US sees no major harm from Keystone XL pipeline

August 26, 2011
A large excavator loads a truck with oil sands at the Shell Albian mine near the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta. The US said it expected "no significant impact" from a proposed pipeline that would bring oil from Canada's tar sands to the US Gulf Coast.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring oil from Canada's tar sands to the US Gulf Coast would have "no significant impact" on the environment, the United States said Friday.

In a long-awaited environmental impact statement on the massive project, which has prompted protests from environmental groups, the State Department said the would be safer than most current 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.

Jones said the report, which is one step in the regulatory process, does not indicate approval or denial of the massive pipeline. US 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 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."

A number of environmental groups have protested the pipeline because of the oil's origin in the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, where high-energy extraction produces a large volume of .

They have called on US President Barack Obama to deny a permit for the $13 billion project, due to stretch across 1,700 miles (2,700 kilometers).

Environmentalists were quick to denounce the report, and dozens of people have been arrested in the latest protest outside the White House.

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council said, "It is utterly beyond me how the administration can claim the pipeline will have 'no significant impacts' if they haven't bothered to do in-depth studies around the issues of contention."

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said the pipeline decision poses a key test for President Barack Obama.

"If he sides with greedy oil companies instead of people and the climate, he will essentially be urging a huge part of his base to sit out the election. With this supposedly final review of the pipeline's environmental impacts, the State Department has let him down by once again trying to sweep the serious dangers posed under the rug," she said in a statement.

Pipeline operator TransCanada meanwhile said the report backs earlier studies and is part of an "exhaustive and detailed review" of the project.

The review "reaffirms the findings of the two previous environmental impact statements that the Keystone XL pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment," said Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer.

"Today's final statement continues to demonstrate the focus on safety and the environment that has gone into the development of this critical North American pipeline."

Explore further: Impact statement on US oil pipeline due in August

Related Stories

Impact statement on US oil pipeline due in August

July 23, 2011

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.

Russia, Finland sign Nord Stream agreement

December 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.

Oil spilled into Yellowstone River in US

July 3, 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 operator acknowledged ...

Beaver dam partly contains Canada oil spill

May 5, 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.

BP fined $25 million over Alaska oil spill

May 3, 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

How the Elwha dam removals changed the river's mouth

January 19, 2018

For decades, resource managers agreed that removing the two dams on the Elwha River would be a big win for the watershed as a whole and, in particular, for its anadromous trout and salmon. The dams sat on the river for more ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2011
The State Department says it sees no harm. Isn't that kind of like the SEC not seeing any merit in investigating Deutsche Bank, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America?

www DOT rollingstone DOT com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817?print=true

We cannot trust the people supposedly acting in our, the people's, best interest.
3 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2011
Look at interstate highways. Look at pipeline. One OK, other OK too.

Certainly better than building new refineries in great white north. Other alternative, take oil to Lake Superior, load on barges, float down Mississippi to refineries. Either way, good business, good for Canada, good for US.

Find more oil sands, make big hole.
5 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2011
The choice here isn't 'pipeline or no pipeline'. It is: pipeline or railcars or trucks. Pipeline is safer. Stopping the pipeline won't stop the oil, but will raise its price.
@Shootist: Great Lakes shipping stops in winter, despite AGW. Pipeline is safer than shipping.

1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2011
Uhggg! Another source of carbon heavy fossil fuels to dump more green house carbons into the atmosphere. Geezus we are on a suicide march to total extinction and all we (the people through our reps) can do is support more oil company pollution dumping. This my friends is just the same as dumping toxic was into your water. Only it's into the earths air!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.