Yesterday, Gabe Elsner, Director of The Checks & Balances Project and Ross Hammond, Senior Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, held a press briefing to discuss a new scandal that could delay a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. New evidence uncovered by the two groups show that Environmental Resources Management, the contractor in charge of the environmental review of Keystone XL, lied to the State Department on conflict of interest disclosure forms – and had worked for TransCanada, the company hoping to build the pipeline. See the coverage below for more on this important, breaking story.
By Brad Wieners
Even if you haven’t been following the saga of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, and haven’t decided if it’s a fast track to U.S. energy independence (those in favor) or “game over” for human civilization (those opposed, because of its role in climate change), yesterday’s developments are too rich to ignore. In fact, it may be game over for the Keystone XL—at least until 2016—thanks, once again, to U.S. State Department oversight.
First, a refresher: Because the proposed line crosses the Canada-U.S. border, TransCanada, the Calgary-based company that wants to build and operate the pipeline, needs President Obama’s approval. The president, in turn, is relying on State to assess the viability and safety of the plan, as he indicated in a speech a little over a week ago. “The State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal,” Obama said, sweating profusely at Georgetown University. ”That’s how it’s always been done.”
Three years ago, the Keystone XL was a lot closer to being OK’d than it is today. As Paul Tullis noted in his 2011 feature, “the XL’s predecessor, which runs from Canada to Oklahoma and branches into Illinois, breezed through the permit process during the Bush Administration with barely a whiff of concern from the public.” By the time the XL came along, however, things had changed. In June 2011, after former NASA climate scientist James Hansen condemned the pipeline, Vermont professor Bill McKibben and a troop of college students answered Hansen’s call, surrounding the White House as part of a committed #NOKXL campaign. A strange-bedfellows coalition of ranchers and environmentalists rose up to protest property easements and to protect the aquifers of the Great Plains. And on July 10, 2011, the Los Angeles Timesreported on correspondence released by WikiLeaks revealing that David Goldwyn, an aide to Hillary Clinton, was something of a mole for TransCanada, coaching the company’s executives on how to win favor at State with “better messaging.” After leaving the State Department, Goldwyn testified before Congress in favor of Keystone XL.
Then the real bomb dropped: Cardno Entrix, the Houston (Tex.) company State had contracted with to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) on Keystone—the substance of the evaluation Obama referred to—turned out to be a preexisting client of TransCanada and, as such, had a blatant conflict of interest. So in November of 2011, the inspector general was brought in to establish new conflict of interest rules, and a new EIS was ordered up, this time from a U.K. multinational called ERM.
Well, it happened again. Two environmental groups, Friends of the Earth and the Checks and Balances Project, have revealed that ERM lied about its own ties to TransCanada.
By Steve Mufson
Two weeks after President Obama said he would support the proposed Keystone XL pipeline only if it “does not significantly exacerbate” greenhouse-gas emissions, the political battle over how to define that is still raging.
This week, the American Petroleum Institute unveiled a new eight-state ad campaign backing the project, environmental groups renewed conflict of interest charges against a State Department contractor, and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wrote a 20-page letter to the State Department arguing that the pipeline does not meet the president’s climate test.
The State Department — which has permitting authority because the Keystone XL pipeline crosses an international border — issued a preliminary environmental impact statement in March, arguing that approving the pipeline would have no climate impact because bitumen from Canadian province Alberta’s oil sands could reach markets via railroads even without a pipeline route.
Waxman and Whitehouse said Wednesday that the State Department’s analysis was “fundamentally flawed” and that transportation constraints were already increasing costs and driving down prices paid to oil sands producers, discouraging oil sands expansion plans. Some producers report discounting oil sands crude by $50 or more a barrel to compensate for high rates charged by rail operators.
The two lawmakers also argued that recent opposition in Canada had cast doubt on the viability of alternative pipeline routes within the country.
Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth and the Checks and Balances Project on Wednesday renewed allegations that the firm the State Department hired to help write its report on the pipeline failed to disclose conflicts of interest around its past work for a different pipeline project involving TransCanada, the Keystone owner and major oil companies with interest in the Alberta oil sands.