Nebraska Agency Completes Environment Review of Keystone XL

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit
NO ROUTE ISSUES! TransCanada says it expects to receive a permit from the U.S. government by the end of the first quarter.

WASHINGTON--Nebraska's environment agency has completed a much-anticipated review of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in the state, finding that a new route proposed by pipeline operator TransCanada Corp. (TRP, TRP.T) avoids sensitive regions that have been a source of concern.

The final review, released Friday, triggers a 30-day deadline for Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican, to make a final recommendation on the pipeline to the U.S. government.

The U.S. State Department is conducting a separate review of the pipeline because it would cross the U.S.-Canada border. The State Department is expected to issue its own draft environmental review in coming days.

TransCanada says it expects to receive a permit from the U.S. government by the end of the first quarter.

The Keystone XL pipeline has been controversial since it was first proposed in 2008, but some of the fiercest opposition has come from Nebraska. Environmental groups, landowners and lawmakers balked at an earlier route proposed by TransCanada because it passed through the state's ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region.

A new pipeline route curves east of the Sand Hills but would still cross the Ogallala Aquifer, a source of drinking water and irrigation supplies, Friday's report from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality said. The new route also avoids many fragile soils in northern Nebraska and shallow groundwater areas.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The U.S. State Department is conducting a separate review of the pipeline because it would cross the U.S.-Canada border. The State Department is expected to issue its own draft environmental review in coming days.


Wouldn't it be kinda fun if Harper interceded here and required that the project needs to be reassessed on the Canadian side to review any potential eco threats from Hardisty to the border.

Hang it up for another year or so with the excuse that Northern Gateway is consuming all of the analyst resources... That generate a few ulcers with the folks in Nebraska and the US Energy Dept
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit
The U.S. State Department is conducting a separate review
They already did..

This (XL) and others on the way the way are the safety net for when they bounce off the debt ceiling and fall off the cliff and they damn well know it.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
They already did..

This (XL) and others on the way the way are the safety net for when they bounce off the debt ceiling and fall off the cliff and they damn well know it.


All I'm sayin' is that if Harper wanted to politicize this issue in the same way that the Democrats did a year or so ago; he (Harper) could question the eco-safety of the p/l that must travel from Southern AB into the US.

It won't happen, but it'd sure be funny if he made the threat
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I am in favor of pipelines within Canada for Canadian energy needs I am not in favour
of large scale export to any nation. The one I am really against is the pipeline through
northern BC and out to China For me it is about the environment sort of I don't like the
inland water's route. Its more about giving Asia access to our raw materials and our
resources period.
The United States is bad enough and we should be limiting the amount we export as
well.
By and large pipelines are like airlines, they don't often go all to hell but when they do
it is a disaster much larger than rail. Rail probably has more risk than a pipeline.
I am against mass exports of a resource we will need for ourselves in Canada,
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,348
11,418
113
Low Earth Orbit
I am in favor of pipelines within Canada for Canadian energy needs I am not in favour
of large scale export to any nation. The one I am really against is the pipeline through
northern BC and out to China For me it is about the environment sort of I don't like the
inland water's route. Its more about giving Asia access to our raw materials and our
resources period.
The United States is bad enough and we should be limiting the amount we export as
well.
By and large pipelines are like airlines, they don't often go all to hell but when they do
it is a disaster much larger than rail. Rail probably has more risk than a pipeline.
I am against mass exports of a resource we will need for ourselves in Canada,

What would be worse? An oils pill at the oil terminal at Asia Pacific Gateway or a spill of U236 at the Asia Pacific Gateway uranium terminal?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I am in favor of pipelines within Canada for Canadian energy needs I am not in favour
of large scale export to any nation. The one I am really against is the pipeline through
northern BC and out to China For me it is about the environment sort of I don't like the
inland water's route. Its more about giving Asia access to our raw materials and our
resources period.
The United States is bad enough and we should be limiting the amount we export as
well.
By and large pipelines are like airlines, they don't often go all to hell but when they do
it is a disaster much larger than rail. Rail probably has more risk than a pipeline.
I am against mass exports of a resource we will need for ourselves in Canada,

You're gonna sell that oil and LIKE IT! ;)