U.S. delays decision on Keystone XL until after 2012 election

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Obama administration, under pressure from officials in Nebraska and environmental activists, announced on Nov. 10 that it would review the route of TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, effectively delaying any decision about its fate until after the 2012 election.

The State Department said in a statement that it was ordering a review of alternate routes to avoid the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which would have been put at risk by a rupture of the 1,700-mile pipeline carrying dilbit extracted from oil sands formations in Alberta to refineries in Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast.

The move is the latest in a series of administration decisions pushing back environmental matters beyond next November's presidential election to try to avoid the heat from opposing interests - business lobbies or environmental and health advocates - and to find a political middle ground.

The proposed project by TransCanada put the president in a political squeeze between the demand for a secure source of oil and the thousands of jobs the project will bring, and the loud agitation of environmental advocates who threatened to withhold electoral support next year if he approved it.tar sands

State Dept. says Keystone XL will create fewer jobs than promised

Supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline claim that the project will be a rich source of jobs, but critics say their numbers don't add up and any boost in jobs will be temporary.

The controversial TransCanada project would move tar sands oil - diluted bitumen - from northern Alberta, Canada 1,700 miles across the U.S. to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico through a three foot wide pipe that would cross North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.

TransCanada and the American Petroleum Institute say that the project will generate at least 20,000 jobs, but the U.S. State Dept., which considered the project's socioeconomic impact as part of the still ongoing permit process, puts the number far lower.

"During construction, there would be temporary, positive socioeconomic impacts as a result of local employment, taxes on worker income, spending by construction workers, and spending on construction goods and services," the agency said. "The construction workforce would consist of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers, including Keystone employees, contractor employees, and construction and environmental inspection staff."

Advocates for the pipeline say that building it will have a multiplier effect because many new jobs will be created to serve the construction work force.

An economic impact study by the Perryman Group, commissioned by TransCanada, found that the project would create 118,935 "person-years" of employment.

The Cornell Global Labor Institute recently published an analysis of the Keystone jobs claims that criticizes the methodology of the Perryman report.

"Person-years," said Institute Director Sean Sweeney, is an  inappropriate way to talk about the economic impact of the project because people will easily confuse that for the total number of jobs the project would create. And that is exactly what is happening.

On June 23, as he hailed the passage of a bill to expedite a decision on the Keystone pipeline, House Energy Committee Chair Rep. Fred Upton said that the pipeline would "create more than 100,000 jobs."

U.S. State Department sees no major harm from Keystone XL pipeline

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A proposed pipeline to bring oil from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast would have "no significant impact" on the environment, the U.S. State Department said on Aug. 26.

In a long-awaited environmental impact statement on the massive Keystone XL project, which has prompted repeated protests, the State Department said the pipeline would be safer than most current oil transport systems.

"There would be no significant impact to most resources along the proposed pipeline corridor," Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones told reporters upon the release of the report.

The 1,000-page report says no significant problems have emerged since a similar report was issued last year.

Jones said the report, which is one step in the regulatory process, does not indicate approval or denial of the massive pipeline. U.S. officials are due to make a final decision later this year after further review and hearings.

"This is not a lean in any way toward one particular decision or another," said Jones, the assistant secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

The report said that with extra precautions planned, the pipeline "would have a degree of safety greater than any typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system under current regulations."

It also said that scrapping the pipeline would have its own environmental costs, because refineries in the United States would then need to transport oil by other means such as trucks, railroads, barges and marine tankers.

The report did cite some potential problems in the event of a spill in "environmentally sensitive areas," including wetlands, rivers and other water resources, as well as areas with a high concentration of plants and wildlife.

As to a possible alternate route for the pipeline, the report said it "did not find any of the major alternatives to be preferable."

State Department firms up timetable for Keystone XL Pipeline decision

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The State Department is pointing to November as the time frame for a final decision on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.

In a July 22 conference call, department spokesman Daniel Clune said a final environmental impact statement is likely to be issued in August on the $7 billion project.

Clune said that State Department officials would come to Lincoln, Neb., and to the Nebraska Sandhills in September to give residents two more chances to weigh in on the controversial project. Similar meetings are planned for state capitals in the five other states the pipeline would cross on its way from the oil sands of Alberta to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast.

While the agency is standing by its commitment to act by the end of the year, "we won't make a decision until we complete a thorough review process," Clune said.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or her designee will answer the pivotal question of whether the project is in the national interest.

That determination "will take into account the environmental and safety issues covered in the final environmental impact statement," Clune said, "as well as additional issues related to the national interest, such as energy security and economic considerations."

U.S. State Department says no new issues in Keystone XL pipeline study

WASHINGTON - The U.S. State Department said on April 15 that a new environmental study of an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas shows no new issues since a similar report was issued last year.

The additional review supports the conclusions reached in agency's first analysis of TransCanada Corp.'s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which said there would be limited adverse environmental impacts from the project.

The department's supplemental review included a more in-depth evaluation of the greenhouse gas consequences of the project, an issue the EPA said did not receive adequate attention in the initial version released April last year.

"It is clear that (oil sands derived) crude oils, as would likely be transported through the proposed project, are on average somewhat more GHG-intensive than the crudes they would displace in the U.S. refineries," the supplemental review said.

The department said the difference between oil sands crude and traditional fuels would decrease over time, as more oil required energy-intensive methods of extraction.

The report on the proposed $7 billion, 1,900-mile pipeline Keystone XL pipeline, comes as President Barack Obama offered his first public comments on the project, which would carry crude oil extracted from tar sands in western Canada, to refineries in Texas.

At a town hall meeting on energy on April 6, Obama said concerns about the potentially "destructive" nature of the Canadian oil sands need to be answered before his administration decides whether to approve a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

The pipeline planned by Calgary-based TransCanada would travel through six U.S. states, carrying what environmental groups call "dirty oil," because of the intensive energy needed to extract crude from formations of sand, clay and water.

The project would double the capacity of an existing pipeline from Canada, and supporters say it could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The pipeline would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma before reaching refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas.

Obama used the phrase "tar sands" - the term favored by environmentalists - to describe the bitumen deposits embedded in Alberta, Canada, sands, but refused to offer an opinion about whether the pipeline should be approved.

"These tar sands, there are some environmental questions about how destructive they are, potentially, what are the dangers there, and we've got to examine all those questions," Obama said at the April 6 town-hall meeting in Pennsylvania.

Obama said he could not comment on the specifics of the Keystone XL pipeline, because the State Department is going through a complicated review process, "and if it looks like I'm putting my fingers on the scale before the science is done, then people may question the merits of the decision later on."