The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: xl pipeline
Obama Administration Delays Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline

Obama Administration Delays Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline

By David Lauter and Lisa Mascaro, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has delayed a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, perhaps until after November’s midterm election.

A further delay in the evaluation of the pipeline, which already has lasted more than five years, is necessary because of a Nebraska state court decision in February that invalidated part of the project’s route, the State Department said in a statement.

Shortly after the court ruling, administration officials had said the Nebraska case would not have an impact on their deliberations. But in the new statement, the State Department said federal agencies could not evaluate the pipeline’s impact until the “uncertainty created by the ongoing litigation” is resolved.

That could take awhile. Nebraska officials have appealed the case to the state Supreme Court but have said they do not expect a ruling until late this year at the earliest.

In the meantime, the latest delay could get President Barack Obama off a politically difficult hook in an election year. The White House has been pressed on one side by environmentalists who have turned opposition to the pipeline into a major cause and on the other by conservative Democrats from energy-producing states who support it.

Administration officials have differed on both the substance and the politics of a decision on Keystone, which would carry oil from the tar sands deposits underneath Canada’s western prairies to refineries in Texas and Oklahoma.

Opponents say the project would worsen global warming by opening up the tar sands to development. Supporters say it would reduce U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East, Africa and other unstable parts of the world and that Canada will develop the tar sands whether the U.S. approves a pipeline or not.

Obama has said he would approve the project only if it could be proven not to worsen emissions of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. His approval is needed because the pipeline crosses an international border.

Politically, Obama’s advisers have disagreed about the impact on a difficult election season in which Democrats face a strong prospect of losing control of the Senate.

Some advisers believe a decision to kill the pipeline could boost enthusiasm among Democratic activists, which has been lagging. Others argue that since most of the key Senate races are taking place in red states, such as Louisiana, Alaska and Arkansas, a decision against the project could hurt Democratic prospects.

Those political calculations were on display as lawmakers and others reacted to the administration’s decision.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who has campaigned for re-election by stressing her independence from Obama, lambasted the delay as “irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable” and vowed to use her position as head of the Senate Energy Committee to win approval for the pipeline.

“Today’s decision by the administration amounts to nothing short of an indefinite delay of the Keystone pipeline,” she said, warning that it sends “a signal that the small minority who oppose the pipeline can tie up the process in court forever.”

Another conservative Democrat, Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) said the move “leaves everyone waiting in limbo.”

“It hurts all of us when no decisions are made,” she said in a statement.

Republicans and the oil industry quickly denounced the decision.

“At a time of high unemployment in the Obama economy, it’s a shame,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

“It’s a sad day for America’s workers when politics trumps job-creating policy at the White House,” American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said in a statement.

Russ Girling, chief executive of TransCanada, which is proposing to build the pipeline, said in a statement that the company was “extremely disappointed and frustrated with yet another delay.”

Environmental groups were thrilled. The League of Conservation Voters hailed the delay as “great news” that “makes us even more confident that the harmful Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will ultimately be rejected.”

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Democrats Lean Toward Building Keystone XL, Poll Shows

Democrats Lean Toward Building Keystone XL, Poll Shows

By Neela Banerjee, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Nearly half of Democrats favor granting a permit for the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

The $5.3 billion pipeline, which would ship oil from Hardisty, Canada, to Steele City, Neb., has undergone five years of reviews to get a presidential permit needed for infrastructure projects that cross a United States border. Environmentalists and some major Democratic donors and activists have opposed the pipeline, contending it would worsen greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.

President Barack Obama has said he would make a decision on the permit in the coming months. Democratic backing for the project could make it more difficult for Obama to turn down the permit in a difficult election year for the party.

The Pew poll showed that, despite the work of anti-pipeline activists, support for the project has remained solid, especially among Republicans and independents. Backers of the pipeline have argued that it would create jobs and secure more oil from a friendly, democratic country.

Overall, 61 percent of respondents favor building the pipeline, while 27 percent are opposed, a proportion that has held steady for the last year or so, according to Pew. About 49 percent of Democrats back the pipeline and 38 percent oppose it. The remaining 13 percent said they did not know.

The poll was conducted from Feb. 27 to March 16 among 3,335 adults, with a margin of error of 2.0 percentage points.

Previous polls also showed that Democrats backed the project by small margins. But this poll also revealed the demographic lines along which Democratic views on Keystone XL broke down.

Democrats who had a college degree or more education were more likely to oppose it, 47 percent against the project versus 39 percent for it. Those with annual household incomes greater than $100,000 were most opposed, at 51 percent.

Democrats who had some college, a high school diploma or less favored the project. The poorest Democrats, whose annual income was $50,000 or less, favored the project most, at 54 percent.

Those Democrats who identified as liberals were more prone to be against the project than moderates and conservatives.

The majority of Democratic men and pluralities of women, blacks and whites all support granting the project the permit.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Report: State Department Underestimated Effects Of Keystone XL Pipeline

Report: State Department Underestimated Effects Of Keystone XL Pipeline

The State Department’s analysis of the Keystone XL Pipeline greatly underestimates its potential environmental harm, according to a report by Carbon Tracking Initiative.

In January, the State Department released its final environmental impact statement on the controversial pipeline. Notably, the statement insisted that construction of the pipeline “remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States.”

The Carbon Tracking Initiative report, however, directly refutes this claim.

According to the study, the State Department did not clearly show how the pipeline will provide a pathway for development of the Canadian tar sands. For Carbon Tracking, this amounts to a “significance trap.”

“In my view, ‘significance’ is in the eye of the beholder,” Mark Fulton, co-author of the report, told the Huffington Post. In Fulton’s eye, the pipeline is very significant because it would allow a “significant amount of production” in the Canadian tar sands.

What the combination of the XL Pipeline and development of the tar sands will beget, according to Carbon Tracking, is oil companies with the ability to produce 525,000 more barrels of oil per day. The pipeline provides a pathway for increased oil production because it would cut transportation costs to and from the oil sands. Without the pipeline, oil companies would have to transport oil from the sands via rail. The oil companies, in turn, would have to price the oil at a rate that makes rail transportation effective.

The XL Pipeline negates all of this.

Because the pipeline would lower transportation costs, Carbon Tracking estimates companies could produce 525,000 more barrels of oil per day.

The fate of the XL Pipeline lies with President Obama, who has to make a decision about its construction before his second term ends. Referring to the goal of keeping the world temperature rise under 2 degrees, Carbon Tracking notes: “The U.S. president has to decide if just one single pipeline that could use up 0.5 percent of the total remaining 2°C global carbon budget is indeed significant.”

Photo: shannonpatrick17 via Flickr