Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 2012 Presidential Permit application – State Department

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/
New Keystone XL Pipeline Application

On May 4, 2012, the Department of State received a new application from TransCanada Corp. for a proposed pipeline that would run from the Canadian border to connect to a pipeline in Steele City, Nebraska. The new application includes proposed new routes through the state of Nebraska.

The Department’s responsibility, under Executive Order 13337, is to determine if granting a permit for the proposed pipeline would serve the national interest. The Department is considering this new application on its merits. Consistent with the Executive Order, this involves consideration of many factors, including energy security, health, environmental, cultural, economic, and foreign policy concerns.

UPDATE

On January 31, 2014, the Department of State:

• Released a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 2012 Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The Final SEIS is available at: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm;
• Published a Fact Sheet regarding the release of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The Fact Sheet is available at http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221283.pdf;
• Published a Media Note announcing the release of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The Media Note is available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/01/221112.htm;
• Posted independent engineering assessments and associated documents prepared by Battelle and Exponent. The documents are available at http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/proj_docs/engineering/index.htm;
• Posted additional information regarding potential organizational conflicts of interest disclosed by Environmental Resources Management (ERM), which is the Department’s third-party contractor. The documents are available at http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/admindocs/conflicts/index.htm; and
• Posted the Environmental Report prepared for TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP by exp Energy Services and submitted to the Department of State on September 7, 2012. The Report is available at http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/proj_docs/environmental/index.htm.

The Presidential Permit review process now focuses on whether the proposed Project serves the national interest, which involves consideration of many factors including: energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations and issues. During this time, the Department will consult with, at least, the eight agencies identified in Executive Order 13337: the Departments of Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

A 30-day public comment period begins on February 5, 2014 and will close on March 7, 2014. During this period, members of the public and other interested parties are encouraged to submit comments on the national interest determination to http://www.regulations.gov. Comments are not private and will be made public. Comments may also be mailed directly to:

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Energy Resources, Room 4843
Attn: Keystone XL Public Comments
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

….(read more).

Global Climate Change
Environmental Justice
Environment Ethics

U.S. Issues Keystone XL Pipeline Environmental Review

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/31/269504401/u-s-issues-keystone-xl-pipeline-environmental-review

by January 31, 2014 3:20 PM Correction Jan. 31, 2014 A previous version of this story incorrectly referred to the Natural Resources Defense Council as the National Resources Defense Council.

Pipefitters work on construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline’s southern portion outside Tulsa, Okla., last January.

PR Newswire

The State Department says that production of Canadian tar-sand crude, which has a bigger greenhouse gas footprint than other types of oil, is unlikely to be increased if the goes ahead — and therefore would do little to contribute to climate change.

In the on the controversial pipeline, the department takes no position on whether it should be built but notes that tar-sand crude produces 17 percent more greenhouse gases than conventional crude and as much as 10 percent more than heavy crude.

“This is only one piece of the information that we’ll be considering going forward,” State Department Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones tells NPR’s Elizabeth Shogren.

The project has long been a lightning rod, not only for relations between Washington and Ottawa but within the U.S., where many conservatives say the project will create jobs, while others fear it will hurt the environment.

Reuters says the report reaffirms the idea that bituminous oil sand reserves require more energy to produce and process, and therefore result in higher emissions of greenhouse gases:

“But after extensive economic modeling, it also found that the line itself would not slow or accelerate the development of billions of barrels of reserves that environmentalists say would exacerbate global warming.”

…(read more).

Global Climate Change
Environmental Justice
Environment Ethics

Keystone XL Review Predicts Little Climate Impact

WSJDigitalNetwork

Published on Jan 31, 2014

An Obama administration analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline application shows the project wouldn’t likely change the amount of oil ultimately removed from Canadian oil sands. Alicia Mundy joins the News Hub.

Global Climate Change
Environmental Justice
Environment Ethics

Keystone XL Report Said to See Small Climate Impact

Bloomberg

Published on Jan 31, 2014

Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg White House correspondent Phil Mattingly examines findings from a U.S. State Department report on the Keystone XL pipeline on Bloomberg Television’s “Lunch Money.”

Global Climate Change
Environmental Justice
Environment Ethics

‘Independent Study’ On Keystone XL Closely Linked To Fossil Fuel Companies

By Josh Israel on August 9, 2013 at 11:00 am

“‘Independent Study’ On Keystone XL Closely Linked To Fossil Fuel Companies“

On Thursday, an industry research firm announced a new study predicting that construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would have “no material impact” greenhouse gas emissions. But while proponents and media outlets quickly reported on this “independent study,” the for-profit energy research firm behind the report is anything but independent.

The findings contradict a July study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which found that over its 50-year life, the pipeline would add 1.2 billion metric tons more carbon pollution than if it carried conventional crude — more than every car in the United States releases into the air annually. The Environmental Protection Agency, in criticizing an earlier State Department analysis, warned that much more information is needed in order to accurately predict what impact the pipeline may have on the environment.

IHS is an information company that provides research for a variety of companies, at a fee. Its Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) division calls itself “a leading advisor to international energy companies, governments, financial institutions, and technology providers.”

To complete the Keystone XL study, IHS CERA relied on a “base of knowledge” from several oil sands dialogue studies, a spokesman told ThinkProgress. Among the stakeholders participating in the company’s 2012 focus group on greenhouse emissions from oil sands, he noted, were several oil companies and trade associations — many with a direct stake in the pipeline. These included the American Petroleum Institute, BP Canada, Canadian Oil Sands Limited, Chevron Canada Resources, ConocoPhillips In Situ Oil Sands Alliance, Shell Canada, Suncor Energy Inc., and even the pipeline’s owner, the TransCanada Corporation.

In addition to consulting heavily with industry sources, the company relies on payments from these same companies. In addition to the payments IHS CERA receives from the energy companies who pay for its services, several sponsor and participate in its annual CERAWeek executive conference. Among the sponsors of the 2013 conference in Houston were those likely to benefit from the pipeline: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil. Top executives from the American Petroleum Institute, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and BP are just a few of the interested parties who will be participating.

…(read more).

Global Climate Change
Environmental Justice
Environment Ethics

7 Facts That Weren’t In The New State Department Report On Keystone XL – January 2014

By Ryan Koronowski on January 31, 2014 at 4:36 pm

President Barack Obama arriving at the TransCanada Stillwater Pipe Yard in Cushing, Okla.

CREDIT: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez

The State Department released its final supplemental environmental impact statement on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline on Friday. Critics and supporters of the pipeline alike have awaited the report, ever since President Obama last year singled out carbon pollution as a parameter in Keystone’s national interest calculation.

The newly-released report admits to the obvious: that “the total direct and indirect emissions” of the project “would contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions.” But in its final analysis, it says the proposed pipeline is “unlikely to significantly affect the rate of extraction in oil sands areas,” and does not look at the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the tar sands oil that would flow through it.

The pipeline’s prospects remain a mystery, much like they were when the draft environmental impact statement was released last year: it still says that the pipeline is not a big deal, will not appreciably increase carbon pollution, and will not have a significant environmental impact. But the report does not consider a scenario in which smaller amounts of tar sands oils are extracted, transported, and consumed. Every single scenario measured in it assumes that a Keystone XL-sized amount of tar sands oil will get burned.

…(read more).

Global Climate Change
Environmental Justice
Environment Ethics

Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) – March 2013

Home > Draft SEIS

Note: If you have trouble viewing any of the PDFs on this site, please download the latest version of Adobe Reader or reload the latest version if it is already installed on your computer.

Global Climate Change
Environmental Justice
Environment Ethics