Monday, February 3, 2014

Perry Chimes In On Keystone Study

The US Dept. of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs released its in-depth environmental impact study of the Keystone XL Pipeline's potential affect on "Climate Change", "Greenhouse Gases" and "Global Warming".

The US State Dept.'s climate change bureau's study indicates the Keystone pipeline project, including the construction efforts, will have little to no negative consequences on "climate change". In fact, the study indicates that, once completed, the pipeline is better for the environment. The pipeline will reduce the number of petroleum laden trucks and trains that will be burning fossil fuel to transport raw petroleum to refineries, and from refineries to consumers.

In short, the bureau concluded the Keystone XL pipeline will benefit the environment, not harm it.

Obama and his subordinate bureaucrats in the executive branch have stonewalled and even threatened to veto any measure to build the pipeline. The pipeline would bring shale and other petroleum from Canada to South Texas to be refined. It would reduce dependence upon petroleum from OPEC nations, to include Venezuela, Libya, and Syria. The pipeline would increase job opportunities throughout the Central US. It is good for the environment, the economy, and citizens' wallets at the pump. It would also bring in federal revenue through an increased tax base (more gallons taxed, more incomes taxed).

The full study is available to anyone willing to read the 44-page executive summary. Here is an excerpt (emphasis added).

The cumulative effects analysis evaluates the way that the proposed Project’s impacts interact with the impact of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions or projects. The goal of the  cumulative impacts analysis is to identify situations where sets of comparatively small individual impacts, taken together,constitute a larger collective impact.

Cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project and connected actions vary among individual environmental resources and locations. Generally, where long-term or permanent impacts from the proposed Project are absent, the potential for additive cumulative effects with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects is negligible

Keystone’s CMRP and planned mitigation measures, individual federal and state agency permitting conditions, and/or existing laws and regulations would, if permitted, work to control potential impacts and reduce the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative effects.
Conversely, if the pipeline is not built, the impact upon the US and global environments are considerable. For example, see Section ES.5.1.2 Rail and Tanker Scenario on page 34:

The second transportation scenario assumes crude oil (as dilbit or synbit) would be transported by rail from Lloydminster to a western Canada port (assumed to be Prince Rupert, British Columbia), where it would be loaded onto Suezmax tankers (capable of carrying approximately 986,000 barrels of WCSB crude oil) for transport to the U.S. Gulf Coast (Houston and/or Port Arthur) via the Panama Canal. Bakken crude would be shipped from Epping to Stroud via BNSF Railway or Union Pacific rail lines, similar to the method described under the Rail and Pipeline Scenario. This scenario would require up to 12 unit trains per day between Lloydminster and Prince Rupert, and up to two unit trains per day between Epping and Stroud.

This scenario would require the construction of two new or expanded rail loading facilities in Lloydminster with other existing terminals in the area handling the majority of the WCSB for shipping to Prince Rupert. Facilities in Prince Rupert would include a new rail unloading and storage facility and a new marine terminal encompassing approximately 4,200 acres and capable of accommodating two Suezmax tankers. For the Bakken crude portion of this Scenario, one new rail terminal would be necessary in both Epping, North Dakota, and Stroud, Nebraska.

The proposed pipeline directly affects Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Texas and Oklahoma stand to benefit considerably from the pipeline. Both states house processing and refining facilities capable of handling the increased output. That means a lot of jobs opening up in Oklahoma. It also means jobs in both Port Arthur and Houston, TX. After construction completes, there will be maintenance, security, and other jobs created all along the pipeline.

In response to the Global Warming Bureau's environmental impact study results, Governor Rick Perry released the following statement:

"Today's report means radical environmentalists are running out of excuses for forcing the delay of a project that will mean more jobs for Texans and greater energy security for North America. It's time to move this project forward and put an end to this bureaucratic red tape. If, as the president said in his State of the Union speech, he truly wants this to be a ‘year of action,' there would be no better way to kick it off than authorizing construction of this important project."