Keystone XL Pipeline Application rejected by U.S. Government

Read the CBC.ca News story here: Keystone XL pipeline proposal rejected — for now.

Former Pipeline Inspector attacks TransCanada construction practices

Mike Klink, formerly a pipeline inspector for Bechtel, recently wrote an editorial piece expressing concern over the workmanship he witnessed during the construction of TransCanada's Keystone Pipeline and the risk that it will be repeated in the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.  Bechtel was an inspection company working on behalf of TransCanada.  Klink says that he witnessed the use of substandard steel that cracked during welding, faulty safety tests and the installation of insufficient foundations.  He warns, "If it were a car, the first Keystone would be a lemon.  And it would be far worse to double down on a proven loser with Keystone XL."  Klink points to fourteen spills as having already occurred on the relatively new Keystone pipeline.

Read the opinion piece at: journalstar.com

Keystone pipeline decision shelved until 2013

The US State Department has ordered an environmental assessment of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in the US, meaning that the project is shelved until after the 2012 Presidential Election.  Read CBC.ca's story at: Keystone XL delayed.

CBC's The Current - Keystone vs. Landowners

"In its bid to move unrefined bitumen from the oilsands of Alberta to refineries in Texas, TransCanada pipeline is finding some of its toughest opponents aren't environmentalists or regulators but the ranchers and farmers whose land the pipeline will cross."

This morning, the CBC Radio One program The Current looked into the relationship of landowners with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in the United States (click here to see the program page and a link to the archived broadcast). 

 

I was asked by the program to comment on the existence of "eminent domain" law in Canada (here known as expropriation), as well as any differences between the challenges faced by pipeline landowners in Canada and those in the United States.  My comments come at the end of the program, just before the host notes that TransCanada declined an invitation to speak on the basis that it is still involved in eminent domain proceedings in the U.S.

Nebraska Senator stands up for Keystone XL landowners: Press Release

LINCOLN, NE, September 27, 2011 – Today, Senator Bill Avery, who could not be in attendance to present his remarks at a scheduled US State Department Hearing on the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline pending application, released this statement:

“For the record, I am not opposed to an international pipeline. I realize that there are currently hundreds of natural gas and oil pipelines across Nebraska and across the United States. I have sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton indicating that while I do not oppose the pipeline or its purpose, based on our historical need for oil and gas, I have several very serious reservations about TransCanada’s operations and procedure for route approval.

I am extremely concerned about TransCanada’s questionable record of pipeline maintenance. Keystone I has already experienced 12 spills in its first year but claims no fault because those spills were at pumping stations. That’s more first-year spills than any other pipeline in US history. Keystone I was recently issued a Federal Corrective Action Order in June, 2011 by the US Department of Transportation to take necessary action to protect the public, property and the environment from potential hazards associated with two spills this summer in Sargent County, North Dakota and Doniphan County, Kansas.

There is absolutely no denying that spills will happen. Enbridge dumped over 1 Million gallons of tar sand crude into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, polluting and closing the waterway to fishing and swimming for 6 months. ExxonMobile spilled 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River contaminating America’s National Park waterway. The good people of Louisiana, where I attended Tulane University, will suffer for decades from the tragedy of British Petroleum’s offshore explosion. Spills can and will happen. They will poison our waterways and kill our wildlife. The Sandhills are home to the endangered Whooping and Sandhill Crane migratory bird species, the endangered American Burying Beetle, and dozens of waterfowl and wildlife. Even worse, viscous tar sands, which won’t float like light sweet crude, will sink into our porous Ogallala Aquifer, contaminate our clean water systems, and cause catastrophic and irreversible damage. If we don’t stop this now, future generations will forever wonder why we allowed this to happen.

I am opposed to TransCanada’s questionable and deceptive tactics. It’s a very serious problem when a foreign corporation can enter our state and dictate what’s going to happen on our private property. Property that has been held by generations of Nebraska family farmers. The US State Department must acknowledge that TransCanada did not have the proper permits to threaten to invoke eminent domain. It’s unethical and it’s against the law. I have a copy of the letter they have sent to landowners threatening land condemnation. The intimidation and deception of our citizens is real.

Furthermore, I am outraged that TransCanada has briefed our legislative staff, partnered with our local unions, sent the Consulate General of Canada to meet with me, sponsored our Nebraska State Fair, and implied University of Nebraska backing on Husker gamedays all while declaring to be our friend.

Friends don’t send hostile letters to innocent landowners. They don’t infiltrate our state with unsubstantiated illusions about increased jobs and decreased oil prices at a time when working families, farmers and cattle ranchers are clinging to their livelihoods and barely making ends meet. Friends don’t turn a deaf ear when a state pleads for them to shelter their drinking water from toxic crude oil and their fragile ecosystems from erosion.

Our two US Senators have said no. One US Representative has said no. Our Governor, Dave Heineman, has asked the President to deny TransCanada’s permit based on location. Our University has told TransCanada to get their advertisements out of Memorial Stadium. 30 Nebraskans peacefully protesting TransCanada’s tactics have been arrested at the White House. Our Legislature is seriously considering – and I support – a costly Special Session to protect our state from TransCanada’s refusal to hear us that our Aquifer is Nebraska’s most precious resource. They’ve threatened our landowners with eminent domain and land condemnation, invaded our airwaves and newspapers with confusing and manipulative advertising and made questionable political contributions to our lawmakers. Today, TransCanada has caused hundreds of Nebraskans to take the day off, drive across the state and show up to again voice their serious concerns.

How many more times can Nebraska tell you?  We do not want our Ogallala Aquifer and Sandhills adversely affected by TransCanada’s dirty tar sand sludge. The Final Environmental Impact Study report indicated that for 65 miles, Keystone XL Pipeline will be less than 10 feet away from the Aquifer. That simply is not acceptable. The Aquifer provides 78% of Nebraska’s clean drinking water and provides 83% of Nebraska’s total irrigation water for livestock and crops. We do not want TransCanada jeopardizing our clean water, irrigation source or the livelihood of Nebraska’s family farmers with vague and unfounded promises. We will not risk a spill on our watch.

I’ve heard the arguments about ending our dependence on foreign oil. About Canada being a friendly nation we can count on. About TransCanada being a neighbor who will invest in our communities. I understand about the need for new jobs in a time of economic instability. And quite frankly, I am not moved. I am simply not convinced that these promises can or will be guaranteed by TransCanada. Are we willing to gamble away Nebraska’s environmental future on uncertainties? On temporary labor jobs and oil that, once refined, is not earmarked for American use? On a company who has a history of deceptive trade practices and faulty equipment installation?

Given that TransCanada refuses to be a friend and acknowledge their corporate responsibility, Nebraskans will continue to be resolute in the stewardship of our environment, our land, our history and heritage for the future of our children. We are unwavering in our support for what our families have spent generations protecting and we will not back down.

There is a solution, and we all know it. Absent a good faith effort from TransCanada to voluntarily propose to Nebraska another Pipeline route, the US State Department must reject this application and TransCanada must move the Keystone XL Pipeline east. Get it off of the majority of the Ogallala Aquifer. Keep it out of our extremely fragile ecosystem. Why is it so hard for TransCanada to move the Pipeline east? To follow its existing Keystone I pipeline route? Is it because they were deceptively acquiring land ahead of their application approval and would now have to obtain new landowner easement rights? Let me remind you: TransCanada’s bottom line is not our problem.

It is incumbent upon the US State Department to reject approval of this permit and require TransCanada to reroute the Keystone XL Pipeline away from the Sandhills and Ogallala Aquifer. Then, and only then, will this project win our confidence and likely acquire broad support in Nebraska. The Keystone XL Pipeline may be in the national interest, but the route is absolutely not in Nebraska’s interest. As Nebraskans, we respectfully request, no, we absolutely demand, the rejection of TransCanada’s permit application.”

#  #  #

Keystone XL pipeline faces new challenge in Canada

The Keystone XL pipeline, already approved by regulatory authorities in Canada but facing continuing approvals challenges in the U.S., is now facing a new challenge in the Canadian regulatory arena.  On September 23, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP) wrote to the National Energy Board (NEB) to raise concerns about whether Keystone XL has complied with the sunset clause in its Canadian approval certificate.  Condition 22 of Certificate OC-56 reads:

Unless the Board otherwise directs prior to 11 March 2011, this Certificate shall expire on 11 March 2011 unless construction in respect of the Project has commenced by that date.

In its letter to the NEB, the CEP says that it understands:

that the Board made no direction prior to March 11, 2011, and that no construction in respect of the Project had commenced by that date.  Accordingly, OC-56 expired on March 11, 2011, and there is no current approval that would allow TCPL to proceed further with the Keystone XL pipeline. 

The CEP says that when it asked about the apparent expiry of the Certificate, Ms. Saunders of the NEB advised that TCPL had undertaken some earth moving activity and, in doing so, commenced construction of the pipeline.  CEP challenges this assertion in its letter, reminding the NEB that various requirements to be carried out at least 60 days prior to the commencement of construction have also not been completed by TCPL.

The NEB has now issued a letter to the CEP and to TCPL saying that it would like to gather more information about the situation before responding to CEP's letter.  TCPL has the opportunity to file responding comments by October 14.  CEP may file reply comments by October 21.

An interesting development in a controversial pipeline project.  Worth keeping an eye on.

The Unsatisfactory Approval Process for Keystone XL: Jocelyn Stacey

McGill University Doctor of Civil Law student Jocelyn Stacey has posted an article on ABlawg.ca about the shortcomings of environmental assessment legislation in Canada and the U.S. - Failing to Assess the Key Issue: The Unsatisfactory Approval Process for Keystone XL.  In particular, Ms. Stacey cites the failure of environmental assessment processes in the context of pipeline project approvals to address impacts of climate change:

This is not intended to be a comprehensive critique of environmental assessment legislation in Canada or the U.S. - there is no shortage of commentary on the merits and flaws of environmental assessment. Rather, what Keystone XL so aptly demonstrates is how easy it is for environmental assessment to not only to ignore, but actually obfuscate the impacts of climate change - arguably the most pressing environmental issue of the day and therefore the most in need of pre-development assessment.

The rhetorical trick that allows regulators to duck the real emissions issues is reliance on the fatalist assumption that, if this pipeline is not approved, then another will; thus, no increase in greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to this particular project. For example, the NEB concluded:

In the Board’s view there is no evidence of a connection or nexus between the applied-for project and other projects or activities which would make emissions from upstream activities relevant to the Board’s considerations in this Application. The operation of the upstream facilities is not contingent on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline; they will presumably continue to operate whether or not KXL is ever built (at 75).

Similarly, the report commissioned by the Department of State concluded:

… studies indicate that building versus not building Keystone XL would not of itself have any significant impact on: U.S. total crude runs, total crude and product import levels or costs, global refinery CO2 or life-cycle GHG emissions. This is because changing WCSB [Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin] crude export routes would not alter either U.S., Canadian or total global crude supply, (other than a small impact under a No Expansion scenario), or U.S. and global product demand and quality. The same slate of crude oils would have to be refined even if reallocated geographically (Ensys Energy & Systems Inc., Keystone XL Assessment - Final Report (Dec. 23, 2010) at 116).

This assumption allows regulators to consider the pipeline in isolation - disconnected from its effect on upstream production and downstream use - making it much easier to ascribe no impact to what is, in actuality, only one small component of a much larger development project. Perhaps even more puzzling, is that the fatalist assumption also enables regulators to shift the baseline against which impacts are measured. Why aren’t the impacts of emissions from Keystone XL measured against emissions today, not the wholly speculative emissions baseline that we assume will occur? In fact, what should be the conclusion of the assessment - “other than a small impact under a No Expansion scenario” - is relegated to parentheses, a trivial point only noted to ensure technical accuracy.