You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
State Dept. Thinks Oil Sands Pipeline is OK, Dems Don't
2011-08-29
Capitol Hill opponents of the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline are attacking the State Department's finding that the proposed project will cause minimal environmental harm if managed properly.
The Party of No seems to be the Dems, this time.
The State Department's conclusion in an environmental analysis released Friday is a crucial step toward final federal approval of the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would bring crude from Alberta's oil sands projects to Gulf Coast refineries.

But the finding isn't sitting well with Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who called the analysis flawed, alleging the State Department failed to "adequately asses the real environmental impact." The pipeline would run through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska and other states.
Of course not. No one can ever adequately address the real environmental impact until the project is dead, dead, DEAD!
"Natural resources like the Ogallala Aquifer which Keystone XL would run through are invaluable and we should not put a dangerous, dirty tar sands pipeline through the heart of it," he said in a statement Friday afternoon.
Right, and then pull up the Alaska Pipeline, running thru that pristine wilderness.
The administration's step closer to approval of the pipeline also drew attacks from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Reps. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

"Everyone who understands global warming understands that using tar sands oil means much more than the limited environmental impacts the State Department outlined," Sanders said in a news release. Vermont's other senator, Democrat Patrick Leahy, is upset with the department's finding too.
Well, there ya go. If your a warmist, you're also a pro-jihadi oiler.
The State Department sought to emphasize Friday that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) does not mean the die is cast to approve the $7 billion project that TransCanada Corp. is seeking to build.

The Obama administration plans to make a final decision by the end of the year.
Terrific.
Posted by:Bobby

#11  Uh, uh, TO WEIRDLY + MYSTERIOUSLY, BUT OF COURSE ONLY POL COINCIDENTALLY, LINK UP WID THE NAU'S FUTURE SUPERHIGHWAY, vee Texas into Mahico + ultimately into the lower Americas???

Lets not fergit RUSSIA'S proposed logistics node to be built ACROSS THE BERING STRAIT INTO ALCAN, OR POTUS BAMMER'S ACROSS THE NORTH ATLANTIC FROM NORAM-CANUS TO BRITAIN [Anglo-French "Chunnel"].

ICELAND, GREENLAND, + IRELAND - I'm looking at youse!
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-08-29 23:13  

#10  Either way, the pipeline gets approved in 17 months and counting.
Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165   2011-08-29 21:18  

#9  If the dems oppose this it will kill their chances at the ballot box. Against oil independence, against jobs. Wow, only a fool couldn't play that into a landslide.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2011-08-29 20:03  

#8  Only one step, Pappy. They still need permits from other agencies.

True. Apparently the idea was to quash the project prior to it getting to the White House.

The EPA required State to do an environmental impact study. State produced one last Spring. The EPA didn't like it and demanded another. This second one is the one in the article.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-08-29 18:57  

#7  Isn't one well planned pipeline better than several more improvised ones?

yes, but redundancy in a national interest facility is a good thing
Posted by: Frank G   2011-08-29 18:42  

#6  Whoops - sorry for the dupe post.
Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division   2011-08-29 18:36  

#5  Interesting that legislators from Vt., Mass., and Tenn. are quoted here. I suppose it gets within a hundred miles or so of Memphis (a noted environmentally pristine Eden), but this is quite extended NIMBYism.

It would be interesting if the GOP nominees could somehow tie 10th amendment analysis to state tax liability. Say, have the effected states enter into a compact for the pipeline, let the protesting states pay more.

Also, haven't read the details, but won't the newly developing ND fields tie into this? Isn't one well planned pipeline better than several more improvised ones?

Just wondering.
Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division   2011-08-29 18:36  

#4  Interesting that legislators from Vt., Mass., and Tenn. are quoted here. I suppose it gets within a hundred miles or so of Memphis (a noted environmentally pristine Eden), but this is quite extended NIMBYism.

It would be interesting if the GOP nominees could somehow tie 10th amendment analysis to state tax liability. Say, have the effected states enter into a compact for the pipeline, let the protesting states pay more.

Also, haven't read the details, but won't the newly developing ND fields tie into this? Isn't one well planned pipeline better than several more improvised ones?

Just wondering.
Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division   2011-08-29 18:34  

#3  Only one step, Pappy. They still need permits from other agencies.

What I really like is the chutzpah regarding environmental protection -- as if the Canadians don't care and aren't capable of managing environmental concerns. Cheez, the Canadians are more environmentally conscious than WE are. If they think the pipeline is okay, likely it won't wreck the North American continent too badly.
Posted by: Steve White   2011-08-29 17:33  

#2  The State Department has approval authority over the pipeline from Canada into the US.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-08-29 16:55  

#1  They've historically failed at foreign affairs so NOW they are involving themselves in matters pertaining to the States and weather?
Posted by: Besoeker   2011-08-29 16:32  

00:00