Skip to main content

Last week brought fresh revelations of lying and deceit in the State Department’s environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline. Research conducted by Friends of the Earth revealed that Environmental Resources Management -- the London-based consulting firm hired by the State Department to do the supplemental environmental impact statement for Keystone XL -- lied on its conflict of interest disclosure forms when it claimed it had no business relationships with pipeline builder TransCanada or the many oil companies active in the Canadian tar sands who are counting on Keystone to be built.

Although widely reported in Canada, the revelation that ERM lied on its conflict of interest forms has been reported on by Business Week and the Washington Post but otherwise has so far been ignored by many of the other key news organizations that have been covering the Keystone controversy.

In his major climate speech on June 25, President Obama said: “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest…The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It’s relevant.”

So, the President and Secretary of State John Kerry will be relying on the ERM-authored review to determine if the pipeline will in fact lead to a net increase in carbon emissions. But since ERM lied about its relationship with TransCanada and other oil companies, how can President Obama, Secretary Kerry or the American people believe anything the company says about the pipeline's environmental impact?

Although ERM is a dues-paying member of the American Petroleum Institute, derives close to a third of its revenue from the oil and gas sector and brags on its websiteabout its record and experience of “Gaining Development Approval and Access to Resources” for these companies, this latest scandal is not about whether a company with experience with the oil industry should be exempted from doing such a government report. Given that the State Department does not have the in-house expertise to do such a climate and environmental assessment, it’s not surprising that they have outsourced this key function of government.

What is shocking is that ERM lied on its conflict of interest disclosure form and the State Department has so far chosen so far to look the other way. This is a scandal of the first order.

Here’s what happened:

As part of the process of winning the contract to write the U.S. government’s environmental review of Keystone, ERM filed a conflict of interest disclosure form in June 2012 stating that the company had "no existing contract or working relationship with TransCanada" within the past three years. So that would cover the period from June 2009 to June 2012.

But Friends of the Earth has uncovered evidence that since at least 2011 ERM was working on the Alaska Pipeline Project, a joint venture of TransCanada and Exxon. We also found evidence that at least one ERM employee has attempted to cover up those ties. On May 14 of this year a man named Mark Jennings’ LinkedIn profile listed him as Socioeconomic Advisor for ERM, and listed among his roles “Consultant to ExxonMobil Development Company for the Alaska Pipeline Project,” a role he was in since 2011. But lo and behold three weeks later, as criticism of ERM started to mount, all references to ERM disappeared from his LinkedIn profile .

Friends of the Earth has also found extensive evidence on ERM’s own website that during the period covered by the conflict of interest form, ERM was doing work for over a dozen oil companies with tarsands operations which stand to benefit if Keystone is built, including Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Total and Syncrude. This is despite the fact that ERM answered “no” to the question of whether it had any “direct or indirect relationship…with any business entity that could be affected in any way by the proposed work."

ERM’s answers on the conflict of interest form were not misrepresentations, a simple mistake or fudging the truth. They were lies – and brazen ones at that, given the extensive public record of their work.

Equally troubling is that the State Department apparently did not bother to investigate whether the firm had honestly answered the questions on the conflict of interest forms. This is in spite of the guidance by its own Office of the Inspector Generalthat it tighten up its verification procedures following the scandal caused by the hiring of Cardno Entrix to prepare the previous environmental impact statement despite obvious conflicts of interest.

As Business Week put it, “it’s as if the inspector general never established new protocols for avoiding or, at least, disclosing such conflicts. The State Department was supposed to have independently verified any claims made by contractors. How hard would it have been for a State Department official to look on ERM’s website?”

Apparently it's quite hard. Just today State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made a stunning admission. In an email to Postmedia News Psaki said that ERM “certifies that it has not had, and does not have, any direct contracts with the applicant.” So apparently the State Department can still not be bothered to do a few simple internet searches.

It boggles the mind that given the history that the State Department is at best asleep at the wheel once again. It has let a company that is essentially part of the oil and gas industry write the report on which so much hinges. For whatever amount they were paid by TransCanada to write this report – and we don’t know how much because that’s redacted in the State Department documents -- ERM has not produced an objective, fact-based environmental impact study, but a piece of pro-pipeline propaganda which has been roundly criticized by the EPA, the scientific community and members of Congress for vastly understating the climate impacts of the pipeline.

ERM’s tainted report absolutely must not be the basis for Secretary Kerry and President Obama’s decision on whether to permit the pipeline. Though Secretary Kerry inherited this scandal, after almost six months on the job it’s past time for him to put a stop to it.

Following the guidance issued by the inspector general the last time, he should direct the State Department to void ERM’s contract and bar the firm from future federal contracts. He also should explore additional disciplinary action against the firm, such as whether it is liable under the federal False Claims Act, which could bring penalties in the tens of thousands of dollars. In addition, the inspector general should pursue a full investigation into how a contractor with clear conflicts of interest was allowed to write the U.S. government’s assessment of Keystone and why the State Department has so far failed to bring those conflicts of interest to light.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yours is the best, most well-written diary of (0+ / 0-)

    advocacy on this particular slice of the KXL issue that I have seen appear here on  DK.

  •  Even without the studies,questions remain. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy

    I do not believe there will be negligible environmental impact if Keystone XL is completed. To claim so just doesn't pass the laugh test. I expect governmental agencies to give us the facts, not the best hopes of the parties involved.

    That said, I think not completing the project could also endanger lives and the environment has more tar sands are shipped by rail. I think we fool ourselves if we believe that those tar sands will not be developed in the face of increased global demand for oil.

    For those places where tanker cars full of tar sands will not be coming through town on rails, this might seem like no big deal. But for those who will be exposed to increased volume of toxic materials, this is a decision where there doesn't seem to be a good outcome on the table.

    So until we lower demand and stop the develop of tar sands, we are also arguing who is going to take the exposure hit?

    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

    by sebastianguy99 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:01:44 PM PDT

    •  Overall I suspect it is impossible to know (0+ / 0-)

      if KXL will have a net negative, positive, or neither (i.e., negligible) environmental impact.

      Because, the tarsands are going to be developed anyways (unless the US tight oil bonanza displaces them), so the question is whether a pipeline or rail is a more energy efficient way to move the product.  On the surface, pipelines are more efficient, but in the end rail might be safer to ship bitumen, insofar as it can be shipped in solid form (e.g., something like coal, vast amounts of which move about the country on rail with nary a catastrophic explosion or massive spill).

  •  oh, just kill the frackin thing/already..on demeri (0+ / 0-)

    Don Benedetto was murdered.-IgnazioSilone(BreadAndWine)

    by renzo capetti on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:03:16 PM PDT

  •  It seems like they should start the process (0+ / 0-)

    over from the get-go.

    Which will result in more delays, which is really the only way (if there is one) to slow tarsands development insofar as the nanosecond this issue is decided one way or another, massive infrastructure construction will commence to transport the tarsands crude . ..

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site