Keystone XL: US review taking 5 times longer than average

[webfact]

Keystone XL: US review taking 5 times longer than average
By JOSH LEDERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal review of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas has dragged on for nearly seven years, more than five times the average for such applications.

The White House insists it's simply following a standard and well-established process.

In the 6 1/2 years since TransCanada Corp. first applied for a permit, the $8 billion project has become a flashpoint in the debate over climate change.

Under a George W. Bush-era executive order, oil pipelines crossing U.S. borders require a presidential permit, setting off a government-wide review coordinated by the State Department.

An Associated Press examination of every cross-border pipeline application since 2004, when Bush revised the process, shows that the Keystone review has been anything but ordinary.

Since April 2004, when Bush signed his order, the government has taken an average of 478 days — less than a year and a half — to approve or reject all other applications. TransCanada has waited nearly seven years for a ruling.

Former Bush White House officials who helped develop the policy say it was never intended that the final decision about a presidential permit would be delegated to a Cabinet department. The revamped process was intended to quicken permits for major public works projects, those officials said.

Approving a pipeline permit "was seen as the most routine, boring thing in the world," Robert McNally, who was an energy adviser to Bush.

Republicans and energy advocates have pressed Obama to approve the project, which environmentalists say would promote dirty tar sands oil and risk spills.

The company first applied in September 2008 for a permit to build the 1,179-mile pipeline, which would connect Canada's tar sands with crude oil refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Controversy over the proposed route through Nebraska led to a tweak, which led the State Department to revisit its assessment. When Congress in 2012 gave Obama a deadline to make a decision, he rejected the permit on grounds he didn't have enough time to thoroughly review it. He allowed TransCanada Corp. to reapply.

The administration has declined to say what's taking so long or to offer insight into the deliberations.

"This is under a review process at the State Department. That particular process is a process that predates this administration, so I'm not going to have any update for you from here," White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters recently. He did promise a decision sometime before Obama leaves office in January 2017.

Under Bush's executive order, the State Department receives permit applications and circulates them to agencies such as the Commerce Department, Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. The agencies have 90 days to offer opinions. If the State Department decides to grant approval, it notifies other agencies, which have 15 days to object before a permit is issued.

The final call comes down to whether the project serves the nation's interest. In a climate change speech in 2013, Obama established a litmus test: Keystone wouldn't move forward if it would significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions. That's a hotly contested matter.

More than 16 months have passed since the State Department's 30-day public comment period ended. The State Department has not disclosed whether any agencies have objected to the pipeline. The department has said it is continuing to review the application "in a rigorous, transparent, and objective manner."

The process does not typically drag on this long.

The first permit issued after Bush revised the process in 2004 took less than four months from application to signature. Express Pipeline, L.L.C., was expanding a 785-mile pipeline crossing the Canadian border from Hardisty, Alberta, the same town where the proposed Keystone XL would start.

Even the pipeline that took the longest to approve — the 435-mile Vantage Pipeline Project, approved during Obama's tenure — took fewer than three years, despite requiring complex negotiations with Native American tribes concerned about historical preservation.

The 1,000-mile Alberta Clipper Project, which drew legal challenges from Earthjustice and other groups, took 25 months to approve.

"When we brought the Alberta Clipper suit, nobody was really paying attention to pipelines," said Sarah Burt, an Earthjustice attorney. "It hadn't become this big bargaining chip, this symbolic ask of the administration that Keystone became."

Not including Keystone XL, eight applications for new or significantly upgraded petroleum pipelines have been processed since April 2004.

The AP's review excluded permits reissued for existing pipelines due to change of ownership. To come up with an average processing time, the AP culled data from the Federal Register, State Department records, congressional correspondence, Congressional Research Service reports and data provided by pipeline owners.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-13

[Loptr]

Please, stop with the dis-information...

The delay / killing of the Keystone pipeline was a reward to the Dems for donations from Tom Steyer, billionaire 'environmentalist' that is profiting from the pipeline not being built...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/19/american-crossroads/would-billionaire-environmentalist-tom-steyer-prof/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/billionaire_liberal_donor_gets_way_on_keystone_pipeline_122369.html

[up-country_sinclair]

The smart move would be to wait for Secretary Clinton to officially lock up the Democrat nomination, and then relentlessly go after her on this. Hard. My guess is that she'll eventually cave so that she'll appeal to be more moderate.

[FangFerang]

Approving a pipeline permit "was seen as the most routine, boring thing in the world," said Robert McNally, who was an energy adviser to Bush. Of course, environmental impact studies back then were just like issuing driver's licenses.

And every other decision of the war criminal Bush administration, like the Iraq rush to war under fraudulent data that destabilized the entire mid-east, the Scooter Libby affair, the Republican aide who cruised for boys by texting congressional pages, declaring corporations are "people"...all of that was also the most "routine, boring thing in the world".

The Democrats, and I am not one, are still laughing their butts off. And they should. There is a huge difference between being the world's leader and the world's bully, but some people with mince for brains s t i l l don't get it. Like the whole world should just "forget all that stuff" and go back to believing whatever Washington's numb skulls say.

Not going to happen, this century or any other.

[FangFerang]

Please, stop with the dis-information...

The delay / killing of the Keystone pipeline was a reward to the Dems for donations from Tom Steyer, billionaire 'environmentalist' that is profiting from the pipeline not being built...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/19/american-crossroads/would-billionaire-environmentalist-tom-steyer-prof/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/billionaire_liberal_donor_gets_way_on_keystone_pipeline_122369.html

Please stop with the dis-information, Loptr.

The first ad you quoted said the opposite, that Steyer was NOT gaining from blocking the pipeline.

The second article is not news -- it's a sound bite from a right wing publication posing as news, and even they did not reach the conclusion you posted. they just threw out some information and failed to date or reference any of it (half was out dated, the other half was entertainment like Faux News provides).

Dead wrong, again, so maybe you should vote for Jeb. You seem to believe anything the Bushes and their Spin Doctors tell you, and they need all the sheeple they can find.

What a troll posing as an informed poster.

[Chicog]

It's not going to happen while Obama is in charge.

Put a republican in the Whitehouse and they can fix it at the stroke of a pen.

But the fact that the Republicans want it so bad tells you how much they'll get paid if it gets approved.

[chuckd]

Please, stop with the dis-information...

The delay / killing of the Keystone pipeline was a reward to the Dems for donations from Tom Steyer, billionaire 'environmentalist' that is profiting from the pipeline not being built...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/19/american-crossroads/would-billionaire-environmentalist-tom-steyer-prof/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/billionaire_liberal_donor_gets_way_on_keystone_pipeline_122369.html

Please stop with the dis-information, Loptr.

The first ad you quoted said the opposite, that Steyer was NOT gaining from blocking the pipeline.

The second article is not news -- it's a sound bite from a right wing publication posing as news, and even they did not reach the conclusion you posted. they just threw out some information and failed to date or reference any of it (half was out dated, the other half was entertainment like Faux News provides).

Dead wrong, again, so maybe you should vote for Jeb. You seem to believe anything the Bushes and their Spin Doctors tell you, and they need all the sheeple they can find.

What a troll posing as an informed poster.

Steyer is most certainly a fly in the ointment of approving the Keystone. Anybody that donates over $70 Million to the Democrats during one campaign period is going to get his voice heard at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Steyer is making much of his money now in alternative fuel investments, after divesting himself from the Canadian pipeline, which was a competition to the Keystone.

However, there is one player who is a frequent visitor to the White House that does have a rather vested interest in seeing the Keystone is not approved.

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad carries roughly half of the Bakken oil from the fields in both Canada and the Dakotas to the refineries in the southern US.

During F/Y 2014 BNSF had total revenue of "about $23 Billion"

BNSF is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. is majority owned by one Warren Buffett...Obama mentor and supporter

To better understand the Warren Buffett connection, here is a link from Mother Jones (a first for me) explaining what the Obama/Buffett connection is really about.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

How Obama Banks on Warren Buffett—for Campaign Cash

Obama's use of the Buffett name is about more than the tax plan. It's also a fundraising tool.

—By Andy Kroll | Tue Apr. 24, 2012 6:00 AM EDT

On Tuesday, First Lady Michelle Obama will jet off to Omaha, Nebraska, where she'll attend an Obama campaign fundraiser. Hosting the Omaha event (attendees who donate $5,000 can meet and take a photo with the First Lady) will be none other than Warren Buffett, the "Oracle of Omaha," an Obama campaign official told Mother Jones. And joining Michelle Obama and Warren Buffett at the Omaha fundraiser will be Susie Buffett, Warren's daughter and a philanthropist herself.

Read more here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/barack-obama-warren-buffett-campaign-cash

Interesting, huh?

[elgordo38]

It's not going to happen while Obama is in charge.

Put a republican in the Whitehouse and they can fix it at the stroke of a pen.

But the fact that the Republicans want it so bad tells you how much they'll get paid if it gets approved.

Hi Chicog I always like to add to your posts you have such a friendly face. Its funny how years ago before the fracking boom that America was constantly wooing Canada for oil. It was a romance made in oil heaven. They the two governments were constantly gushing(not not oil) over each other as to how they were such good neighbors warm friends allies and all that other bull. Reagan and Mulbaloney were dancing on stage singing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling."Now with fracking there is a divorce. Obama now says we do not need dirty Canadian oil it provides no benefit for the USA. He is deliberately holding up the Keystone pipeline because of this. My how soon we forget. Oil sands oil is dirty environmentally unfriendly even though that is the prime source of the same oil you buy from Venezuela. The US(for now) does not need Canadian oil but fracking depletion is a fast process and looking down the road 20 year the status quo could return. Allies and well they are almost joined at the hip should not be fair weather friends but friends through thick and thin. I think the USA is failing badly in this respect. Oil unfortunately is used as a weapon so why buy from Venezuela a country that is in the Death to America camp when you have a closer more friendly ally? It will be fun to see what approach America takes when they come shopping for fresh water sometime in the future which in the end will be more valuable than oil. America has really drifted in the direction of "What is in our best interests" camp and away from being a true ally and friend. Maybe this is why the international community has turned a cold shoulder in some respects.

Edited August 13, 2015 by elgordo38

[Credo]

I believe that a consideration in the mix is that refineries are not able to easily refine all grades of crude oil.