Obama administration delays decision on Keystone XL pipeline

[clearvision]

:

The Obama administration has delayed a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, perhaps until after November’s midterm election.

A further delay in the evaluation of the pipeline, which already has lasted more than five years, is necessary because of a Nebraska state court decision in February that invalidated part of the project’s route, the State Department said in a statement.

Shortly after the court ruling, administration officials had said the Nebraska case would not have an impact on their deliberations. But in the new statement, the State Department said federal agencies could not evaluate the pipeline’s impact until the “uncertainty created by the ongoing litigation” is resolved.

 

 

------

Hmmmm..... who does this decision help? Could it be the Dems up for re-election?

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Fox News:

The Obama administration once again has punted on a final decision for the Keystone XL pipeline, announcing ahead of the holiday weekend it is extending a key review period indefinitely -- a move that could push off a determination until after the midterm elections.

 

Republicans, as well as red-state Democrats who want the proposed Canada-to-Texas pipeline approved, slammed the administration for the delay. Democrats even threatened to find ways to go around the president to get the project approved.

 

"It's absolutely ridiculous that this well over five year long process is continuing for an undetermined amount of time," Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., said in a statement.

 

Republican Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry called the decision "shameful," noting that another spring construction season will come and go without the project.

 

The administration had been in the middle of a 90-day review period for federal agencies assessing an environmental study from the State Department.

 

But the State Department said Friday it is giving agencies "additional time" to weigh in, in part because of ongoing litigation before the Nebraska Supreme Court which could affect the pipeline's route. If the route changes, officials made clear the State Department reserves the right to conduct another environmental impact study to include more public comments, which could delay the process more.

 

Further, the department said officials need to go over the "unprecedented number" of new public comments -- roughly 2.5 million of them -- received during a separate comment period that ended in early March.

 

"The Permit process will conclude once factors that have a significant impact on determining the national interest of the proposed project have been evaluated and appropriately reflected in the decision documents," the department said.

________

 

Drip, drip, drip...

[Valin]

http://youtu.be/5D66x7m4ipM

[Valin]

The Opaque Dangers of Oil-by-Rail
April 19, 2014

America is in the middle of an oil and gas boom, and it’s pumping out hydrocarbons faster than it can build out infrastructure to transport them to markets. This has put a new strain on America’s extensive rail networks, which have been bringing crude from new fields in remote places like North Dakota’s Bakken formation to refineries, sometimes as far away as the Gulf Coast. With more freight cars comes more accidents. Train crashes are already destructive enough to warrant their own idiom, but when oil is involved, the risks to health and environment are compounded. Complicating the matter further, the crude being transported is of a particularly explosive variety.

To help minimize risk, railroads are required to send hazardous materials—like crude oil—along the safest routes possible. But as the NYT reports, there’s very little oversight to this process:

American railroads have long operated under federal laws that shield them from local or state oversight and provide a blanket of secrecy over much of their operations. But now a rapid rise in the number of trains carrying crude oil — along with a series of derailments and explosions — has brought new concern about the risks of transporting dangerous cargo by rail.

To determine the safest route, rail operators rely on a program called the Rail Corridor Risk Management System, which uses algorithms to rank the safety of routes, determined by distance, as well as by the number of intersections with roads and high-profile and high-density buildings. But there’s a problem with this system:

 

(Snip)

 

Communities along these rail lines are understandably concerned about the rise in oil-by-rail, and this lack of transparency can make the process seem almost insidious. Of course, there is an alternative: build out our nation’s already extensive oil pipeline network. Pipelines are ultimately the most efficient way to bring hydrocarbons from large fields to large refineries, and they’re also safer than transporting crude by rail or truck.

 

(Snip)