Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Re: The State Dept. Green-Lighting The Keystone Pipline... Methinks We've Been Had...
As Keystone Decision Looms, Buried Report Cites TransCanada’s ‘Inadequate’ Pipeline InspectionsBy Kiley Kroh
February 4, 2014 at 1:46 pm
<snip>
Just weeks after a TransCanada natural gas pipeline exploded and left thousands of residents without gas in sub-zero temperatures, a CBC News investigation ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/pipeline-rupture-report-raises-questions-about-transcanada-inspections-1.2521959 ) uncovered a 2011 report, buried by federal regulators, that criticized the company “for ‘inadequate’ field inspections and ‘ineffective’ management.”
The report was prepared in the aftermath of another TransCanada natural gas pipeline explosion — a 2009 blast on Dene Tha’ First Nation territory in northern Alberta. It found that the pipeline in question, the Peace River Mainline, had a rupture rate five times higher than the national average and, when it burst in 2009, that particular section was 95 percent corroded.
The report wasn’t released until this January when the CBC obtained it, an oversight the National Energy Board chalked up to an “administrative error.”
The timing of the error is particularly questionable, the CDC notes, considering the fact that in early 2011, “TransCanada was in the midst of negotiating dozens of U.S. safety requests on pipeline construction, operation and design on the controversial Keystone XL proposal.”
TransCanada is still awaiting a decision on its contentious Keystone XL proposal. After the U.S. State Department released its final environmental impact statement last week, it is now up to President Obama to determine whether the pipeline is in the best interest of the country.
<snip>
More: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/04/3247031/transcanada-pipeline-report/
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
The State Department assigned an important environmental impact study of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to a company with financial ties to the pipeline operator, flouting the intent of a federal law meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects.
The department allowed TransCanada, the company seeking permission to build the 1,700-mile pipeline from the oil sands of northern Alberta to the Gulf Coast in Texas, to solicit and screen bids for the environmental study. At TransCanada’s recommendation, the department hired Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston, even though it had previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a “major client” in its marketing materials.
While it is common for federal agencies to farm out environmental impact studies, legal experts said they were surprised the State Department was not more circumspect about the potential for real and perceived conflicts of interest on such a large and controversial project.
John D. Echeverria, an expert on environmental law, referred to the process as “outsourcing government responsibility.”
The subsequent study, released at the end of August, found...
The department allowed TransCanada, the company seeking permission to build the 1,700-mile pipeline from the oil sands of northern Alberta to the Gulf Coast in Texas, to solicit and screen bids for the environmental study. At TransCanada’s recommendation, the department hired Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston, even though it had previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a “major client” in its marketing materials.
While it is common for federal agencies to farm out environmental impact studies, legal experts said they were surprised the State Department was not more circumspect about the potential for real and perceived conflicts of interest on such a large and controversial project.
John D. Echeverria, an expert on environmental law, referred to the process as “outsourcing government responsibility.”
The subsequent study, released at the end of August, found...
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/science/earth/08pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
