BREAKING: EPA uses last day of public comment - Earth Day - to slam State's review of Keystone XL

[wtmusic]

"On the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, EPA rated the adequacy of the State Department’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as having “Insufficient Information.”

In case you missed it, today is the last day to submit public comments to the State Department regarding the proposed pipeline that would transport 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil through the U.S. per day.

EPA’s Cynthia Giles, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement, has submitted the agency’s public comment. They could have rated the adequacy of the impact statement three different ways: “Adequate,” “Insufficient Information,” or “Inadequate.” They rated it “Insufficient Information,” which means that they do not know enough to fully assess the environmental impacts of a tar sands pipeline traversing the continent."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/22/1905321/epa-slams-states-draft-impact-statement-for-keystone-xl/

[patrice]

1. Fuck KXL! Poison!!! for the poor. $$$$$$$$$$$$$ for Koch blood money.

[limpyhobbler]

6. +1 Good attitude.

[Buzz Clik]

2. You posted without comment, wtmusic. What is your take on this?

[Laelth]

3. +1. I'd like to know as well. n/t

-Laelth

[wtmusic]

4. Guarded optimism

The EPA letter hit several key points which the Environmental Impact Statement either glossed over or minimized, the main one being (AFAIAC) the assumption that the "oil would get to market anyway":

"The market analysis and the conclusion that oil sands crude will find a way to market with or without the Project is the central finding that supports the DSEIS's (Dept. of State Environmental Impact Statement's) conclusions regarding the Project's potential GHG emissions impacts. Because the market analysis is so central to this key conclusion, we think it is important that it be as complete and accurate as possible. We note that the discussion in the DSEIS regarding energy markets, while informative, is not based on an updated energy-economic modeling effort. The DSEIS includes a discussion of rail logistics and the potential growth of rail as a transport option, however we recommend that the Final EIS provide a more careful review ofthe market analysis and rail transport options. This analysis should include further investigation of rail capacity and costs, recognizing the potential for much higher per barrel rail shipment costs than presented in the DSEIS. This analysis should consider how the level and pace of oil sands crude production might be affected by higher transportation costs and the potential for congestion impacts to slow rail transport of crude."

In any case, it sends TransCanada back to the bullshit factory to find a way to conclude all that tar sands oil would be just as valuable without Keystone XL - an idea which the free market soundly rejects. Western Canada Select (tar sands oil) futures are trading at a $100/barrel discount to Western Texas Intermediate crude, meaning people who know oil know it's going to be a pain in the ass to get WCS to market, and thus far less profitable, without the pipeline.

[Buzz Clik]

5. That was my take, as well.