Simply put, no.
Keystone XL Pipeline advocates hold up the promise of 20,000 jobs flowing from the pipeline construction, and increased energy security. Pipeline foes think that a hasty go-ahead of a dirty oil project, coupled with the risk of pipeline leaks into local aquifers is folly.
Today, the Deputy Secretary of State (this is a bilateral project between two nations) William Burns announced that the Obama Administration could not agree to the project due to a lack of time to conduct an adequate safety, health, and environmental review of the pipeline and its route.
While TransCanada, the Oil Lobby, GOP operatives and their friends in the media are wailing and gnashing their teeth over the Obama Administration’s rejection of TransCanada’s proposed pipeline, it is important to keep this decision in perspective.
Is this a rejection of the pipeline? No, not really. It is simply a rejection of the current application and the fast-tracking process forced on the administration as part of the pre-Christmas Congressional negotiations to extend the payroll tax holiday. (Congress mandated a deadline of Feb. 21 for the president to take action on the pipeline project.)
TransCanada can reapply after it develops an alternate route that avoids environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska’s Sandhills and gives the US government enough time to vet the proposal.
So, in the midst of all the noise over the pipeline it is good to remember a) the project is not dead b) The Republican governor of Nebraska, Dave Hieneman, has been a strong opponent of the original planned route of the pipeline, citing the risk to Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer.
However, this is the political election season and the shrill noise of political speechifying (“President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese”) is likely to drown out the more mundane realities of facts and policy.
~
Recent Comments