am
This will be a catalyst to higher production from the Bakken and related formations. Right now they can pump more than they can ship.
It wont get all the business it would have because of competing projects on line now that started up when the Key stone was stopped. Not building it is putting politics ahead of the countries well-being and is costing you money.
BillT on Mon, 4th Mar 2013 1:20 am
I still hope it gets delayed or sabotaged and never moves a drop of Canadian oil. It is a mistake to ever build a new pipeline to move sludge oil from Canada to the Gulf so it can be shipped to China. It will not help the US at all.
SOS/econ, we all know you are a pimp for big oil. Give it up. You are on the wrong forum.
Mike999 on Mon, 4th Mar 2013 4:33 am
This is a Koch project. We could have had a solar and wind revolution in this country if it were not run by the stupidest Troll America has ever seen.
The Koch’s troll American into pollution and poverty, as they get rich and you get CANCER.
actioncjackson on Mon, 4th Mar 2013 7:30 am
Obama will of course give the thumbs up, he’s a shell of a person who duped a bunch of people into thinking he was a good person. He’s no different than the previous ghastly demons. The Canadian tar sands are an abomination against nature. My guess is we’ll see a lot more grey in his hair after this one. He must be on some strong meds if he’s able to sleep at night, and that goes for all the crony land destroyers.
econ101 on Mon, 4th Mar 2013 6:52 pm
If the tar in the oil-sands are a contaminant – they have a lot more crude in an acre than the Exxon Valdiez carried – the normal procedure for cleaning contaminated soil is to mine it, remove the contaminates and replace the soil as close to natural contour as possible. From there restore native vegitation. Its a very good process if you are concerned about contaminated soil and environmental reclamation.
econ101 on Mon, 4th Mar 2013 7:05 pm
The thing about the Keystone is there are work-arounds and many of these are in process right now. What you are hearing about the Bakken and its tremendous wealth is true and factual. If anything it is being understated by the industry. At the same time those opposed for various reasons continue a disinformation campaign against its growth.
The fact is we need that oil, for what its worth we need wind and solar too. Who knows what technology has in store for us, maybe an affordable painted on surface that generates all the power our house needs or a small cold fusion reactor? It doesnt matter, they are all being workied on right now.
What matters is the need for all the inexpensive energy we can get. Solar, wind and some of the fracked supplies are at the margins. There are better sources currently off limits that could easily replace or add too these new supplies. Unfortunately they are on off-limit federal lands.
Obama lied about the all of the above policy. He has boondogled solar and wind. He represents the forces that have worked against conventional for decades. As a result we have a booming oil/gas industry on private lands in the USA and drilling technologies have expanded world-wide shale sources further and faster than anybody had thought. Unintended consequences sometimes work out for the better.
Kenz300 on Tue, 5th Mar 2013 5:10 pm
We would be better off transitioning to wind, solar wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste. .