Someone at the State Dept. has scrubbed the Keystone conflicts I found from their documents

[wtmusic]

Following up on my earlier thread from 3/7:

Keystone analyst's claims of impartiality conflict with unredacted documents

Summary: On March 7 I downloaded the Conflict of Interest declaration provided by ERM (Environmental Resources Management), the consulting firm which was largely responsible for the State Dept review on Keystone XL, from the State Dept. website. While looking through the docs with a PDF viewer application, I noticed the bios for ERM employees were redacted. I was able to digitally remove the redaction, and found several instances of what appeared to be real conflicts of interest in the bios of Project Manager Andrew Bielakowski (see below) and Kurtis K. Schlicht. I posted it on several websites including DU.

Download page at State Dept. (second link)
Complete unredacted document on my website

Tonight I went back and re-downloaded the document, and the bios have been removed. I don't even know if what I found was significant, but obviously someone at the State Dept. thinks so and doesn't want them viewed.

Millions of Americans have emailed their senators and representatives, they've taken time from work and their families to travel to D.C. and stand out in the cold and protest this pipeline for no purpose whatsoever. The disillusionment I feel right now knows no bounds. Many have suspected - and now I've seen proof - that the review has been a charade from the beginning, choreographed jointly by the petroleum industry and the Obama administration.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. This is so disgusting and wrong.

I am appalled, esp. at the Obama administration.

I expect this sort of behavior from the Republicans, NOT from the Democrats.

[Whisp]

29. this is Clinton's State Department...

do you think the President should be watching over her all the time or do you think he assigned her that job because he had trust that she would do the right thing and not use that position to do favors for her richies?

please...

[limpyhobbler]

2. Have you tried calling the NY Times climate desk? They might be interested.

Oh wait...nevermind.

This situation seems pretty bad.

[wtmusic]

6. Just sent it to them anyway.

Thanks for the suggestion. I am almost beyond caring about this crap anymore.

[limpyhobbler]

17. I can relate to that.

It is frustrating. But if they approve KXL it could help strengthen the climate movement because it's going to draw into sharper relief the forces we are up against and how powerful they really are in both political parties.

[progressoid]

3. Oh, it was probably just a clerical error.

Let's not assume that anything nefarious is going on between our government and big oil.

[awoke_in_2003]

8. here is how it happened...

http://ischool.uw.edu/news/2012/10/documents-changed-world-18-12-minute-gap-nixon-tapes-1972

[octoberlib]

4. I'm extremely disappointed. I got the feeling he was trying to mollify anti-Keystoners

with the electric car stuff.

[wtmusic]

5. I didn't buy the 'throw them a bone' business either.

Apparently there are some coal regulations he's going to propose too (of course, nothing that will stop CO2).

[hatrack]

15. My thoughts exactly - when all else fails, and action won't do, "More Research!" becomes the cry

[UnrepentantLiberal]

7. This sounds like something Mother Jones would be interested in.

[wtmusic]

18. They just picked it up.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/keystone-xl-contractor-ties-transcanada-state-department

[UnrepentantLiberal]

19. That's great!

Is it because of what you sent them?

[wtmusic]

20. Yes

I've been communicating with Andy Kroll.

Check out the update he just posted. I hope this gets legs.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

21. That's fantastic.

You're making an impact on a very important issue.

Did you start a new thread about this? I think you should. This can't be overstated.

[wtmusic]

22. If it had an impact that would be wonderful.

These things tend to generate a buzz and then disappear. But the idea that State is helping to ram this through is unconscionable - people have good reason to be pissed.

I submitted it to MJ on your suggestion, my friend, so we're partners in crime.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

23. I think you should post about this in General Discussion.

You deserve a victory lap for great detective work.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

25. If you're too modest to post it in GD, do you mind if I do?

[Joe Shlabotnik]

24. Excellent work.

Thanks for your sleuthing, and keep at it!

[MotherPetrie]

9. Good catch! Did anyone ever really think the Obama admin. would put the environment over

Corporate profits?

[defacto7]

10. Appalled ...

but never surprised. We seem to be owned.

[bluedigger]

11. Pretty normal for an archaeologist.

You don't bring in people with experience in Egypt to work on cultural resource surveys in the upper midwest. Project managers typically supervise multiple subordinates on many crews simultaneously and are responsible for report production and quality control. It looks like he was qualified and I don't really see a conflict of interest. His reports had to be accepted by the various State Historic Preservation offices as well as FERC.

[wtmusic]

13. That's possible. Then why was it redacted? Why was it removed?

I suppose the best explanation would be they didn't want to give the appearance of something controversial to ignorant citizens like me who don't know how these things work. Even that would betray a remarkable clumsiness of purpose and execution.

If you're going to be secretive, and least be !?! competent about it.

[bluedigger]

16. I'm guessing it was a well meant but ill advised attempt to provide the individual "cover".

Dragging him out as a "chip" in the anti-Keystone XL movment could do harm to his career. Most archy's are used to academic and local controversies, but not national political controversy on this scale.

Redacting the info after the fact was a dumb thing to do, but I would assume it was done by someone at State.

I've worked on pipeline projects, mountaintop removal projects, and federal bureau of prison projects as an archaeologist. Laws require that the historic resources have to be investigated, even if the clients and politics of the projects are sometimes not what I would wish. In a highly competitive and poorly rewarded field you take the work that is offered and hold your nose sometimes. Most projects are disliked by someone - I resurveyed one highway project three times as the State DOT attempted to find a right of way that NIMBY's (Not In MY Backyard) would approve. We literally did both sides and the center of a valley.

This particular review work is many paygrades above anything I've done, but if you want more info on the NEPA process as regards cultural resources PM me and I will refer you to other online sources where people might be willing to explain it better than I.

[zipplewrath]

27. It was originally redacted for a reason

I'm not sure why it was redacted, it could be required by the contract, or by State Dept. procedures, or some other reason. But when it was discovered that it was done "wrong", their burden was to do it "right" not just go "oh well, sorry".

(Sadly , this isn't the first time this kind of ham handed electronic redacting has been done. You'd think by now there'd be standard procedures for redactions that point out this problem)

[kristopher]

14. That's the way I read it also.

I went to ERM's page and read a few independent websites that talk about the company. It sounds like as independent of a company as you are going to find that specializes in the field of doing environmental reviews. Any company can be corrupted, and nothing says that ERM has provided a perspectives that environmentalists would cheer for, but the conflict of interest claim in the OP lacks a basis in reality IMO.


ETA: There does seem to be a slant when ERM senior management is interacting at conferences with companies whose projects they will potentially be evaluating.

From ERM website:
(John Alexander is CEO)
John led on a strategy session titled: The Energy Industry’s License to Operate: Greenhouse Gases, Water, Land Use
http://www.erm.com/News-Events/News/ERM-continues-as-CERAWeeks-Sustainability-Partner/

From (CERAWeek conference 2012)

Strategy Sessions
The Energy Industry’s License to Operate: Greenhouse Gases, Water, Land Use

Notwithstanding the great promise of unconventional natural gas resources, public concern about potential environmental hazards has grown to the point of polarization. The “fear of fraccing” covers everything from drinking water contamination to global warming and even earthquakes. What is the industry record on these issues? Can credible risk assessments be developed that will persuade a skeptical public? How can industry work with regulators, environmental groups, and local communities to move forward with sustainable development of unconventional gas resources?

John Alexander, Group Chief Executive, ERM
Mark Boling, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Southwestern Energy
Jason Bordoff, Associate Director for Energy and Climate Change, White House Council on Environmental Quality
Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund
Mary Barcella, Director, Global Gas, IHS CERA (Chair)
http://ceraweek.com/2012/session/the-energy-industrys-license-to-operate-greenhouse-gases-water-land-use-2/

So let me amend my statement above where I said the OP lacks a basis in reality. I should have said it isn't a smoking gun - I frankly don't know what the 'reality' of this situation is.

[pansypoo53219]

12. i bet its an embedded bushevic.

[blm]

26. State Dept needs to get rid of all the Clintonites.

Though it's been evident to those paying attention that the Keystone deal was already made three years ago.

[Kurovski]

28. Good job, and thank you.

K&R