EPA offers new, twisted excuse to stall Keystone XL

Feb. 16, 2015
Anyone puzzled by the delay in approval of the Keystone XL pipeline border crossing-running 6 years now, and counting-should read the Obama administration's latest rationale.

Anyone puzzled by the delay in approval of the Keystone XL pipeline border crossing-running 6 years now, and counting-should read the Obama administration's latest rationale.

The Department of State finds in its final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that the pipeline wouldn't contribute greatly to climate change even though it would carry blended bitumen produced in the Canadian oil sands. The SEIS reasons the material will move to markets by other means, such as rail, if the pipeline isn't built.

State's study accounts for the long wait for the presidential permit the pipeline must have for the border crossing.

The Environmental Protection Agency now says the department should keep studying.

In a Feb. 2 letter to State, an EPA official suggests oil prices below $50/bbl somehow change everything.

Cynthia Giles, EPA assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, says recent oil-price "variability" gives reason to "revisit these conclusions" about the pipeline's low contribution to climate change.

Her reasoning:

"The final SEIS concluded that at sustained oil prices of $65-75/bbl, the higher transportation costs of shipment by rail 'could have a sustained impact on oil sands production levels-possibly in excess of the capacity of the proposed project.'

"In other words, the final SEIS found that at sustained oil prices within this range, construction of the pipeline is projected to change the economics of oil sands development and result in increased oil sands production, and the accompanying greenhouse gas emissions, over what would otherwise occur.

"Given recent large declines in oil prices and the uncertainty of oil price projections, the additional low-price scenario included in the final SEIS should be given additional weight during decision-making due to the potential implications of lower oil prices on project impacts, especially greenhouse gas emissions."

That this argument is incoherent and disconnected from market realities probably doesn't matter. It's really just another excuse for the administration to further delay approval of a pipeline that would be overwhelmingly good for the US and Canada.

(From the subscription area of www.ogj.com, posted Feb. 5, 2015; author's e-mail: [email protected])