Delay, delay, delay

June 20, 2011
Administrative profusion makes clear the central aim of the US Environmental Protection Agency's June 6 critique of an environmental report crucial to the Keystone XL pipeline proposal. The aim is to delay.

Administrative profusion makes clear the central aim of the US Environmental Protection Agency's June 6 critique of an environmental report crucial to the Keystone XL pipeline proposal. The aim is to delay.

Because transit of an international boundary is involved, the Department of State must decide whether to allow construction of the US part of the 1,711-mile project connecting Alberta with the US Gulf Coast. If the only interests in play were energy security, jobs, the economy, and—yes—the environment, the decision would be easy. But the pipeline would carry supposedly "dirty oil" from the Canadian oil sands. Environmental groups have made opposition to it a signature cause.

The administration faces a dilemma. It can't say no to energy from a friendly neighbor and jobs for Americans. But it can't say no to its environmentalist supporters, either. It can, however, delay. For that, no more-effective tool exists than the National Environmental Policy Act.

EPA's June 6 judgment was of a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by State in response to a July 2010 finding by EPA that State's initial EIS was inadequate. This is how NEPA regulation works. Projects wait while environmental documents ricochet among agencies and, many times, courts. Often, they wait forever. Environmentalists use NEPA legalities regularly and effectively to mire oil and gas work involving federal agencies, especially drilling on federal land.

In its recommendations for preparation of the final EIS, EPA calls on State to:

• Improve analysis of oil spill risks and alternative pipeline routes.

EPA wants State to base analysis on a more-comprehensive record of spills, assess new methods of leak and spill detection, and consider an increase in the number of pipeline valves. It recommends evaluation of all classes of crude the pipeline might carry and of potential issues raised by a spill of each. It hints at a requirement for disclosure of diluents composition, now considered proprietary. And it rejects a State finding that alternative routes avoiding the Ogallala aquifer, which underlies most of the US High Plains, are unreasonable.

• Consider effects of a possible oil spill on communities along the pipeline route and environmental justice concerns.

EPA frets that State hasn't adequately recognized the limited response capabilities available in some places, especially those with large minority, poor, and tribal populations. It wants the final EIS to evaluate "additional mitigation measures that would avoid and minimize potential impacts through all media (i.e., surface and ground water, soil, and air) to minority, low-income, and tribal populations rather than rely solely on after-the-fact compensation measures."

• Consider environmental and health effects on communities adjacent to refineries.

EPA seeks a new look at the potential for refinery emissions to increase due to rising runs of crude from the oil sands and at possible effects on minority and poor populations near refineries. State should hold public meetings in those areas before publishing the final EIS, EPA says.

• Reevaluate life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases associated with crude oil from the oil sands.

EPA thinks State's emissions estimate is too low and its assessment of effects, including the "social cost of carbon," insufficiently dire.

• Strengthen its wetlands analysis.

EPA wants State to more rigorously evaluate wetlands effects and potential mitigation measures. It also wants the Army Corps of Engineers to review all Keystone XL wetlands crossings as part of a single project leading to a single permit.

• Provide additional information on potential effects on specific types of migratory birds.

EPA seeks greater emphasis on vulnerable species. And it recommends that the final EIS discuss mitigation measures available or potentially available for "identified impacts."

Whew! Earlier, State wanted to issue its Keystone XL decision by yearend. Now, with all this new work to do, maybe it won't be able to issue a final EIS and make a decision until next year, maybe not until after elections in November.

More Oil & Gas Journal Current Issue Articles
More Oil & Gas Journal Archives Issue Articles
View Oil and Gas Articles on PennEnergy.com