Quantcast
Popular
Dave Bates / Twitter

150+ Tribes Opposing Keystone XL Promise to Stop It in Its Tracks

The Intertribal Coalition of Nebraska and the Ponca Nation of Oklahoma met Tuesday in Lincoln, Nebraska to take a stand against the construction of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline by signing the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion.

After the signing Tuesday, more than 150 Tribes in the U.S. and Canada, including the Nations all along the KXL route in Alberta, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and now Nebraska, will have committed to standing together to stop Keystone XL and the other three tar sands pipelines: Enbridge's Line 3 pipeline through Minnesota, Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain Expansion through British Columbia and TransCanada's Energy East.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Greenpeace / Twitter

Keystone XL Belongs in the 'Trash Can of History'

By Lorne Stockman

Hearings began Monday at the Nebraska Public Service Commission (PSC) in Lincoln for the Keystone XL pipeline. The PSC is charged with deciding whether the pipeline's route is in the interests of the state of Nebraska. If the pipeline is judged to pose unacceptable risks to land, water, wildlife, cultural resources and property values, the PSC could deny a permit to build the 36-inch pipeline carrying toxic tar sands oil through the state. No doubt TransCanada will be attempting to make its case that these risks are minimal and/or mitigable, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular

Critical Keystone XL Testimony Denied in Last-Minute Decision

The Nebraska Public Service Commission (NPSC)—the Republican-dominated state board deciding the fate of TransCanada's long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline—have barred experts and homeowners from testifying over potential spills or whether the tar sands pipeline is even necessary during final hearings next week.

The Omaha World-Herald reports that former Lancaster County District Judge Karen Flowers, who was hired by NPSC to conduct the hearings, issued more than 30 rulings based on objections filed by TransCanada.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Art and Helen Tanderup with their daughter Vanessa Brand, their grandchildren Kyle and Amelia. Mary Anne Andrei / Bold Nebraska

Hear From the Bold Nebraskans Who Won't Give Up Fighting Keystone XL Pipeline

By Nicole Greenfield

When TransCanada began knocking on doors throughout Nebraska in 2008, most residents didn't know much about its Keystone XL pipeline or the dirty tar sands oil it would be transporting. The energy company was negotiating easements with local landowners in order to secure a route for its multibillion-dollar project—which would run north to south through the state, directly through the Ogallala Aquifer and across hundreds of Nebraskan rivers and streams. TransCanada threatened landowners with eminent domain if they didn't comply.

Keep reading... Show less
Trump Watch
EPA head Scott Pruitt

Pruitt Names Lawyer Who Defended Kochs Industries as a Top EPA Law Enforcer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt may have skipped the G7 climate meeting more than a day early, but he has certainly kept busy staffing his agency.

POLITICO reported that Pruitt has named energy industry attorney Patrick Traylor as a deputy in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Popular
Nebraska Landowners Tom and Cathie Genung. Mary Anne Andrei / BOLD Nebraska

Still No Approved Route for Keystone XL in Nebraska as Resistance Mounts

By Brian Palmer

"Trump administration approves Keystone XL pipeline," the headlines blared. It was March 24, only two months after he'd taken office, when it appeared that President Trump had cleared the way for the long-contested tar sands conduit with a stroke of his pen.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular

Trump Approves Keystone XL Pipeline, Groups Vow 'The Fight Is Not Over'

Nearly a decade after it first applied for a presidential permit, TransCanada is getting the green light from the Trump administration for its $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline.

POLITICO reported Thursday that the U.S. State Department's undersecretary for political affairs, Tom Shannon, will approve by Monday the cross-border permit needed for the project to proceed.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Insights

Trump Lied: Keystone XL Now Allowed to Be Built Using Imported Steel

Late Thursday evening, news broke that TransCanada, the company behind the formerly rejected Keystone XL pipeline, will not be required to use U.S. steel to construct the dirty tar sands pipeline from Alberta, Canada through the U.S. to refineries in the Houston area. This is in spite of the repeated pledges by President Trump—including at Tuesday's speech before a joint session of Congress—that it will be built with "American steel."

Earlier this week, TransCanada delayed its $15 billion Investor State Dispute Settlement suit under NAFTA over President Barack Obama's rejection of the pipeline until March 27, the same day that the final permitting decision for Keystone XL is due. It has been speculated that the lawsuit was suspended rather that dropped to ensure that TransCanada was not required to use U.S. steel despite Trump's public statements that it would be.

President Trump has sought to portray himself as some sort of master negotiator, but he clearly needs to spend more time in an apprenticeship. Just days ago, Trump pledged before the country and Congress that the Keystone XL pipeline that he was forcing on this country would be made with American steel, but instead, he was outmaneuvered by a foreign company that wants to use imported steel.

The only winner of this "deal" is TransCanada, which is using a $15 billion threat under NAFTA's deeply flawed corporate tribunal system to outmaneuver Trump and push a dirty and dangerous pipeline across our country.

TransCanada's success over Trump is what happens when you have an administration stacked with fossil fuel billionaires and a trade deal that enables corporate polluters to push their agenda at will. Keystone XL is a disaster waiting to happen for our economy, our health and our climate, which is why it was rejected and must remain so.

Popular
Pipe for Keystone XL has been sitting in this North Dakota field since 2011. Photo credit: Bret Clanton

Keystone XL Remains Empty Pipe Dream for America

By Joshua Axelrod

When he turned the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from dead and gone into a reawakened zombie, President Trump claimed that his doing so would mean new construction jobs, steel manufacturing jobs and money for the U.S.

Before he was elected, he used the pipeline to show how he was going to enrich America, promising that we'd get 25 percent of TransCanada's profits. All in all, the basic message continues to be: This is a great deal for America. But what, actually, is the "deal?"

The short answer is: What deal?

The real deal here is a bad one. Just like the last time around, Keystone XL is not in our national interest. It would lock in decades of increased climate pollution driven by expanded tar sands production in Alberta. It would threaten our waterways and drinking water sources with the toxic legacy of a spill that can't be fully cleaned up. And it would serve Gulf Coast refineries who are exporting growing volumes of both refined products and crude oil to international markets. In other words, this is a pipeline that creates major environmental risks all to carry tar sands oil that America doesn't need and wouldn't use.

And what TransCanada has offered in "round three" doesn't improve on anything they've offered before, despite President Trump's bluster. Here's the rundown:

The application submitted by TransCanada to the State Department on Jan. 26, is basically the same application they submitted to the State Department back in 2012. The big change really comes down to what looks like the loss of the so-called "Bakken on-ramp" or Bakken Market Link project.

The Bakken on-ramp was added to the Keystone XL proposal in 2012 after outcry from U.S. oil producers forced TransCanada to add a "feeder" pipeline that could bring up to 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of U.S. oil into the Keystone XL pipeline system in Montana. The Bakken Market Link addition allowed Keystone XL's advocates to build support for the project from the U.S. oil industry. Now, it looks like they're doing what they can to make that gift to U.S. producers disappear.

In 2012, TransCanada wrote in its application:

"The related Bakken Market Link Project will include the construction of 'on-ramp' facilities in Fallon County, Montana to allow Bakken crude oil to access the pipeline system for delivery to Steele City and then to the Gulf Coast."

Note the use of the word "will" in that sentence. This on-ramp pipeline was part of the plan, as in, they were going to build it and Bakken producers were the planned beneficiaries from the added pipeline capacity. But in 2017, their application says:

"Subject to commercial demand, the related Bakken Market Link Project would include the construction of 'on-ramp' facilities in Fallon County, Montana to allow Bakken crude oil to access the pipeline system for delivery to Steele City and then to the Gulf Coast."

But the market case for pipelines in North Dakota and Montana has deteriorated since Keystone XL was proposed in 2008—the region now has more pipeline capacity than production and more is on its way. According to the North Dakota Pipeline Authority, more than one million bpd of new pipeline capacity has been built since Keystone XL was first proposed, with more expected. Meanwhile, low oil prices have blunted once projected increases in Bakken oil production.

TransCanada's injection of uncertainty into their new Keystone XL application allows them to avoid a commitment they were previously willing to make. And it's likely they'll do so—as they may have a difficult time finding U.S. producers interested in signing long-term shipping contracts on Keystone XL without an easy way of getting their oil into the pipeline. In 2014, the key proponent of the Bakken on-ramp, Harold Hamm, said of Keystone XL, "It's not critical any longer… They just waited too long. The industry is very innovative and it finds other ways of doing it and other routes." If U.S. producers already admitted Keystone XL wasn't useful in 2014, you can bet it's even less useful to them now.

In the meantime, their new application is mum on President Trump's repeated demand that new pipelines be built from U.S. steel, his promise that the U.S. is going to get a big share of profits or his promise of tens of thousands of new construction jobs.

Then there's the strangely weak case TransCanada has submitted for why Keystone XL is in America's national interest. Last time around, TransCanada provided significant detail about the ways in which the pipeline fulfilled the State Department's criteria for making National Interest Determinations.

This time around, they've boiled their case down from 29 pages to seven bullet points. In sum, these points basically say that Keystone XL gives the U.S. access to more Canadian oil and allows Canada to get its oil to U.S. refineries more cheaply. What they don't mention is that these refineries—and the Gulf Coast region in general—are exporting more and more refined products and crude oil as U.S. demand weakens.

The same job and financial benefits that were highlighted the last time around are there and then there's the sweeping statement that approving Keystone XL will send a signal that large infrastructure projects can happen in America. These bullets obfuscate a few critical factors:

1. Keystone XL is, in part, about increasing the profits of Canadian tar sands producers (TransCanada talked a lot about this in 2012, but has since deleted that section).

2. Oil demand in the U.S. is slowing, meaning the long-term access to new oil reserves promised by TransCanada is a red herring—a majority of the oil processed by the refineries potentially served by Keystone XL is currently exported and that trend is growing (TransCanada is also mum on this topic in 2017, even though they acknowledged this reality in 2012).

As recently as his speech before Congress on Feb. 28 and his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 24, President Trump has continued to claim that the Keystone XL pipeline, if approved, will be built from U.S. steel. This promise is empty for many reasons, the biggest being that TransCanada has already purchased most of the steel pipe it would use to build Keystone XL.

What's more, only 50 percent of that steel was produced in the U.S., meaning his promise would require TransCanada to re-purchase hundreds of miles of new pipe. This would dramatically increase the cost of the project, which in 2014 stood at $8 billion (and is likely higher today, given five years of inflation since TransCanada last figured its costs).

Then there's the jobs claim. President Trump can't seem to keep his numbers straight on this one, but we'll give him a pass on that fact this time around. When he signed the memo bringing Keystone XL back from the dead, he claimed 28,000 jobs. At the Conservative Political Action Conference he claimed 42,000. They're both big numbers that obscure the underlying facts. In terms of full time employment, the numbers are actually:

These are well established numbers and have been for years. To be generous, you could claim a higher number—the State Department found 10,400 seasonal jobs—but each of those jobs would last four to eight months and then end. While there's no question that there are benefits to these short-term positions, if President Trump's job creation promises amount to short-term contracts spread across multiple states over two or more years, the benefits to local workers may be minimal indeed.

The last time I posted on this subject, I concluded with this thought: everything that was wrong with Keystone XL when it was proposed in the past is still wrong today. It's an environmental disaster waiting to happen, a climate-wrecking project with no place in today's energy mix and it's not in America's national interest. There are easier, less contentious and less expensive ways to create jobs—jobs that will outlast the inevitable decline of our dependence on fossil fuels and the boom and bust cycle of the environmentally destructive oil industry.

That sounds about right. A "better deal" in terms of what President Trump has laid out would kill Keystone XL. And Americans are starting to catch on to the fact that the pipeline, no matter how you slice it, just isn't a project in our country's interest: Polls now show that a majority of Americans—up to 51 vs. 38 percent in some pollsdon't think the pipeline should be built. The raw deal TransCanada has offered up yet again isn't a salve for any of the challenges facing America's future energy needs, the need for stable employment in rural areas or the very real environmental impacts caused by global climate change.

Joshua Axelrod is a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Sponsored

mail-copy

Get EcoWatch in your inbox