The Republican theory on the Keystone XL pipeline is that the President is holding back the immediate creation of eleventy billion jobs by refusing to give approval to a permit for construction. Under their various pieces of legislation, TransCanada, the pipeline operator, would be able to immediately begin construction and create jobs hauling tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
But Brad Johnson finds a story on an earnings release from TransCanada, stating firmly that there would not be a start date for construction until 2015.
The Calgary, Alberta-based company said Tuesday in an earnings release that its executives continue to work with Nebraska to determine the best route that avoids Nebraska’s environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.
Last month, the administration of President Barack Obama denied a permit for the project, but left the door open for TransCanada to apply for a new pipeline route. The company said last month it expected the new application would be processed in an expedited manner so that it could be in service in late 2014.
TransCanada has now moved that back to early 2015.
While the report makes it sound like the denial of the permit is responsible for this pushback of the start date, as Johnson explains it’s really the mandate from the state of Nebraska for a new route around the underground aquifer in the Sand Hills region. That requires the deployment of a new route, which has to be mapped out and planned. And that leads to the delay. Incidentally, that mandate in Nebraska was carried out by a Republican governor and a Republican legislature, concerned about the impact of the pipeline on their environmentally sensitive areas.
Nonetheless, Senate Republicans will try to attach a rider forcing the immediate approval of Keystone XL into the transportation bill when it comes up later this week. So far, a coalition of progressive groups, led by Bill McKibben’s 350.org, has acquired over 770,000 signatures, as of press time, against the pipeline, in less than 24 hours.




10 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Harper speaks of 3 alternatives – only one of which is real.
The west coast options dies because of Indian rights and economics of new port construction.
The pipe to Ottawa option, despite the likely approval for reversing a current short pipeline for the last few miles getting to Ottawa, fails on the cost of the small Great Lakes tankers.
Only the mid-Atlantic/New England currently closed refinery options makes economic sense – and that requires a US permit. But I would bet on it as it actually gives the US more oil – we are not just a transit – and we get more oil where we need it.
It will get approval by Obama and the State Dept. and the news will be released on a Friday afternoon, after Obama wins re-election.
Eleventy billions jobs! Wow! maybe I shouldchange my mind.
Actually, if the activists can be believed, the project would only create some 600 jobs in the entire state of Montana. Pretty good deal, especially since all that is required in return is for the people of the good state of Monatana to give up their aquifers and pleasant, non-toxic drinking water.
Meanwhile, over the lat four months, the DOJ under Obama has destroyed 2,500 good paying jobs in the state of California on account of the DOJ somehow thinking it is its mission to strip the state’s right to Medical Marijuana from our lifestyle.
If Obama was not owned lock, stock and barrel by the forces of Big Oil, and Big Pharma, the state of California would be expanding its mission to free one of the best green plants on earth. The state of Calif. would be growing hemp as a replacement for all of the activites of the plastic brought about by Big Oil. Since we are facing a Peak Oil style decline, we need another decent material to allow us to have everything from sandwich bags to car bumpers. And hemp could do the trick, if Obama wasn’t enslaved to the chains of the Anti-Christ.
Facts and truth and practicality and will of the majority are not really factors in this undertaking, are they?
true.
and also,
all of the lands/ rivers/ecosystems within the new pipeline routes being planned are completely oil proof, and also aquifer/wildlife free, with hardly any people either so, should be no problem. build away.
where there’s some oil, there’s a way.
Considering there are eleventy billion miles of pipeline already over the aquifer, what difference does a few more make? More importantly, what does the political decision to forgo employment tell the country?
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/10/18/newsflash-pipelines-are-everywhere/
Why is it that the oil doesn’t go on the world market to the highest bidder, like all other oil?
Hey shooter,
Pollution is everywhere, so let’s just go ahead and pollute a few more rivers.
Our water already has arsenic in it, so whats a few more ppm.
There’s already a lot of cars on the road, so why not add a few more.
As always, when the choice is between fossil fuels and unemployment…. liberals prefer unemployment.
I believe that I read that the Koch brothers pipeline corporation in Canada is already stocking pipe and pumping equipment.
I think they will be ready to go when their hirelings pass the necessary legislation that make it almost legal to lay a pipeline.