End Of State Dept. Review Of Keystone XL Approaches; Decision Looms - WP

[hatrack]

The State Department is close to completing a draft of an environmental review that will help determine whether President Obama approves the Keystone XL pipeline, as environmental and energy industry groups sought to bolster their position with new information.

Pipeline opponent Oil Change International released a report Thursday saying that estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands development have failed to include the full emissions from a byproduct of refining oil sands crude — a coallike substance known as petroleum coke.

At the same time, the Consumer Energy Alliance, a group funded partly by oil and gas firms, issued an economic analysis that said the 1,700-mile pipeline connecting Alberta’s oil sands to Texas refineries would generate $580.2 million in direct spending over two years in Nebraska.
And 10 Republican governors and Saskatchewan’s premier sent a letter to Obama that urged him to approve the pipeline, which would ship 700,000 barrels of crude daily from Canada to the United States.

The State Department’s draft Environmental Impact Statement, which could come in the next few weeks, will be open to public comment before it is finalized.

EDIT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-keystone-xl-debate-environmental-group-wants-petcoke-counted-in-impact-statements/2013/01/17/d6b45f0a-609e-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

[blm]

1. Trying to rush it through before Kerry? Why? Because Clinton is FOR pipeline and Kerry against

and Clinton will leave any follow-up blame and mess on Kerry. Typical.

[limpyhobbler]

2. I wish newspapers like the Post would maybe stop trying to play neutral referee

between oil companies and "environmentalists".

So for example instead of

But environmentalists still question the climate impact of extracting bitumen

They should have said scientists are pretty sure that it's a bad idea.

I would rather have them explain that there is consensus among climate scientists that this thing should be blocked because of it's climate impact.

There were no quotes from scientists in this. They could have mentioned stuff like this and this and this.

But it's like the Post has a hard time acknowledging that there are, like, facts and realities.

They just present it as oil companies vs. political activists, jobs vs. environment.

Also they should give some context about the overall picture of where we are on the timeline of climate change, and how important it really is to start finding cleaner energy sources and reducing oil consumption, and how the Alberta Tar Sands fits in that picture.

Thanks for posting it because it's still good information to have but I'm more so just whining about the way the establishment press reports on such issues.