Obama to reject Keystone XL pipeline

[darnkatz]

Obama To Reject Keystone XL Pipeline
The president will make an announcement at 11:45 a.m.



WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will officially reject TransCanada's application to build a massive pipeline to transport oil across the United States-Canada border on Friday, The Huffington Post has learned from multiple sources.

After seven years of reviewing the project, Obama is expect to make the announcement from the Roosevelt Room in the White House. His decision will come after meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry, whose department oversaw the review.

The president will likely cite concerns over the pipeline's contribution to global warming -- an issue the administration has put at the top of its agenda in Obama's second term -- as the chief reason for blocking the project.

Tensions over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline have been high for years, with Obama's environmental base pressuring him to reject the project and Republicans in Congress voting repeatedly to force its approval.

TransCanada submitted its permit application for the 1,600-mile, $7 billion project to the State Department in 2012. Because the pipeline would cross an international border, the State Department is responsible for determining whether granting a permit for the pipeline would serve the national interest.

The pipeline would shuttle up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada's oil sands to U.S. refineries. The southern portion of the pipeline has already been approved and constructed, and is pumping oil from Cushing, Oklahoma, south to Port Arthur, Texas.

The pipeline's contribution to global warming is a main subject of contention for environmental groups, and something the Obama administration has also cited in its consideration. In a major climate address in June 2013, Obama said the pipeline should only be approved if it "does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

Whether it does has been one of the lingering issues for the administration as it evaluated the permit application. The State Department released a final environmental impact analysis in January 2014 that lent support to its approval, concluding that it would not substantially increase emissions.

But environmental advocates argue that construction of the northern portion would facilitate increased production of the oil sands that would not be economical otherwise, and point out that the oil produces substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude. And the Environmental Protection Agency also told the State Department that it should re-evaluate those projections in light of current oil price trends.

The Republican-led Congress passed legislation forcing approval of the pipeline in February, which Obama swiftly vetoed, saying it conflicted with "established executive branch procedures" and would cut short "thorough consideration" of its environmental and security implications.

But that consideration has dragged on for years. The administration delayed a decision after the environmental analysis was released, citing the need to wait for a lawsuit over the route through Nebraska to play out. Nebraska's highest court allowed the pipeline route to go forward in January 2015, and the State Department asked other agencies to make their final comments on the pipeline by February. But the administration put off issuing its final decision, leading to months of speculation about when it might come.

The drawn-out Keystone decision has also created tension with Canada, whose prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been a staunch supporter of the project. Harper, a member of the Conservative Party, is up for re-election this October and has said the pipeline "is in the overwhelming interest of Canadians."

[downtoearth]

I think this is the right choice for both encironmental AND economic reasons.

The article was obviously written last month or something and just waiting publication - Harper info should have been updated by a good editor.

[darnkatz]

Nov 6, 2015 11:22:59 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I think this is the right choice for both encironmental AND economic reasons.

The article was obviously written last month or something and just waiting publication - Harper info should have been updated by a good editor.

I totally glazed past that. Whoops!   I would have picked a better article had I seen that. 

[downtoearth]

Nov 6, 2015 11:28:11 GMT -5 darnkatz said:

Nov 6, 2015 11:22:59 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I think this is the right choice for both encironmental AND economic reasons.

The article was obviously written last month or something and just waiting publication - Harper info should have been updated by a good editor.

I totally glazed past that. Whoops!   I would have picked a better article had I seen that. 

I wrote encironmental.

[aurora]

Who is listening live?

[aurora]

Gas prices are down.

Renewable energy companies are doing great.

We don't need Keystone.

[aurora]

I *definitely* don't agree with him that America is leading on climate change. We are so far behind it will take us a generation to catch up.

Hell, we still have states/communities where it is illegal to consider climate change as a factor in new designs.

[aurora]

Actually this is a much more appropriate gif:

[pixy0stix]

Fucking finally. The Keystone XL was bad news for America. In every single aspect.

[chedifuen]

I'm so glad to read this!

[MrsAxilla]

I'm torn because my enviro DH is pissed. According to everything he's read*, Canada will just sell it China, who will pounce so fast our heads will spin. The oil will still be developed and there will still be significant emissions. Now our main global competitor will have a cheap source of oil and we'll pay more on principle, but the impact on global warming will be the same - or worse. Raise your hand if trust China on enviro issues!

*I asked him for a source for you guys, and he said he's been following this story for seven years and doesn't have a particular cite on hand. He offered to find one, though

[aurora]

Nov 6, 2015 13:25:55 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I'm torn because my enviro DH is pissed. According to everything he's read*, Canada will just sell it China, who will pounce so fast our heads will spin. The oil will still be developed and there will still be significant emissions. Now our main global competitor will have a cheap source of oil and we'll pay more on principle, but the impact on global warming will be the same - or worse. Raise your hand if trust China on enviro issues!

*I asked him for a source for you guys, and he said he's been following this story for seven years and doesn't have a particular cite on hand. He offered to find one, though

I can't deny this may happen, though given that China is across an ocean it's not quite the same, logistically.

But, just because someone else may do something unethical doesn't give us the right to do it ourselves first to prevent them from doing so.

[downtoearth]

Nov 6, 2015 13:25:55 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I'm torn because my enviro DH is pissed. According to everything he's read*, Canada will just sell it China, who will pounce so fast our heads will spin. The oil will still be developed and there will still be significant emissions. Now our main global competitor will have a cheap source of oil and we'll pay more on principle, but the impact on global warming will be the same - or worse. Raise your hand if trust China on enviro issues!

*I asked him for a source for you guys, and he said he's been following this story for seven years and doesn't have a particular cite on hand. He offered to find one, though

Right now most of the tar sands oil still drives through the U.S. - mostly by rail. It creates rail jobs and revenue in the U.S. since it is sent via rail to pipelines and the via pipeline to gulf areas to be processed or sent overseas. Your DH isn't wrong. We can't stop private companies in Canada from developing these areas (and the "developing" pictures of tar sands are terrible). But we can make it harder to move through our country and this is a good start. I'd much rather have oil moved above ground than under from an environmental standpoint and ability to respond to a spill.

We can also work on global climate agreements - that would be even better if Obama made that a priority.

[sangria]

Ok, so dumb question- but can the proposal be resubmitted in another year or two and have the potential to be approved by a (gulp) Republican pres?

[downtoearth]

Nov 6, 2015 13:39:07 GMT -5 sangria said:

Ok, so dumb question- but can the proposal be resubmitted in another year or two and have the potential to be approved by a (gulp) Republican pres?

Yes - to a degree they can just keep submitting. However as more regulations and concerns arise, it would have to go through the extensive/expensive EIS and EPA approval process again. So unless something does change, I'm not sure they would. Plus we are having new threatened species laws each year and more awareness of pipeline spills at river and other crossings that will also make public comment harder to navigate.

ETA I'm obviously feeling pretty optimistic that it's a win for a little while.

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 6, 2015 13:34:45 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Nov 6, 2015 13:25:55 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I'm torn because my enviro DH is pissed. According to everything he's read*, Canada will just sell it China, who will pounce so fast our heads will spin. The oil will still be developed and there will still be significant emissions. Now our main global competitor will have a cheap source of oil and we'll pay more on principle, but the impact on global warming will be the same - or worse. Raise your hand if trust China on enviro issues!

*I asked him for a source for you guys, and he said he's been following this story for seven years and doesn't have a particular cite on hand. He offered to find one, though

Right now most of the tar sands oil still drives through the U.S. - mostly by rail. It creates rail jobs and revenue in the U.S. since it is sent via rail to pipelines and the via pipeline to gulf areas to be processed or sent overseas. Your DH isn't wrong. We can't stop private companies in Canada from developing these areas (and the "developing" pictures of tar sands are terrible). But we can make it harder to move through our country and this is a good start. I'd much rather have oil moved above ground than under from an environmental standpoint and ability to respond to a spill.

We can also work on global climate agreements - that would be even better if Obama made that a priority.

They'll just build the pipeline west instead of south and ship it straight from Canada to China.

[downtoearth]

Nov 6, 2015 13:51:51 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Nov 6, 2015 13:34:45 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Right now most of the tar sands oil still drives through the U.S. - mostly by rail. It creates rail jobs and revenue in the U.S. since it is sent via rail to pipelines and the via pipeline to gulf areas to be processed or sent overseas. Your DH isn't wrong. We can't stop private companies in Canada from developing these areas (and the "developing" pictures of tar sands are terrible). But we can make it harder to move through our country and this is a good start. I'd much rather have oil moved above ground than under from an environmental standpoint and ability to respond to a spill.

We can also work on global climate agreements - that would be even better if Obama made that a priority.

They'll just build the pipeline west instead of south and ship it straight from Canada to China.

I doubt they would do that - The Rocky Mountains and the indigenous people to the west of there have fought really hard not to have the pipeline go through in Canada. But honestly I am not an expert.

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 6, 2015 13:44:57 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Nov 6, 2015 13:39:07 GMT -5 sangria said:

Ok, so dumb question- but can the proposal be resubmitted in another year or two and have the potential to be approved by a (gulp) Republican pres?

Yes - to a degree they can just keep submitting. However as more regulations and concerns arise, it would have to go through the extensive/expensive EIS and EPA approval process again. So unless something does change, I'm not sure they would. Plus we are having new threatened species laws each year and more awareness of pipeline spills at river and other crossings that will also make public comment harder to navigate.

ETA I'm obviously feeling pretty optimistic that it's a win for a little while.

Not necessarily.  The EIS is already done.  It's true that NEPA would have to be done again on any future application, but 80% of the information and studies from the first can be used again, or they could just do a supplemental EIS.  It will be less expensive and quicker than the first.

I know nothing about the EPA process.

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 6, 2015 13:55:16 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Nov 6, 2015 13:51:51 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

They'll just build the pipeline west instead of south and ship it straight from Canada to China.

I doubt they would do that - The Rocky Mountains and the indigenous people to the west of there have fought really hard not to have the pipeline go through in Canada. But honestly I am not an expert.

Me either - lol.  DH is here today so I'm really parroting him.  He says "well, didn't Americans fight really hard, too?  It's not final until it's final, and then it can be reconsidered anyway."

[downtoearth]

Nov 6, 2015 13:57:24 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Nov 6, 2015 13:44:57 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Yes - to a degree they can just keep submitting. However as more regulations and concerns arise, it would have to go through the extensive/expensive EIS and EPA approval process again. So unless something does change, I'm not sure they would. Plus we are having new threatened species laws each year and more awareness of pipeline spills at river and other crossings that will also make public comment harder to navigate.

ETA I'm obviously feeling pretty optimistic that it's a win for a little while.

Not necessarily.  The EIS is already done.  It's true that NEPA would have to be done again on any future application, but 80% of the information and studies from the first can be used again, or they could just do a supplemental EIS.  It will be less expensive and quicker than the first.

I know nothing about the EPA process.

I sort of work in this area, so yes, they could use the original EIS to add to the approved area - they might even get a CATEX approval based on the EPA's determination and if anything has changed from the first proposal, but it still goes through public comment again and I would bet that ANY route change or slight change would get challenged if they didn't do another full EIS/NEPA review. Plus they will still need other federal permits to cross waterways and states also have their own NEPA-type programs that are not directly like NEPA and will require review. It's it like taking their current application and going straight to construction would happen, but it could be faster with a responsive EPA, state regulators (not senators/reps, but regulators), and a president and congress who agree.

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 6, 2015 14:08:33 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Nov 6, 2015 13:57:24 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Not necessarily.  The EIS is already done.  It's true that NEPA would have to be done again on any future application, but 80% of the information and studies from the first can be used again, or they could just do a supplemental EIS.  It will be less expensive and quicker than the first.

I know nothing about the EPA process.

I sort of work in this area, so yes, they could use the original EIS to add to the approved area - they might even get a CATEX approval based on the EPA's determination and if anything has changed from the first proposal, but it still goes through public comment again and I would bet that ANY route change or slight change would get challenged if they didn't do another full EIS/NEPA review. Plus they will still need other federal permits to cross waterways and states also have their own NEPA-type programs that are not directly like NEPA and will require review. It's it like taking their current application and going straight to construction would happen, but it could be faster with a responsive EPA, state regulators (not senators/reps, but regulators), and a president and congress who agree.

That's why I said 80%. Any changes in route or environment will have to have fresh data, but a nice chunk will be the same. Even a new full EIS doesn't mean that the science is invalid and has to be redone.

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 6, 2015 14:08:33 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Nov 6, 2015 13:57:24 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Not necessarily.  The EIS is already done.  It's true that NEPA would have to be done again on any future application, but 80% of the information and studies from the first can be used again, or they could just do a supplemental EIS.  It will be less expensive and quicker than the first.

I know nothing about the EPA process.

I sort of work in this area, so yes, they could use the original EIS to add to the approved area - they might even get a CATEX approval based on the EPA's determination and if anything has changed from the first proposal, but it still goes through public comment again and I would bet that ANY route change or slight change would get challenged if they didn't do another full EIS/NEPA review. Plus they will still need other federal permits to cross waterways and states also have their own NEPA-type programs that are not directly like NEPA and will require review. It's it like taking their current application and going straight to construction would happen, but it could be faster with a responsive EPA, state regulators (not senators/reps, but regulators), and a president and congress who agree.

That's why I said 80%. Any changes in route or environment will have to have fresh data, but a nice chunk will be the same. Even a new full EIS doesn't mean that the science is invalid and has to be redone.

[aurora]

Nov 6, 2015 13:51:51 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Nov 6, 2015 13:34:45 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Right now most of the tar sands oil still drives through the U.S. - mostly by rail. It creates rail jobs and revenue in the U.S. since it is sent via rail to pipelines and the via pipeline to gulf areas to be processed or sent overseas. Your DH isn't wrong. We can't stop private companies in Canada from developing these areas (and the "developing" pictures of tar sands are terrible). But we can make it harder to move through our country and this is a good start. I'd much rather have oil moved above ground than under from an environmental standpoint and ability to respond to a spill.

We can also work on global climate agreements - that would be even better if Obama made that a priority.

They'll just build the pipeline west instead of south and ship it straight from Canada to China.

If this were an easy option they'd have done it first rather than trying to go through the U.S. political process. In addition to political opposition, the Canadian Rockies are a formidable natural barrier.

Also, with oil prices low there's less incentive for them to fight for a more expensive solution.

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 6, 2015 14:59:12 GMT -5 aurora said:

Also, with oil prices low there's less incentive for them to fight for a more expensive solution.

That's true. But oil prices this low aren't sustainable. They will eventually go back up, and China will have the advantage.

As I said earlier, these are all DH's opinions. I, personally, don't know what to think, especially with all you ladies on the opposite side. But I've been heading this for seven years, so...

[josieposy]

I thought China had taken the initiative on reducing emissions recently. Am I crazy?

[aurora]

Nov 6, 2015 15:36:23 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Nov 6, 2015 14:59:12 GMT -5 aurora said:

Also, with oil prices low there's less incentive for them to fight for a more expensive solution.

That's true. But oil prices this low aren't sustainable. They will eventually go back up, and China will have the advantage.

As I said earlier, these are all DH's opinions. I, personally, don't know what to think, especially with all you ladies on the opposite side. But I've been heading this for seven years, so...

I went looking for an NPR story I heard earlier today about oil prices (in which the analyst was saying she didn't see oil companies betting on rising prices in the next 5 years) and stumbled across this year-old article about Keystone that is relevant to the discussion:

www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364727163/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline

Look at the map. The pipeline is significantly longer compared to what an west-bound route to the Pacific would be, so the Gulf Coast must offer significant advantages over a direct-to-China option. The processing facilities near Houston are apparently a big part of that (I'm not an expert).



and also from the article:

What are the alternatives to the pipeline?

There are other pipelines that can move oil sands crude (including a controversial plan by the company Enbridge), but there's not enough capacity for all the oil being produced in Alberta. Producers in Canada are pursuing transporting oil sands by rail cars, even though it's more expensive than moving it by pipeline.

That becomes even less attractive as world oil prices fall, however. Crude from oil sands is some of the most expensive oil to produce in the world. When the extra cost of moving it by rail is added on, some producers will find it difficult to make money.

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 6, 2015 16:29:33 GMT -5 aurora said:

Nov 6, 2015 15:36:23 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

That's true. But oil prices this low aren't sustainable. They will eventually go back up, and China will have the advantage.

As I said earlier, these are all DH's opinions. I, personally, don't know what to think, especially with all you ladies on the opposite side. But I've been heading this for seven years, so...

I went looking for an NPR story I heard earlier today about oil prices (in which the analyst was saying she didn't see oil companies betting on rising prices in the next 5 years) and stumbled across this year-old article about Keystone that is relevant to the discussion:

www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364727163/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline

Look at the map. The pipeline is significantly longer compared to what an west-bound route to the Pacific would be, so the Gulf Coast must offer significant advantages over a direct-to-China option. The processing facilities near Houston are apparently a big part of that (I'm not an expert).



and also from the article:

What are the alternatives to the pipeline?

There are other pipelines that can move oil sands crude (including a controversial plan by the company Enbridge), but there's not enough capacity for all the oil being produced in Alberta. Producers in Canada are pursuing transporting oil sands by rail cars, even though it's more expensive than moving it by pipeline.

That becomes even less attractive as world oil prices fall, however. Crude from oil sands is some of the most expensive oil to produce in the world. When the extra cost of moving it by rail is added on, some producers will find it difficult to make money.

From the link: Earlier this year, the State Department released an environmental review that concluded the Keystone XL very likely wouldn't have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions because the oil will ultimately be produced, even if the pipeline is not built. But environmental groups object to that conclusion and want the oil left in the ground.

Ultimately this is DH's issue. Those fields will be developed and there will be an environmental impact. Why shouldn't the US be the one to benefit from the inexpensive oil while also bearing the responsibility of it's stewardship?

[aurora]

MrsAxilla, for me it all comes back to whether we are the ones propagating the wrong. I don't think we have the ethical right to benefit from further global destruction just to get in on the action before others do. I realize that this is an idealistic and not an economic argument, but it's a principled item for me. I also want to see us put our support behind renewables, making them a more attractive item, to further discourage the use of oil in the future and make it more likely that some oil fields won't be developed. Even China is throwing a lot of $ behind renewables.

It's kind of like JK Rowling said: "It was important, Dumbledore said, to fight, and fight again, and keep fighting, for only then could evil be kept at bay, though never quite eradicated..."

[MrsAxilla]

Nov 6, 2015 17:18:08 GMT -5 aurora said:

MrsAxilla, for me it all comes back to whether we are the ones propagating the wrong. I don't think we have the ethical right to benefit from further global destruction just to get in on the action before others do. I realize that this is an idealistic and not an economic argument, but it's a principled item for me. I also want to see us put our support behind renewables, making them a more attractive item, to further discourage the use of oil in the future and make it more likely that some oil fields won't be developed. Even China is throwing a lot of $ behind renewables.

It's kind of like JK Rowling said: "It was important, Dumbledore said, to fight, and fight again, and keep fighting, for only then could evil be kept at bay, though never quite eradicated..."

And that's exactly why I'm torn on the issue.  My pragmatic and idealistic sides can't agree.

[downtoearth]

Nov 6, 2015 15:59:40 GMT -5 josieposy said:

I thought China had taken the initiative on reducing emissions recently. Am I crazy?

China said they were reducing their missions and agreed to certain actions but then they also lied and reported that they had 17 to 18% less than they actually did. So who knows if they're really doing that ?!