EPA to State Dept: Why are you under-counting the CO2 impact of your Pipeline proposal?
EPA wants State Dept. to rework analysis of Keystone XL pipeline
by Lenny Bernstein and Juliet Eilperin, washingtonpost.com -- April 22, 2013
The Environmental Protection Agency objected Monday to the State Department’s latest review of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, suggesting that more work must be done before the Obama administration can determine whether to approve the 1,179-mile northern leg of the project.
The EPA recommended that State reassess the amount of greenhouse gas that would be emitted by the development of oil sands in Alberta, Canada, as a result of construction of the pipeline, which eventually could transport as much as 830,000 barrels of diluted bitumen crude to refineries in Texas.
Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator in the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, suggested the total gas released could be higher than State has estimated, depending on assumptions in the analysis.
[...]
EPA to State Dept: The pipeline fall-back plan, could bottleneck the whole project.
ie. If the Keystone XL is not approved, that could 'put a cork' in their tars-to-world-markets extraction plans -- there go the profit margins.
How much does EPA’s objection to Keystone XL matter? A lot.
by Juliet Eilperin, washingtonpost.com -- April 23, 2013
[...]
But in a letter Monday, the EPA suggested the draft assessment may have underestimated the climate impact of the pipeline, which could transport as much as 830,000 barrels of diluted bitumen crude to refineries in Texas.
Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator in EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, suggested the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions linked to the project could be higher than State estimated because State assumes the energy-intense crude oil would be extracted and shipped by rail if the pipeline is not constructed.
Keystone opponents have argued that trains can carry nowhere near the amount of oil that a pipeline could, therefore blocking the pipeline would create a transportation bottleneck and slow down development of the oil sands.
[...]
Interesting. Those damn EIS's (Environmental Impact Statements) will get you every-time.
Some people, some Agencies, take though EIS reports quite seriously.
As Rick Perry would say, "Oooops! ... damn EPA."
The significance of this seemingly "about face" of the EPA on Keystone XL, is not lost on the TransCanada -- the company with the most to lose, if the USA fails to do their world-market bidding.
EPA critiques Keystone XL draft supplemental EIS
by Nick Snow, Washington Editor, Oil & Gas Journal -- 04/23/2013
[...]
Environmental organizations immediately said EPA’s comments mean the project should not be approved. “[It] determined that the Keystone XL pipeline would have significant negative environmental impacts,” Anthony Swift, an attorney in the Natural Resources Defense Council’s international program, said on Apr. 23.
“The EPA letter adds to more than 1 million comments calling on [DOS] to stop ignoring the environmental risks posed by Keystone XL,” he maintained. “It’s one more reason this misguided and dangerous project needs to be denied.”
A TransCanada spokesman said the company would study EPA’s comments closely, but added that it initially was somewhat surprised by them since EPA has been a cooperating agency during the more than 4 years that the project has been undergoing review under NEPA.
[...]
The significance of
the EPA's 'hold on a minute' speaks volumes.
So much so that TransCanada decided to pull out their 'big guns' today and aim them directly at the USA's EPA -- their big "national sovereignty" guns, that is:
TransCanada fires back over U.S. agency's environmental concerns
by Shawn McCarthy, Global Energy Report, The Globe and Mail -- Apr. 23 2013
OTTAWA — TransCanada Corp. has fired back at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, saying it is infringing on Canadian sovereignty with a recommendation that Washington get involved in reducing emissions from Alberta’s oil sands.
The Calgary-based company issued a statement Tuesday that challenged the EPA’s concerns over the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Alberta bitumen to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The American environmental agency said in a comment letter that the U.S. State Department environmental assessment of the proposed project was seriously deficient, and recommended Washington should work with Canada to “promote further efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with production of oil sands crude.”
[...]
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver visits Washington on Wednesday, and will meet with U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewel; Robert Hormats, the Under-Secretary of State for Economic growth, Energy and the Environment, and senior members of Congress.
[...]
Uh oh, now we done it. We gone and made the Canadian Oil Barrons mad.
This just got super interesting ... Stay Tuned.
We just may have an 'international detente' on our hands. If hotter heads prevail, that is ...
I hope "someone's got Cynthia Giles's back" over at the EPA, you know for making all these messy, so-necessary last-minute waves.