Impact statement on US oil pipeline due in August

Jul 23, 2011
The US State Department is seen in Washington, DC, 2010. The US State Department said Friday it expects by mid-August to release a final environmental impact statement on a proposed $13 billion oil pipeline that would stretch from Canada to Texas.

The US State Department said Friday it expects by mid-August to release a final environmental impact statement on a proposed $13 billion oil pipeline that would stretch from Canada to Texas.

The 1,700 mile (2,700 kilometer) pipeline proposed by TransCanada, the Keystone XL, would begin in Alberta in western Canada and pass through the US states of Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma before ending up in Texas at the .

A Republican-dominated Congressional committee voted on Wednesday for a resolution urging Secretary of State to "immediately approve" the project, which would guarantee oil access for the US.

But a number of environmental and citizen groups have launched a fight against the pipeline because of the oil's origin: the unconventional oil sands of Alberta require energy that produces a large volume of greenhouse gasses.

After the environmental impact statement is released, federal agencies will have 90 days to conduct a review of the document, with a final decision scheduled for the end of the year.

The State Department will also hold public meetings in each of the six states through which the would pass.

Explore further: Land-restoration expert cautions: 'Nature never forgets nor forgives'

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Beaver dam partly contains Canada oil spill

May 05, 2011

An oil spill near the native village of Little Buffalo in Canada's Alberta province was partly contained by a beaver dam, a provincial environment official said Wednesday.

Oil spilled into Yellowstone River in US

Jul 03, 2011

An oil pipeline in northwestern US state Montana has ruptured and spilled crude oil into the Yellowstone River, a key tourist attraction in the region that runs through a famed national park, the pipeline ...

Russia, Finland sign Nord Stream agreement

Dec 10, 2010

Russia vowed Friday to keep Finland fully informed about the environmental impact from the controversial Nord Stream natural gas pipeline to Europe it is currently building under the Baltic Sea.

Montana questions Exxon's estimate of oil spilled

Jul 12, 2011

(AP) -- Montana environmental regulators have asked Exxon Mobil to justify its estimate for how much oil spilled into the Yellowstone River, citing the company's changing timeline on how long it took to stop ...

BP fined $25 million over Alaska oil spill

May 03, 2011

BP has been fined $25 million and ordered to spend an estimated $60 million to improve pipeline safety in Alaska after a 2006 oil spill there, US authorities said Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Untangling Brazil's controversial new forest code

5 minutes ago

Approved in 2012, Brazil's new Forest Code has few admirers. Agricultural interests argue that it threatens the livelihoods of farmers. Environmentalists counter that it imperils millions of hectares of forest, ...

China toughens environment law to target polluters

6 minutes ago

China on Thursday passed the first amendment to its environment protection law in 25 years, imposing tougher penalties on polluters after the government called for a "war" on pollution.

Sea floor conditions mimicked for drilling platforms

4 hours ago

Mobile jack-up drilling platforms used in the oil and gas industry are at risk of rejection before installation due to their use in harsher environments and deeper waters—but University of WA scientists ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mountain_team_guy
2 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2011
I just hope the environmental impact assessment asks whether the pipeline is buried under any mountain streambeds. Kinda obvious I would think, but if someone already addressed all the important questions, why would we need the EPA?
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2011
Well, mountainteamguy,

Why don't you try looking into the sitch? It appears that you are assuming that a Corporate consortium has the best interests of ordinary Americans -not to mention Texans, Canadians, and the environment- as their primary concern, and would just naturally take every conceivable available action to safeguard THOSE interests over their own profit.

Are you really that naive? Just to give you an idea -try a web search for keywords "oil pipeline" and "Yellowstone".

That should -if you aren't already familiar with the Enbridge Spill in Michigan, BP(Deepwater Horizon)'s White Wolf in Alaska, and even TransCanada's very own Keystone rupture in North Dakota -give you an idea of what we may reasonably expect of this proposed "Natural Gas" pipeline, and the level of Corporate "accountability" attached to it.

And, just for kicks, you might read up on the "environmental impact" attending development of Alberta's Tar Sands oil deposits.

Then ask yourself "why the EPA"?
eachus
1 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2011
Two points worth remembering. First, building this pipeline, or not building it, will have no effect on Canadian tar sands mining. It will just determine where the oil goes.

Second, a much better alternative to the pipeline would be to build oil refineries nearer the source of the oil. New refineries in the Midwest would reduce the cost of moving the oil to the Gulf coast, then moving some of the refined oil to Midwestern markets. The new refineries would be much "cleaner" in environmental terms than the existing refineries. Not so much because of EPA rules, but because 50 to 100 years of technology improvements mean that more of the crude can be turned into product, leaving less overall waste of any kind. But the new technology crackers and refining systems have to be built. Somewhere...
Caliban
not rated yet Jul 23, 2011
Two points worth remembering. First, building this pipeline, or not building it, will have no effect on Canadian tar sands mining. It will just determine where the oil goes.

Second, a much better alternative to the pipeline would be to build oil refineries nearer the source of the oil. New refineries in the Midwest [...]The new refineries would be much "cleaner" in environmental terms than the existing refineries. Not so much because of EPA rules, but because 50 to 100 years of technology improvements mean that more of the crude can be turned into product, leaving less overall waste of any kind. But the new technology crackers and refining systems have to be built. Somewhere...


Both very good points, Eachus. But why be efficient, when you can charge to transport the product twice, pay yourself to do it, and use this expense to jack up the price to the end user?
That would cost Big Oil billions in lost profits annually.

More news stories

Untangling Brazil's controversial new forest code

Approved in 2012, Brazil's new Forest Code has few admirers. Agricultural interests argue that it threatens the livelihoods of farmers. Environmentalists counter that it imperils millions of hectares of forest, ...

How productive are the ore factories in the deep sea?

About ten years after the first moon landing, scientists on earth made a discovery that proved that our home planet still holds a lot of surprises in store for us. Looking through the portholes of the submersible ...

Genetic code of the deadly tsetse fly unraveled

Mining the genome of the disease-transmitting tsetse fly, researchers have revealed the genetic adaptions that allow it to have such unique biology and transmit disease to both humans and animals.

Ocean microbes display remarkable genetic diversity

The smallest, most abundant marine microbe, Prochlorococcus, is a photosynthetic bacteria species essential to the marine ecosystem. An estimated billion billion billion of the single-cell creatures live i ...