Tech | November 15, 2011 | 20 comments

TransCanada backs new route for Keystone XL pipeline

Image
JanforGore
Pipeline operator TransCanada Corp. said it would back the rerouting of a controversial US-Canada oil pipeline, after the Obama administration delayed its final decision on the project.

The company said it supported legislation in the US state of Nebraska that would ensure the Keystone XL pipeline does not pass through the state’s Sand Hills area, which features important wetlands and a sensitive ecosystem.

“I am pleased to tell you that the positive conversations we have had with Nebraska leaders have resulted in legislation that respects the concerns of Nebraskans and supports the development of the Keystone XL pipeline,” said Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president for energy and oil pipelines.

“I can confirm the route will be changed and Nebraskans will play an important role in determining the final route.”

Pourbaix said the proposed legislation “is a critical step” in moving the project forward.

Last week, the US administration said it would study an alternate route for the pipeline to bring petroleum from Canada’s western oil sands to the Gulf of Mexico, saying a final decision may not come until 2013 — after next year’s presidential elections.

After months of wrangling, the State Department said it needed more time to assess its environmental implications.

The department said its move was based on specific concerns about the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, which is along the proposed pipeline route from Canada’s Alberta province to refineries in Texas.

On Thursday, US officials said it was “reasonable to expect” that its review process “could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013″ — after President Barack Obama bids for re-election in November 2012.

The project puts two of Obama’s goals — energy independence and cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions — at odds. It also pits environmentalists and labor, both usually key Democratic Party supporters, against each other.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford, in Washington to meet US officials about the project, hailed the latest news on the efforts to find a new route.

“I think it’s good news today, it’s different circumstances than we had last week,” she said.

“It’s something I can be more optimistic about now than I could have been this morning, as we all could have been this morning,” Redford said.

“So, back on track? I think that in terms of the regulatory process, while it had slowed down, I didn’t feel we were off track. So we’ll say that we’re optimistic still.”

More at the link
  1. groups:
    Tech,   Green,   Culture,   Earth and Science,   8 more
  2. tags:
    Environment Obama Climate Change Election 10 more
  3.     
    |

20 comments // TransCanada backs new route for Keystone XL pipeline

  • dkl165
    • 0
      dkl165  
    • I wonder why they just didn't do this from the get go instead of pissing off all those Nebraskans. Kind of silly if you ask me.

    • 7 months ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • SAINTJULE
    • 0
      SAINTJULE  
    • Can somebody tell me why we are paying for a pipeline to ship oil across the country to refine and ship to China? Why did we spend 1.6 trillion dollars on a war so that China and Russia could get access to the largest oil deposits? Why are people in the rust belt freezing to death while we export refined crude to China? Are we all retarded and does that come from inbreeding?

    • 7 months ago
  • Dusty_King
  • GRC54
    • +1
      GRC54  
    • Have you asked this questions.
      Why does Canada want to send the tar sands to the gulf?
      Why don't they refine it up there or pipe it to Vancouver?
      Our cousins to the north are not stupid. They know why and would rather their land and air quality remain clean.
      This sludge is dangerous and better to pollute the states this sludge runs through and refined than Canada. I can't blame them for that I blame those who will make billions while destroying our ecosystem.

    • 7 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • GRC54:

      Their land and air however are not clean. The people of Fort Chipewayan can attest to that. I would say this is the way for them to get it to new markets like China by using us.

    • 7 months ago
  • dkl165
    • 0
      dkl165  
    • GRC54:

      The tar sands are causing harm to Alberta's eco systems too. The answer I think is fairly clear. Alberta has more oil than it knows what to do with, and Canadians would rather sell their oil to friends in the United States than to ship it to Asia. Also it's cheaper to send to Texas than China. It's not about keeping the air clean, it's about making profit from our allies rather than foreign sources.

    • 6 months ago
  • dkl165
    • 0
      dkl165  
    • JanforGore:

      No, that was the ultimatum. If the US didn't buy from Canada, then it would look to China for sales. Canada would rather sell to friendly neighbours than foreign sources. Canada is not selling to the US to get to China.

    • 6 months ago
  • nikonwilly
  • chew_chew
    • +1
      chew_chew  
    • nikonwilly:

      Violence is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If we participate in violence, we are no different than those we protest against. The only way to have peaceful resolution, is to bring it about through peaceful means, imho.

    • 7 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • dkl165
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • I am so disappointed and angry about this. Granted, if it does not go across the Ogalalla Aquifer or the Sand Hills area, that is a good thing. However, how far will it be from there to still not effect it or our environment in general when there is a spill? And to not even mention the impacts on our climate balance that is already teetering blows my mind. And actually, to think people with sincerity went there because they did care only to see this happen is well, just plain wrong.

    • 7 months ago
  • Dusty_King
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Dusty_King:

      No it won't. And I think the Nebraskans who only stood up to have the route changed need to understand what the effects of this really are as well. This isn't just about a pipe on their land.

    • 7 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +1
      coolplanet  
    • I'm afraid that the only thing that will wake Americans up (the rest of the world has awoken) is catastrophic climate events that make 2011 look like child's play.
      Maybe this is what 2012 is really all about.

    • 7 months ago
  • MarcelDuchamp
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • MarcelDuchamp:

      A little late for that unfortunately. Sick of environmentalists getting the finger from this government. And I wish the environmental organizations that keep coddling this administration would wake up, and that this administration would stop coddling those who wish to destroy our environment. Bush more than likely would have done the same thing by "delaying" this to try to get votes all the while knowing it would eventually go through. Politics has destroyed all logic and reason regarding doing the right thing and it is now dangerous to our health and environment.

    • 7 months ago
  • chew_chew
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • So then what it came down to for the landowners in Nebraska was just another route? They don't really care about the damage it will do to our planet/climate or how it gets there. Is that right? There was absolutely no mention of not approving this because of the destruction to our environment and health involved in its extraction, processing or burning. Tell me this isn't going to be built. What a betrayal, but then since they already approved the first two phases already pumping this dirty crude into our country, what can we expect but more political plays? I can also bet China is a part of this somewhere along the way. It is in the end the same mantra no matter the administration or party: the corporation always gets what it wants regardless of the cost.

    • 7 months ago
more from Tech:

top videos