Impact statement on US oil pipeline due in August

Jul 23, 2011
The US State Department Enlarge
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: Chinese, Indian airlines face EU pollution fines

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

Chinese, Indian airlines face EU pollution fines

22 hours ago

Eight Chinese and two Indian airlines face fines of up to several million euros for not paying for their greenhouse gas emissions during flights within the bloc, the European Commission said on Friday.

Fracking risks to ground water assessed

May 17, 2013

(Phys.org) —Extraction of "unconventional" gas from sedimentary rocks such as shale could provide a clean energy source and help some regions to become energy independent, but concerns have been raised ...

Caribbean talks conservation on Branson's island

May 17, 2013

(AP)—Surrounded by a turquoise sea and a menagerie of exotic animals on a billionaire's private island, political and business leaders gathered Friday to back an initiative aimed at expanding protection ...

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

Galaxy's Ring of Fire

Johnny Cash may have preferred this galaxy's burning ring of fire to the one he sang about falling into in his popular song. The "starburst ring" seen at center in red and yellow hues is not the product of ...

Alaska volcano shoots ash 15,000 feet into the air

(AP)—One of Alaska's most restless volcanoes has shot an ash cloud 15,000 feet into the air in an ongoing eruption that has drawn attention from a nearby community but isn't expected to threaten air traffic.

Chinese, Indian airlines face EU pollution fines

Eight Chinese and two Indian airlines face fines of up to several million euros for not paying for their greenhouse gas emissions during flights within the bloc, the European Commission said on Friday.

US seizes Bitcoin operator accounts

US authorities seized the accounts of a Bitcoin digital currency exchange operator, claiming it was functioning as an "unlicensed money service business," court documents showed Friday.

Morocco to harness the wind in energy hunt

Morocco is ploughing ahead with a programme to boost wind energy production, particularly in the southern Tarfaya region, where Africa's largest wind farm is set to open in 2014.