TransCanada asks US to suspend pipeline application

[webfact]

TransCanada asks US to suspend pipeline application review
ROB GILLIES, Associated Press

TORONTO (AP) — TransCanada, the company behind the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S Gulf Coast, has asked the U.S. State Department to pause its review of the project.

TransCanada said Monday it had sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry requesting that the State Department suspend its review of the pipeline application. The pipeline company said such a suspension would be appropriate while it works with Nebraska authorities for approval of its preferred route through the state that is facing legal challenges in state courts.

The move comes as the Obama administration was widely expected to reject the pipeline permit application.

"We have just received TransCanada's letter to Secretary Kerry and are reviewing it. In the meantime, consideration under the Executive Order continues," State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said.

The White House declined to comment, referring all questions to the State Department.

The State Department review is mandated as part of the application process because the pipeline crosses an international border. The State Department does not have to grant TransCanada's request for a pause in the review process and instead can continue the review process.

Ahead of TransCanada's announcement Monday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said President Barack Obama intended to make a decision on the pipeline before his presidency ends in January 2017, although he declined to elaborate on the timeline. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her main challengers for the Democratic nomination are already on record as opposing it. All of the leading Republican presidential candidates support the pipeline.

Some pipeline opponents contend that TransCanada hopes to delay the review process in hopes that a more sympathetic Republican administration will move into the White House in 2017.

"In defeat, TransCanada is asking for extra time from the referees, and clearly hoping they'll get a new head official after the election. It's time for the current umpire, President Obama, to reject this project once and for all," said environmental activist Bill McKibben, co-founder of the group 350.org.

For seven years, the fate of the 1,179-mile (1,900-kilometer) long pipeline has languished amid debates over climate change and the intensive process of extracting Alberta's oil and U.S. energy security

The Canada-to-Texas pipeline has long been a flashpoint in the U.S. debate over climate change. Critics oppose the concept of tapping the Alberta oil sands, saying it requires huge amounts of energy and water and increases greenhouse gas emissions. They also express concern that pipeline leaks could potentially pollute underground aquifers that are a critical source of water to farmers on the Great Plains.

Jane Kleeb, executive director of the group Bold Nebraska, which opposes the pipeline project, said, "The route in Nebraska has been uncertain for years, the only difference now is TransCanada knows they are about to have their permit rejected so they are scrambling. President Obama can end all of this uncertainty with a stroke of a pen. It is time to reject and give farmers, ranchers and Tribal Nations peace of mind that their land and water is protected from this risky pipeline."

Cell phone and email messages were left with the spokesman for Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, but there was no immediate response.

Pipeline supporters maintain it will create jobs and boost energy independence. They also say pipelines are a safer method of transporting oil than trains, pointing to recent cases of oil train derailments.

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, a Republican, said it was "unfortunate" that TransCanada "has been forced to delay the project further."

He said it's "clear" that Obama intends to deny the pipeline permit, which he claimed would have "a chilling effect on the willingness of other companies to invest in important energy infrastructure projects in the United States."

Delays in approving the pipeline have caused friction between the U.S. and the outgoing Canadian Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper was frustrated by Obama's reluctance to approve the pipeline and the issues damaged U.S-Canada relations Although incoming Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is sworn in Wednesday, supports Keystone, he argues relations with the U.S. should not hinge on the project.

Canada needs infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production. Canada relies on the U.S. for 97 percent of its energy exports. Alberta has the world's third largest oil reserves, with 170 billion barrels of proven reserves.

However, the Keystone pipeline is now economically less viable at a time of plunging oil prices.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-03

[chuckd]

"The move comes as the Obama administration was widely expected to reject the pipeline permit application."

That's OK, we don't need no stinking pipeline. Rail is much safer anyway.

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

Shipping oil by pipeline 4.5 times safer than rail: Report

Eric Atkins, The Globe and Mail

8:41 AM, E.T. | August 13, 2015

Transporting oil and gas by rail is more dangerous than moving it by pipeline, a new study has found.

Oil shipments by rail are 4 1/2 times more likely to have a spill or incident than those pumped through a pipeline, says a report from the Fraser Institute, which examined data from Canada’s Transportation Safety Board and Transport Canada between 2003 and 2013.

“If you’re going to move a given quantity of oil or gas by rail or by pipeline, it’s considerably safer by pipeline,” said Kenneth Green, the report’s author and an energy and resources expert.

During the 10-year period, there was a yearly average of 27 spills, ruptures or other occurrences for pipelines, compared with an average of 27 for railways. Pipelines moved 15 times more petroleum than railways, and on a volume basis were shown to be far safer. Most pipeline incidents led to small spills, said the report, which echoed U.S. studies that say shipping oil by truck and rail is more likely to cause spills and injuries.

Article continues here: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/8/13/Shipping-oil-by-pipeline-45-times-safer-than-rail-Report-.aspx

[TerrylSky]

Sounds like a see through stalling technique until Donald Trump gets elected God forbid. Big oil doesn't give a sh*t for the earth - or anybody's property on it - nor the environment, just their stinking green dollars; same goes for Canada. The permanent fracking damage there on once pristine prairies is ridiculous, and many locations in the U.S. too. We should invest and further develop in alternative energies and technologies - which already exist rather than risky, ugly, and damaging pipelines, fracking, and arctic ocean development. I've been through that area - and I'm from Alaska. Oil companie$ don't fool me anymore. And for my conservative oil friends, yes, I do recycle, make compost, have an organic garden, don't have a gas guzzling car, and conserve and not waste whenever possible. By the way, Exxon still owes Alaska millions and millions of dollars from the Valdez oil spill - and that was 30 years ago; now that's what I call stalling!

Edited November 3, 2015 by TerrylSky

[elgordo38]

The United States is a fair weather friend to Canada and a lot of other world countries. A few decades ago they were begging for oil sands oil. Now that they have fracking (which has a very short life cycle) its bugger your neighbor no pipeline nothing. The next step is they will be knocking on Canada's door waving the NAFTA treaty and asking for access to fresh water. Tell em to stuff it. I am surprised that they have not already built a pipeline to the Great Lakes. For the record I am also a conservationist similar to the above poster.

[Trouble]

Canada should build it's own pipeline to wherever it makes sense and sell the oil on the world market taking out the US as middleman. Why feed the refineries of the gulf coast and allow them to profit from the process. Canada leave the US to its stagnant economy. Everyone worries about the environmental impact. It has to be safer to use a pipeline that can be monitored 24/7 vs. rail or trucks. Everyone wants to drive their cars, have electricity, etc. but don't want any possible impact in their neck of the woods. Why don't the environmentalists start using bicycles.

[GOLDBUGGY]

"The move comes as the Obama administration was widely expected to reject the pipeline permit application."

That's OK, we don't need no stinking pipeline. Rail is much safer anyway.

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

Shipping oil by pipeline 4.5 times safer than rail: Report

Eric Atkins, The Globe and Mail

8:41 AM, E.T. | August 13, 2015

Transporting oil and gas by rail is more dangerous than moving it by pipeline, a new study has found.

Oil shipments by rail are 4 1/2 times more likely to have a spill or incident than those pumped through a pipeline, says a report from the Fraser Institute, which examined data from Canada’s Transportation Safety Board and Transport Canada between 2003 and 2013.

“If you’re going to move a given quantity of oil or gas by rail or by pipeline, it’s considerably safer by pipeline,” said Kenneth Green, the report’s author and an energy and resources expert.

During the 10-year period, there was a yearly average of 27 spills, ruptures or other occurrences for pipelines, compared with an average of 27 for railways. Pipelines moved 15 times more petroleum than railways, and on a volume basis were shown to be far safer. Most pipeline incidents led to small spills, said the report, which echoed U.S. studies that say shipping oil by truck and rail is more likely to cause spills and injuries.

Article continues here: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/8/13/Shipping-oil-by-pipeline-45-times-safer-than-rail-Report-.aspx

Agree! Pipelines are far more safer and the safest way there is to ship oil. Especially new pipeline.

What Canada needs to do is build a pipeline to the West Coast, which is cheaper, and perhaps to the Chevron Refinery their. Then ship the finished upgraded crude product to the Japanese or Chinese.

Canada depends too much on the United States to buy all of its oil. Especially after they improved Fracking their, and don't really need as much anymore. Century long good relations shouldn't be damaged over a silly thing like this.

[GOLDBUGGY]

The United States is a fair weather friend to Canada and a lot of other world countries. A few decades ago they were begging for oil sands oil. Now that they have fracking (which has a very short life cycle) its bugger your neighbor no pipeline nothing. The next step is they will be knocking on Canada's door waving the NAFTA treaty and asking for access to fresh water. Tell em to stuff it. I am surprised that they have not already built a pipeline to the Great Lakes. For the record I am also a conservationist similar to the above poster.

Not sure I would want to drink the water from the Great Lakes, so Great Bear Lake in Northern Canada would be much better.

Just wait for them to build their water pipeline to the Canadian Border, then tell them you have changed your mind as the possibilty of a spill is too great, and see what they say about that.

[Chicog]

What sort of idiot would trust a report from an "Institute" that's funded by the Kochs, ExxonMobil and other corporations?

It's whole raison d'etre seems to be to plug the teabagger manifesto.

[lovelomsak]

I like pipelines my brother in law has a never ending job in radiology xraying the pipeline for cracks. The more pipe the more radiologists are needed. Business is good. I love the oil industry. Family is also into water trucks for the rigs when they drill. And when are moving we run the pilot cars. We make money if they are drilling piping or moving.. Oil is good to us.