Tweet
The Keystone XL pipeline protests almost prefigured the protests on Wall Street and across the country, or at least offered a glimpse into the new aggressiveness on the part of activists to stop damaging government actions. Whatever the outcome, the weeks-long highlight on the controversial pipeline has caused PR problems for the White House heading into an election year. But now they have an entirely new problem.
The State Department has been forced to admit that their allegedly independent environmental review of the tar sands pipeline had a massive conflict of interest:
The State Department has admitted their environmental review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline was conducted by a contractor paid for by the pipeline company itself, a potentially illegal conflict of interest first reported by ThinkProgress Green. The Canadian tar sands company TransCanada has applied to construct a major pipeline through the United States to pump tar sands crude to Texas refineries for the international oil market, and is awaiting approval by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. The State Department’s approval hinges upon a positive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), required by the National Environmental Policy Act to assess whether the pipeline is in the national interest.
A State Department official has admitted to the New York Times that the EIS was conducted by a company chosen and paid by TransCanada itself, flouting NEPA’s conflict-of-interest rules:
[Kerri-Ann Jones, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs] said that TransCanada had managed the bidding process and recommended three candidates with Cardno Entrix topping the list. The department vetted Cardno Entrix by consulting with other agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. TransCanada pays the consultant directly, but would not reveal the amount.
This fox-writing-the-environmental-impact-review-of-the-henhouse moment looks really bad. The State Department swore at the time that their review would be based on sounds science, and yet the pipeline operator provided the cash for it. And this is not the first time that Cardno Entrix has done these reviews for TransCanada; they appear to be a kind of factory for rubber-stamp reviews.
TransCanada’s alibi here was that his company doesn’t directly contract with Entrix. They just selected them and paid them for the job. Makes sense.
The White House really didn’t need to give environmental activists another reason to be skeptical of their claims about the Keystone XL pipeline.
43 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
*heh* Keystone Pipeline Hearings Get Heated…
“Kill the pipeline!”
“Ha! Get a haircut!”
Cardno ENTRIX not only conducted the environmental review and public hearings on Keystone XL, it also maintains the State Department website on the project.
U.S. Department of State
Keystone Pipeline Project
http://www.keystonepipeline.state.gov/clientsite/keystone.nsf?Open
footnote:
that cracked me right up
People’s Daily Brief (PDB) 10.10.11
Obama Determined To Change Star Spangled Banner TO Tar Spattered Banner.
(Courtesy of Francis Scott Keystone)
Yes, it’s funny, but he didn’t make it up. I saw video yesterday where some ass actually said that. IMO, anyone who considers that a serious rebuttal on any important issue should be stuffed and mounted.
I don’t understand why anyone thinks there is a conflict of interest here. In my read of history, the only thing the State Dept ever duz is pimp for corps. Why should this be any diff.
I am not sure that this is such a big deal. If you are building a building, the building department makes you pay a permit fee to review the plans. If the building department is not qualified to review the plans, they will make you hire a third party reviewer.
The only thing that matters are the qualifications and integrity of the third part reviewer. Unless someone can cite a specific example of Cardno Entrix rubber stamping the EIS, we should refrain from criticizing the action.
The only thing that the EPA can do at this point is to hire another firm to review Cardno Entrix’s review. In the construction trade, chemical industry and plan reviewing in general, this type of review happens all the time.
Oh, I feel so much better now. Let the pipeline begin!!!
Wonder why there is are a few people camping out at OWS tonight? I think I just found a reason, it’s called corruption. But you may have a better description for this. I mean the Kcchs and Exxon may pull down a few billion on this.
Making them pay for the review is one thing. Letting them SELECT the reviewer is blatant conflict of interest. Obvious much?
But this time the corp. is picking up the tab. If it’s a trend maybe it can dent the deficit. Why should the taxpayer pay for being shafted?
Just like paying the rating agency that gives your CDOs AAA ratings. What harm could come from that?
Could be wrong but I suspect this is what Ecah really means.
Corruption!!! Don’t you just love it? Gets things done with no one to blame.
What do you think I thought eCAHN meant? I hope eCAHN recognizes my comment as /s. I agree completely.
The XL pipeline is a done deal. Obama wants it. Occupy the White House.
Russ feingoold is now on KO talking about OWS.
eCHAN, I can’t help but marvel at the evolution of a radical. Stay the course.
Stay the course.
*heh* I’ve been telling her that for years now…! ;-)
Russ is one of us. should listen to him.
Sorry, missed that.
From Wall St. to the barricades. Ain’t life funny?
No problem. It’s unlikely that you were the only one who missed my meaning. Thanks for the chance to clear it up.
You mean he’s trying to capitalize on OWS. Another 1%er.
Maybe but I don’t equate him to a 1% er. He took some shots at the dems too.
You’re free to hold on to your illusions.
It is called a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report when new information comes to light. In this instance big time bias exist. The damage this action will do has been verified by NOAA experts.
Who are you tell anyone to shut up. What are your credentials?
Does it get lonely withholding your approval from anyone who doesn’t meet your Ivory Snow 99.99% standard of purity?
Lonely? Not at all. As a democratic socialist and a dual national I have plenty of kindred spirits, just not in the U.S. of A. If it helps you sleep any better keep on dreaming that the system can be “reformed.”
Russ Feingold’s Net Worth statement from FEC records in 2008.
Hardly a 1%-er or MOTU of any kind.
Few dreams. Fewer illusions about the likely success of reform. But some good friends to help me get through whatever comes. I don’t see the need to knock people when they’re saying things I agree with.
Well, there is a group of people on OWS trying to change things. I hope they succeed.
*heh* How quick the Mighty can be smitten…! ;-)
Kidding, eCAHN…! *g*
Without friends it would be difficult if not impossible to get through these impossible times. We’ve been sold out by politicians we thought once represented the interests of the working and middle class and I include Feingold in that group.
I share your frustration and feeling of being sold out. I don’t know what’s behind cases when people who agree with me, and it seems agree with you also, most of the time, behave in ways contrary to those beliefs. It isn’t impossible to see Feingold as one of the victims.
When you hold office you’re constantly choosing among evils. To be ideologically pure is to become irrelevant or worse. Raising the debt ceiling required unanimous consent in the senate. Bernie Sanders alone could have stopped it. Would the beliefs we seem to share have been advanced if economic events of the last two months had all been blamed on some socialist?
I appreciate the discussion. Need to long off soon.
Have a good evening. Later, citizen.
For my part I have not included Feingold among those who sold us out. I think Obama did most of it. You may have a bill of particulars against him, which I do not. I am upset with many other dems, most of whom bear the blue dog moniker but not all. I don’t doubt the Feingold may have incurred a transgression or two but I don’t buy into him being a 1%er, with money, power or corruption. Just my opinion, or illusion.
bluetoe, bluedot. My head hurts trying to sort it out. “And I guesss that’s why they call it the blues.” ;-)
I am not commenting on the quality of the review only the process (I am not familiar with either firm [but I have done EIS reviews in the past]). Also, I am not telling anyone to shut up.
If you have specific evidence about the quality of the review, THEN that is a topic for discussion.
Bobster, I think you have a good heart, but that comment makes me wonder why they even bothered to teach me about that quaint old concept “conflict of interest” back in law school. The sponsor selected AND paid the reviewer. I know the modern way is to call that just an “appearance” of a conflict, but once upon a time (like, pre-Reagan), if you had such an appearance, then you were deemed to actually have the conflict. It’s about having divided loyalties. People shouldn’t have to guess which loyalty you chose to betray.
Bobster33 is correct. I’ll grant that nobody should feel comfortable with the idea of the proponent of a project paying for the environmental impact statement and hiring its own consultants. But feeling uncomfortable with it is different from there being anything legally or procedurally wrong with it. The conspiracy talk here is a bit disheartening – this procedure is, sadly, the norm.
This is the way the environmental impact assessment process is designed to work. Not just with the State Dept., but with ALL federal agencies. As much as we might deplore this, it is neither illegal, inappropriate, or uncommon. This is the way the law is written. The proponent hires and pays for the consultant that reviews the impact statement. The reviewing agency is responsible for ensuring that the EIA meets the requirements of the law. It would be highly unusual for the government to pay for an environmental impact assessment.
So if you don’t like this, you should get your legislators to change the law (for example, having the project proponent pay, but the government pick the EIA analysts from a list of competent consultants). But don’t claim that this is some special form of special treatment. It is ABSOLUTELY the norm.
spot on comment
the CIA says “national security” and the president jumps, and of course State follows the President.
Indeed our tax dollars spent “defending American Corporate interests” means we are fighting with the Brits MI6 over corporate clients and plans and opportunities more than we are fighting terrorists.
Been that way since the Dulles brothers in 1953 and the return of the Shah to Iran to replace a democracy that was not treating our oil companies the way they wanted to be treated. Heck we still can’t discuss the bonehead CIA gifts of atomic bomb building plans/instructions to China under Reagan in 83, and to Iran in 2000 (the excuse for the 2000 event was that they had some errors in the plan that in some way would hurt the Iranian bomb program, the 83 bomb was improved on and published in China tech journals in 87 with Congressional hearings in 91 on the gift with those hearings apparently not available via Google any more).
Laws written thru a corrupted process can still be wrong. Conflict of interest is not good policy, even if legislators are bribed to give it the gloss of legitimacy. Look to the substance, and make your own judgment.