• 4 minutes Some Good News on Climate Change Maybe
  • 7 minutes Cuba Charges U.S. Moving Special Forces, Preparing Venezuelan Intervention
  • 12 minutes Washington Eyes Crackdown On OPEC
  • 15 minutes Solar and Wind Will Not "Save" the Climate
  • 3 hours L.A. Mayor Ditches Gas Plant Plans
  • 2 hours Prospective Cause of Little Ice Age
  • 2 hours Why Trump will win the wall fight
  • 2 hours *Happy Dance* ... U.S. Shale Oil Slowdown
  • 18 hours is climate change a hoax? $2 Trillion/year worth of programs intended to be handed out by politicians and bureaucrats?
  • 4 hours students walk out of school in protest of climate change
  • 1 day Most Wanted Man In Latin America For AP Agency: Maduro Reveals Secret Meetings With US Envoy
  • 4 hours Maduro Asks OPEC For Help Against U.S. Sanctions
  • 19 hours Ford In Big Trouble: Three Recalls In North America
  • 2 days Amazon’s Exit Could Scare Off Tech Companies From New York
  • 2 days And the War on LNG is Now On
  • 1 day And for the final post in this series of 3: we’ll have a look at the Decline Rates in the Permian

State Dept Greenlights New Keystone XL Route

Pipeline

An environmental assessment of the Keystone Xl pipeline project by the State Department has concluded it will be safe for Nebraska’s water, land, and wildlife, which could probably be filed under “Obstacles cleared” were it not for a lawsuit against TransCanada in Nebraska that is still pending before the state’s Supreme Court.

Besides the lawsuit brought against the company by environmentalists, indigenous groups, and several landowners, the opponents of the pipeline have been successful in preventing TransCanada from launching work on Keystone XL in Nebraska, so it remains unclear what the impact of the State Department assessment will be with regards to the project’s start.

Keystone XL is one of the most controversial pipeline projects in the United States in recent history. After President Obama vetoed the project on the grounds that it makes no economic sense, one of Donald Trump’s first decisions after taking office was to revive the project that will carry heavy crude from the Albertan oil sands through Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska.

The Nebraskan authorities approved the project last year, but with a different route, pressured by landowners who were unhappy with the original one. Although the landowners at the time considered the changed route a victory, TransCanada said it would not have any significant effect on costs, which are estimated at around US$6.3 billion.

TransCanada said it will provide comments on the State Department report after it reviews the material. The company has yet to make the final investment decision on Keystone XL after it spent four months in open season to see if there is sufficient interest from potential buyers of the crude that the pipeline will transport. At the same time, TransCanada is being pressured by Albertan oil producers to make up its mind about the project, which oil sands operators desperately need amid a worsening pipeline capacity shortage at home.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Tom on July 31 2018 said:
    I’m all for the Keystone XL Pipeline, except with one condition, that Nebraska really needs to impose on this new pipeline.

    Trans Canada should only be allowed to use the line through Nebraska for 8 ½ months each year. The line needs to be out of service each summer from June 1 through September 15, to match the same calendar that of E-15 is required to follow by our EPA.

    It’s simple, No Waiver Permit for Year-Round E-15 and higher ethanol blends, than no Year-Round Operating Permit for Trans Canada’s Keystone XL Pipeline through Nebraska.

    How ridiculous right?

    Not really.

    What’s it going to take to get the EPA to stop blocking ethanol in the fuel market, to satisfy the oil industry?

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News