keystone pipeline

Post Reply
prince_jake_33
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:21 pm

keystone pipeline

Post by prince_jake_33 »

Keystone XL's Nebraska path cleared by court, decision shifts to Obama • 10:05 AM

Carl Surran, SA News Editor
•The Nebraska Supreme Court issues a reversal of a lower court ruling that had blocked a route for the Keystone XL pipeline, leaving in place legislation that favored TransCanada's (TRP +3.2%) claim to build the pipeline across the state.
•The ruling ends the legal challenge to a Nebraska law that allowed the Republican governor to determine the route of the pipeline in the state.
•The project’s fate now returns to Pres. Obama, who has cited the lawsuit in deferring a decision on approving the project.
dan_s
Posts: 35777
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:22 am

Re: keystone pipeline

Post by dan_s »

FACT: Canadian Oil is moving south by rail
FACT: Moving oil by rail is much more dangerous than moving it by pipeline. Even without an accident, moving oil by rail generates more pollution (exhaust from the train's engines and evaporation)

So, this has nothing to do with the environment. Everyone with a brain knows moving oil by pipeline is much safer.

This is about money. A lot of Obama's friends have invested heavily in railroad stocks and tank cars.
Dan Steffens
Energy Prospectus Group
Lemonhawk
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: keystone pipeline

Post by Lemonhawk »

More uncertainty.........

Low Oil Prices Mean Keystone Pipeline Makes No Sense

The recent dramatic plunge in oil prices threatens to make the proposed Keystone XL pipeline something of a white elephant.

The proposed pipeline, which would transport crude oil from these sands to refineries along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, is a flashpoint in U.S. politics. The Republican-led Congress wants to build it, and the House of Representatives is set to vote on this question. President Obama has pledged a veto.

But if prices stay so low over the coming year, Canada’s vast fossil fuel resource, called tar sands or oil sands, wouldn’t fetch high enough prices to be mined in the first place.

If prices stay in the low $50 range, “the necessity for Keystone XL may disappear,” says Pete Howard, the president emeritus of the Canadian Energy Research Institute in Calgary, Alberta. “We’ve got rail [transportation] right now as a safety valve, and if we build up rail capacity to carry three-quarters of a million barrels, that pretty much takes up all the projects that are under construction right now.”

continue.........

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/53 ... -no-sense/
Lemonhawk
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: keystone pipeline

Post by Lemonhawk »

TransCanada takes steps to acquire Keystone pipeline land

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- The developer of the Keystone XL oil pipeline took its first steps in Nebraska on Tuesday since the state's high court removed a major legal barrier for the planned route.

Officials with TransCanada said they've filed paperwork in nine counties to acquire access to the remaining land that's needed to construct, operate and maintain the pipeline. The two-year window for TransCanada to invoke eminent domain in Nebraska closes Thursday.

The pathway could still face legal challenges in Nebraska. Opponents have sued to try to prevent the Calgary, Alberta-based company from using eminent domain and to overturn the state pipeline-siting law that allowed ex-Gov. Dave Heineman to approve the route in 2013.

The pipeline would carry an estimated 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines headed for Gulf Coast refineries.

By law, TransCanada can use the courts to force Nebraska landowners to sell access to their land. Company officials say they still need to acquire 12 percent of the total land easements from Nebraska landowners who have not yet reached a deal with the company. Some holdouts have said they won't negotiate no matter how much TransCanada offers.

TransCanada's Keystone projects land manager, Andrew Craig, said the company will continue to work to acquire easements voluntarily. Craig said eminent domain proceedings traditionally take about six months.

The company has acquired 100 percent of the private landowner easements in Montana and South Dakota, Craig said.

further.......

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/transcana ... 40196.html
Lemonhawk
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: keystone pipeline

Post by Lemonhawk »

Senate approves Keystone pipeline bill, in face of White House veto threat

WASHINGTON – The Senate passed legislation Thursday approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline, setting up a looming veto showdown with the White House.

The legislation passed on a 62-36 vote, after lawmakers spent weeks considering amendments. The House passed a similar bill earlier this month, though there are slight differences that have to be ironed out before the bill can go to President Obama's desk.

The vote nevertheless marked the first time the Senate has voted to approve the controversial Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. Nine Democrats joined with 53 Republicans to back the measure.

“Constructing Keystone would pump billions into our economy,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said before the vote. “It would support thousands of good American jobs and as the president’s own State Department has indicated, it would do this with minimal environmental impact.”

Russ Girling, CEO of the company behind the project TransCanada, said in a statement Thursday afternoon the firm was "encouraged" by the "strong bipartisan" showing in the Senate.

Still, Republicans remain several votes shy of the 67 needed in the 100-member chamber to override a presidential veto.



further.......

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01 ... te-hurdle/
Lemonhawk
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: keystone pipeline

Post by Lemonhawk »

Well if the EPA says so.....

EPA Keystone Review Links Oil Sands to Carbon Emission Jump

Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said developing Canadian oil sands would significantly increase greenhouse gases, a conclusion environmental groups said gives President Barack Obama reason to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.


Until ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of oil sands are more successful and widespread,” developing the crude “represents a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” the EPA said Tuesday in a letter to the State Department, which is reviewing the project.

The proposed pipeline has pitted Obama’s allies in the environmental movement against the U.S. energy industry. Obama has said he’ll reject TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone if it would lead to a significant increase in carbon pollution.

Proposed in 2008, Keystone would deliver Alberta oil sands to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. The Republican-led House next week probably will pass a Senate bill to approve the pipeline and circumvent the State Department review. Obama said he will veto the measure and continue with his administration’s review. Supporters don’t appear to have the votes to override a veto.

Taken Apart’
“The EPA, in polite, knife-sharp Washingtonese, has taken apart the State Department on” Keystone “and shown it to be a climate disaster,” Bill McKibben, who has led protests against the project, said in a message on Twitter.

Shawn Howard, a TransCanada spokesman, didn’t return telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment on the EPA report. TransCanada rose as much as 2.8 percent in Toronto trading, to C$59.05 ($47.53), after the letter was released.

The Natural Resources Defense Council said the assessment means the pipeline fails the standard Obama has said he’ll use to judge the $8 billion project.

“There should be no more doubt that President Obama must reject the proposed pipeline once and for all,” Danielle Droitsch, Canada project director for the NRDC, said in a statement.

The State Department in an environmental impact statement released a year ago said Keystone probably wouldn’t increase emissions, even though oil sands are more carbon intensive, because the crude would be produced with or without the project.

Lower Prices
The 11-volume analysis included a scenario under which Keystone could play a larger role in spurring oil sands development. If oil fell below $75 a barrel, the extra cost to ship using alternatives such as rail may no longer be viable, the 2014 report concluded.

The “low-price scenario” should be given “additional weight during decision making, due to the potential implications of lower oil prices on project impacts, especially greenhouse gas emissions,” the EPA said. Benchmark U.S. crude last week fell to $44.45, the lowest since March 2009.

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobbying group based in Washington, said the EPA’s letter was just an excuse to put off a decision.

“Suggesting that the drop in oil prices requires a re-evaluation of the environmental impact of the project is just another attempt to prolong the KXL review,” Louis Finkel, API’s executive vice president, said in a statement.

Emissions Increase
In the letter, EPA said the crude oil carried by Keystone could lead to the release of more than 27 million metric tons of carbon annually compared with other, less carbon-heavy crude.

That’s the equivalent of emissions from 7.8 coal plants, the EPA said. But it’s just one-half of one percent of total greenhouse gases released annually in the U.S., according to government data.

The EPA letter “continues to give the president a rationale if he wants to reject it,” Lowell Rothschild, a Washington-based environmental litigator at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, said in a phone interview.

The EPA also calls the State Department analysis comprehensive and says it responded to concerns the agency had voiced to a draft.

Kevin Book, an analyst at Clear View Energy Partners LLC, said in a note today that the general tenor of EPA’s comments was positive.

“But the agency’s arguments could create additional headwinds for the project,” Book wrote.

Book said that it’s possible the State Department could take additional time to study the impact of low crude prices on the project.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/epa-keyst ... 02316.html
Post Reply