President Obama Cites Concerns About 'Health' and 'Safety' in Upcoming Keystone Pipeline Decision

[bigtree]

Tue Nov 1, 2011 7:47pm EDT

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday health and economic factors would be taken into account when he decides whether to approve TransCanada Corp's Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline proposal . . .

"My general attitude is, what's best for the American people? What's best for our economy both short term and long term? But also what's best for the health of the American people?" Obama said in an interview with Nebraska television station KETV, discussing the criteria he would judge when making a final decision.

"We need to make sure that we have energy security and aren't just relying on Middle East sources, but there's a way of doing that and still making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected," Obama said.

"And that's how I'll be measuring these recommendations when they come to me."


read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/01/us-obama-keystone-idUSTRE7A07ME20111101


Revising route could kill Keystone XL: TransCanada

As Nebraska considers the first attempt to divert the Keystone XL project, TransCanada Corp. (TRP-T42.09-0.28-0.66%) is cautioning that any change to the pipeline’s route stands to delay its construction by as much as three years.

It’s the sternest warning yet from TransCanada, which has spent 38 months battling through a lengthy environmental review process on Keystone XL. The $7-billion pipeline would carry crude from the oil sands and northern United States to refineries on the Gulf Coast, and is a major plank in industry plans for expanding Canadian oil output. TransCanada has spent $1.9-billion to secure land and equipment for the project. It has readied itself to begin construction in the new year, in the belief that the State Department will grant its blessing in December . . .

But Nebraska, where the pipe would cross a delicate ecosystem called the Sand Hills, is contemplating new rules that could dramatically unsettle TransCanada’s plans. On Tuesday, state legislators met briefly to table “Bill 1,” which would give the state authority to change the pipeline’s route . . .

Such a delay could prove difficult to recover from. Refineries that have signed long-term contracts on Keystone XL are expecting the product it carries to fill the void left by contracts for Venezuelan and Mexican crude that will expire in 2012 and 2013. If Keystone XL can’t be built quickly, those refiners may turn instead to supplies that can be brought in by tanker.

read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/transcanada-profit-rises-11/article2220811/


http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/hmV33uauYRvL_l9AoMkLnQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNTM7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/

related:

EPA Will Comment Soon On Keystone XL Pipeline: 'Concerned About Emissions And Potential Leaks'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2196260

[mattvermont]

1. he is hearing us! nt

[bluestateguy]

2. My guess is that he will make a complicated compromise decision that will please no one

nt

[bigtree]

3. the key word here is delay

First, the delay would put sand in the gears of Keystone. They've said so and investors have said so.

Secondly, the delay allows environmentalists and the citizens in the path of the pipeline to get up to speed with state and local hearings, grinding the planned project to a crawl. It will also give folks time to mount court challenges.

Also, the President's words about 'health' and 'safety' play right into the recommendations coming from the EPA which is expressing serious reservations about running the thing through the aquifer and the communities. They've insinuated themselves into the State Dept. decision in a way that I don't think can be undone. We'll be able to use the President's words to hold him to the EPA's findings.

[bluestateguy]

4. Public Policy 101

Time gives opponents the ability to mobilize and organize.

That's why health care never gets passed (at least not a good bill). It all takes so damn long that the opponents are defining the terms of debate and action within a few months.

[Kaleko]

7. By design.

Remember how quickly they passed the Patriot Act after 9/11?
Or the speed with which electronic voting machines were installed in every state?

Where there's a will, there is a miraculously fast track way, isn't there?

[Pirate Smile]

5. That's what I think too.

[robinlynne]

6. There isn't a whole lot to think about. it's a no brainer. oil. bad.

[PDJane]

8. oil sludge is bad.........

you have to constantly heat this crap to keep it moving, and it's toxic as hell.

[bigtree]

10. Bush signed a law in 2007 prohibiting us from importing oil with a greater carbon footprint

. . . than conventional oil.


from Labor Network For Sustainability: http://www.labor4sustainability.org/articles/the-keystone-pipeline-too-dirty-for-george-w-bush/

In 2007, President Bush signed into law Section 526 of the Energy Independence and National Security Act of 2007. It prohibits the US government, which is the largest single fuel purchaser in the U.S., from using taxpayer dollars to purchase fuels that have a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil.

This little-known law is significant because Congress crafted it, in part, with the explicit intent to block the US from buying Canadian tar sands oil — considered the dirtiest oil on the planet. With President Obama currently debating whether to authorize the construction of the Keystone Pipeline — which will funnel tar sands oil from Alberta into the the US — and more than 1000 activists arrested in front of the White House last month in protest the pipeline, the issue has moved to the front and center of the climate debate in recent weeks.

According to Congressman Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Energy Committee, the US purchase of tar sands oil would clearly violate Section 526. As he wrote in a letter to the Senate Commerce Committee in 2008, the law “applies to fuels derived from unconventional petroleum sources such as tar sands which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions then are produced by comparable fuel from conventional sources . . .”

According to Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org and one of the leaders of the Keystone pipeline protests, the burning the recoverable oil in the Alberta tar sands by itself would raise the carbon in the atmosphere by 200 parts per million (ppm). It wasn’t hard to figure out that this would increase the 390 ppm carbon in the atmosphere today by more than half. Indeed, it would increase the gap between the current level and the safe level of 350 ppm five-fold.


http://www.labor4sustainability.org/articles/the-keystone-pipeline-too-dirty-for-george-w-bush/

[robinlynne]

12. interesting. I'm sure Bush signed it for his friends the Saudi Princes......

[bigtree]

13. heh, most likely

from the Natural Resources Defense Council: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bsiu/department_of_defense_on_secti.html

Department of Defense on Section 526: Don't Change a Thing

These days, Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 receives a great deal of attention. This provision, which prevents federal government from purchasing high carbon alternative fuels such as liquid coal, has been subject to numerous efforts to repeal it. Opponents to Section 526 argue that it diminishes military readiness by blocking the Defense Department’s (DoD) unrestricted access to carbon intensive fuels. But here is the big problem: last week, the DoD itself strongly rebuffed those arguments when it stated that “The existing law has not, in any way, prevented the department from meeting its current mission needs . . .

read more: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bsiu/department_of_defense_on_secti.html


from the White House blog, National Security and Fuels of the Future, July 15, 2011: http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/15/national-security-and-fuels-future-importance-sec-526

___ As we seek energy security and independence, we don't want to trade one security challenge for another. In that regard, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review notes that climate change "may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world." In looking at alternative fuels, we must consider climate change and other resource issues.

Section 526 restricts Federal Agencies from entering into contracts to buy alternative fuels that are more polluting than conventional fuels. The provision has not hindered the Department from purchasing the fuel we need today, worldwide, to support military missions, and that's critical. But it also sets an important baseline in developing the fuels we need for the future.

Repeal or exemption of Section 526, as is being discussed on Capitol Hill, is at best unnecessary. Although the Department will strive to make the right choices in any case, repeal could complicate the Department's efforts to provide better energy options to our warfighters and take advantage of the promising developments in homegrown biofuels.

read more: http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/15/national-security-and-fuels-future-importance-sec-526

[Lorien]

9. What's best? How about all of those GREEN JOBS you promised???

Remember those? The rest of the planet is making us look like dinosaurs. Even South Africa is moving on Solar power and already has high speed rail!

[DonCoquixote]

14. solyndra ruined that

as now everyone is using that to slam any govt investment

[bigtree]

15. Boehner and Hatch both tried to funnel money to bankrupt companies

. . . despite all of their criticism of the administration.

I don't think the public will make enough of a connection for Solyndra to become synonymous with failure of renewables. Besides, I remember quite a few failing companies Bush and his republican friends bailed out in his bank rescue plan.

[bigtree]

11. more . . . strong statement about environment

President Barack Obama on Tuesday suggested it could be "several months" before he decides whether to approve Calgary-based TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline . . .

Obama said he is keenly aware of the environmental concerns.

"We don't want, for example, aquifers that are adversely affected. Folks in Nebraska obviously would be directly impacted. And so we want to make sure that we are taking the long view on these issues," Obama told KETV of Omaha.

"I think folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren't going to say to themselves, 'We'll take a few thousand jobs if it means that our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health,' or if rich land that is so important to agriculture in Nebraska ends up being adversely affected."


read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Obama+vows+weigh+environmental+risks+Keystone+decision/5641868/story.html