Could Nebraska stop Keystone XL?

Posted on 09/19/2011 by Ken Paulman

Memorial Stadium, hallowed ground for many Nebraska football fans, is not a friendly place for TransCanada.

Increasingly, the focus on the Keystone XL debate is shifting from Washington D.C. to Lincoln, Nebraska.

Despite the arrests of more than 1,000 protesters in front of the White House, and a letter from the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu and others opposing the pipeline, a greater impact is likely to come from another group of constituents:

Nebraska football fans.

You may recall the story last week from the Lincoln Journal Star, which described fans at Nebraska’s Memorial Stadium booing as a TransCanada-sponsored “Husker Pipeline” video played on the big screen. The outcry prompted athletic director Tom Osborne to end the sponsorship agreement.

To be clear, Osborne wasn’t taking a position on the pipeline itself, he was merely acting on a policy to “avoid ads of a political nature” inside the stadium. “The athletic department has no position, either pro or con, regarding the proposed TransCanada Pipeline,” Osborne said in a statement.

Still, the rebuff by Osborne, who coached the Cornhuskers for 25 years and is one of the state’s most revered public figures, is not to be taken lightly.

Two weeks ago, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman sent a letter to the State Department calling for the pipeline to be rerouted around the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides irrigation and drinking water for much of the Great Plains. Because of the potential threat to this critical groundwater supply, a broad, bipartisan coalition is emerging in the state to oppose the pipeline.

So can Nebraska stop the pipeline? InsideClimate News, which has been covering the issue extensively, has an excellent overview of how the process could play out in the state. While the state’s Congressional delegation differs over whether it’s a state or federal issue, the State Department has said that “individual states have the legal authority to approve petroleum pipeline construction in their states, including selecting the route for such pipelines.”

Nebraska, however, has no state agency assigned to regulate pipelines, and the legislature isn’t scheduled to reconvene until January, after the State Department is expected to issue its final decision on the pipeline. Some state lawmakers are pushing for an unprecedented special legislative session to deal with the issue.

The State Department’s most recent environmental impact statement estimated that rerouting the pipeline could increase costs by as much as 25 percent, potentially rendering the project economically unfeasible. Which means the Nebraska legislature could have as much power as President Obama to determine the pipeline’s fate.

The recent “Husker Pipeline” incident reveals that TransCanada may be as reviled as (dare I say it) the Colorado Buffaloes inside the walls of Memorial Stadium. While it’s not a scientific poll, it’s clear evidence that a lot of Nebraskans are concerned about the pipeline’s potential impact.

Whether this will force the issue in the legislature remains to be seen. But I’d be surprised if state lawmakers aren’t paying a lot more attention now to where their constituents stand on the pipeline.

Photo by Katrina Wiese via Creative Commons

Can civil disobedience halt Keystone XL?

Posted on 09/06/2011 by Drew Kerr

More than 1,250 opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline were arrested at the White House over the last two weeks in what has been described as one of the largest environmentally-minded acts of civil disobedience in recent history.

Among those taken into custody were 70-year-old NASA scientist James Hansen and well-known author and environmental activist Bill McKibben, who was arrested on Aug. 20 and spent three days in jail.

After his release, McKibben wrote in Mother Jones that the protest accomplished two things: it thrust the debate over the 1,700-mile pipeline onto the national stage, and it “helped make it clearer that President Obama should be the focus of anti-pipeline activism” (Obama is being asked to sign a permit for the project because the pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canada border).

Barack Obama has the power to stop it, and no one in Congress or elsewhere can prevent him from doing so. That means—and again, it couldn’t be simpler—that the Keystone XL decision is the biggest environmental test for him between now and the next election. If he decides to stand up to the power of big oil, it will send a jolt through his political base, reminding the presently discouraged exactly why they were so enthused in 2008.

The fate of the $7 billion project continues to hang in the balance despite the mounting opposition. In a review released on Aug. 26, the U.S. State Department declared the pipeline posed limited environmental hazards. Top U.S. officials have already voiced support for the project as a way to reduce reliance on oil less stable and friendly states in the Middle East.

The demonstrations against the pipeline are likely to pick up in the coming months, however.

On Sept. 24, McKibben’s 350.org is sponsoring a global day of action, Moving Planet, calling for a transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. Tar Sands Action, the group that organized the White House sit-in, is hinting at a second wave of action. And protests are also being planned for Oct. 7, the day congressional leaders are scheduled to hold their final hearings on the Keystone XL proposal.

For McKibben, the movement rising up against the pipeline is drawing parallels to the civil rights era. Writing after his arrest, he drew on the experience of Martin Luther King Jr., whose peaceful protests eventually undid the country’s codified racial injustices.

We may not be facing the same dangers Dr. King did, but we’re getting some small sense of the kind of courage he and the rest of the civil rights movement had to display in their day—the courage to put your body where your beliefs are.

We all know how the civil rights story ended. The question now: how will it end for those standing up against Keystone XL?

Photo Courtesy Josh Lopez.

Is Keystone XL a done deal?

Posted on 08/31/2011 by Ken Paulman

In a video interview with energyNOW!, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu lays out a familiar argument for the Keystone XL pipeline. Namely, that we’re going to be using oil anyway, it’s better to get it from Canada than somewhere else:

“It’s certainly true that having Canada as a supplier for our oil is much more comforting than to have other countries supply our oil. … It’s not perfect, but it’s a tradeoff, and meanwhile, I as the Secretary of Energy am going to focus on batteries for electric vehicles, biofuels, and energy efficiency.

The comments were strikingly similar to remarks made last fall by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which set off a firestorm of speculation that approval of the pipeline was a done deal:

“We haven’t finished all of the analysis, so as I say, we’ve not yet signed off on it,” Ms. Clinton said in response to a question from the audience at the event on Friday.

“But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons … we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada.”

Tolerating dirty oil, she added, is a reality “until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet.”

But the oddest thing about the video is that Chu refers to the forthcoming State Department decision in the past tense, as though it already happened:

“Well, let me just say first that the decision the State Department made was a State Department decision.”

It would be easy to read too much into something like that, but either way, if there’s a chance the pipeline won’t be approved, why would Chu start off by distancing himself from the State Department and talking about his own work on renewable energy?

A line in the sand over Keystone XL?

Posted on 08/24/2011 by Ken Paulman

This morning, Politico looks at the Keystone XL protests in Washington, D.C., which it frames as a “stern warning” to President Obama. In other words, if the White House approves the pipeline, environmentalists will turn their back on Obama in the 2012 election.

The pipeline has become a, well, a keystone issue (sorry) in energy politics, and as is often the case in such situations, both the arguments for and against it are probably a bit overstated.

Bill McKibben, who organized the D.C. protests, has said that over the long-term, tar sands extraction has the potential to disastrously raise atmospheric CO2 levels by 200 ppm. Canadian economist Andrew Leach acknowledges that number is technically correct, but “laughably out of context,” as it would take until approximately the year 3316 to reach that level.

Proponents of the pipeline cite energy security issues, and argue that Canada will just find a way to ship oil to China if the United States doesn’t buy it. That’s also technically true, but the problem, as we’ve noted before, is that Keystone XL doesn’t necessarily prevent Canadian companies from shipping oil to China, in fact, it makes it easier.

Perhaps the more tangible issue is for people who live along the pipeline’s route, particularly in Nebraska (my home state, if it matters), where it would cross the Ogallala Aquifer, a key source of irrigation and drinking water for much of the Great Plains. As Mother Jones‘ Kate Sheppard points out in an excellent summary of the issue, the potential threat to that water supply has drawn out opposition from across the political spectrum.

The simple reality is that the pipeline is a way for Canadian oil companies to sell more of their product, and make more money doing so. Honestly, it’s not as though TransCanada came up with Keystone XL after sitting around dreaming of a way to improve American energy security.

But let’s get back to that line in the sand. Should Keystone XL be at the center of the climate change fight? The always thought-provoking energy consultant Geoffrey Styles says the carbon emissions from the oil sands are a real concern, but that most of those emissions will take place in the United States as we burn that oil in our cars.

…we shouldn’t forget that under UN agreements it is Canada that bears responsibility for the extra emissions that oil sands generate in Alberta. … Whatever path [Canadians] choose, we have plenty of our own emissions to consider without going into a tizzy over a Canadian sector that currently emits roughly as much as U.S. livestock waste management.

Canada, as Styles points out, ratified the Kyoto Protocol, while the United States did not. So does Obama really have the political cover he needs to reject the pipeline on the grounds that it will contribute to climate change? If the U.S. wants to get serious about CO2 emissions, are there perhaps more effective things we could do that don’t involve pissing off our closest political and strategic ally?

And if the pipeline is approved, will environmental groups make good on their threat to punish Obama at the ballot box for it?

Photo by tarsandsaction via Creative Commons

One more time: Keystone XL is about profit

Posted on 08/22/2011 by Ken Paulman

"Shang-hai traffic ... so hard to get through youuu."

This morning, Stephen Lacey at Climate Progress writes about a new report that says there are now 1 billion cars and light trucks on the road worldwide. “Billion” with a “b.”

In just six months, the world added about 35 million cars. But only about 1 percent of those were registered in the U.S.

It will probably come as no surprise that more than half of those cars — 16.8 million — were purchased in China. With 78 million cars, China is now second only to the United States in the number of vehicles on the road.

If China keeps adding new vehicles at this rate, Lacey points out, it could pass the U.S. within a few years.

So what does this have to do with Keystone XL? China’s rapidly increasing oil demand is often cited as a reason the U.S. State Department should approve the pipeline. If we don’t buy the oil, the argument goes, Canada will just sell it to booming markets in Asia.

The problem with that argument, as I’ve written before, is that Keystone XL doesn’t necessarily prevent Canadian companies from shipping oil to China. If anything, it makes it easier.

National Geographic on Friday wrote about an analysis by Canadian economist Philip Verleger, who argues that not only does Keystone XL make oil shipments to China more likely, it makes them a virtual certainty:

The bottom line for Verleger is that refineries on the Gulf Coast have long-term commitments to buy oil from current suppliers—including Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Mexico. Those nations don’t want to cede market share to Canada. All three have ownership in Texas refineries, and they can also match any discount that comes with the Canadian crude. “There will be too much oil, it’s got to go somewhere, and it’s going to China,” Verleger says.

The reality is that Keystone XL, as TransCanada has acknowledged, is all about opening up new markets for Canadian oil. As China continues to add staggering numbers of cars, and as the U.S. attempts to curb its oil consumptions, it’s not so radical to suggest that much of the new oil entering the market will flow eastward.

Photo by Bert van Dijk via Creative Commons

Analysts: Oil sands pipelines pose Midwest risk

Posted on 07/12/2011 by Kari Lydersen

Workers clean up from the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill. (Photo by mic stolz via Creative Commons)

Nearly a year after 20,000 barrels of oil spilled into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River from a pipeline owned by the Canadian company Enbridge, Environmental Protection Agency experts and contractors are still working long days to remove deposits of oil that have sunk to the river bottom and mixed with sediment.

The cleanup has been much lengthier and more complicated than most oil spills because the oil is so heavy, according to EPA on-scene coordinator Ralph Dollhopf. The pipeline carried Canadian crude oil that was apparently mostly thick, viscous oil sands bitumen mixed with natural gas-derived diluent to make it liquid enough to transport, a combination known as DilBit. After the spill the volatile diluent quickly separated, releasing benzene into the air, then the heavy remaining oil sands sunk.

The Michigan incident involved about 20 times as much oil as the July 1 spill into the Yellowstone River from an Exxon Mobil pipeline. Environmental and watchdog groups say both spills show the substantial risks posed not just by the Keystone XL pipeline that TransCanada wants to build from the Alberta oil sands to the Texas Gulf Coast, but also of the aging network of existing pipelines that currently carry the bulk of oil sands crude to refineries in the Midwest.

A report released by the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Pipeline Safety Trust in January says the DilBit that would likely make up much of the Keystone XL’s product is especially prone to spill and dangerous to the environment once it does. The groups say much more research on how to prevent and deal with spills is needed before more pipelines are built to carry crude from the oil sands.

The Michigan spill was contained before it reached Lake Michigan or a downstream Superfund site where it could have sparked dangerous chemical reactions with contaminated sediment, but critics say the disaster is evidence of just how damaging inland spills can be. Six weeks after the Michigan spill, nearly 6,000 barrels of oil spilled from a ruptured Enbridge pipeline in the Chicago suburb of Romeoville, causing a spike in gas prices regionally and costing Enbridge $45 million. The Kalamazoo cleanup has so far cost Enbridge $550 million, with more in fines and liability payments to come.

Analysts and environmental groups say transporting oil sands crude is becoming increasingly risky as DilBit, rather than bitumen upgraded to a form closer to conventional crude, makes up an increasing portion of the oil being shipped. They say Canadian refineries are near capacity, and as oil sands production continues to expand companies find it cheaper to ship DilBit rather than upgrading it to synthetic crude before shipping. TransCanada and Enbridge spokespeople did not respond to questions about this assertion.

DilBit now accounts for two-thirds of all Canadian oil sands exports to the U.S. – about 600,000 barrels a year, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, a six-fold increase in the past decade. By 2019 Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board expects to export 1.5 million barrels of DilBit to the U.S. annually.

Compared to conventional or synthetic crude oil, DilBit is rich with caustic and toxic components and also thought to be more abrasive. In testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 16, NRDC policy analyst Anthony Swift described DilBit as a “corrosive, acidic and potentially unstable blend of thick raw bitumen and volatile natural gas liquid condensate.”

The environmental and safety groups’ report analyzes U.S. and Canadian pipeline spills and concludes that pipelines carrying oil sands crude are substantially more likely to have problems. The Canadian pipelines which carry primarily oil sands products spill 16 times more oil per mile than U.S. pipelines that carry more conventional oil, the study found. It also found that Midwestern pipelines in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and North Dakota which carry oil sands crude spilled three times as much as the U.S. national average in the last five years.

In May TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline — a precursor to the Keystone XL — spilled 500 barrels in North Dakota, after a break at a pumping station caused oil to reportedly shoot 60 feet into the air. TransCanada spokesperson Terry Cunha said the oil landed on gravel and was quickly cleaned up.

However, Cunha, and Enbridge spokesperson Lorraine Grymala, said that there is no evidence oil sands crude is more likely to cause spills or weaken pipelines.

“We have been transporting Western Canadian crude oil since 1999 and we have seen no evidence that DilBit is more corrosive or that it poses more risk than transporting any other grade of crude oil,” Grymala said by email. “Oil from the Canadian oil sands has been produced since 1978 and is not significantly different from oil transported by other crude oil pipelines. It is also not that different than other heavy oils that come from places like California, Mexico, Nigeria and Russia. After decades of transportation on the Enbridge system, there is no evidence that internal corrosion is caused by transporting oil from the Canadian oil sands”

“Oil is oil,” Cunha said by email. “The oil that is already being delivered on Keystone is no different than other crude oils. The same is true for oil that would be shipped on Keystone XL.”

But environmental groups say the risks of oil sands DilBit are two-fold. On one hand they think the mixture’s properties are more likely to cause corrosion and hence leak or spill from pipelines. It has more corrosive sulfur and chloride salt, and more abrasive particles including quartz and pyrite. Along with its corrosive characteristics, DilBit must be pumped at higher pressure and higher temperatures – about 150 degrees Fahrenheit — than conventional oil, potentially putting more stress on pipelines.

Then when DilBit does spill, it is believed to be more harmful to the environment – because of higher levels of heavy metals and other toxics – and the volatile properties of the gas used for dilution also pose an explosion risk. DilBit includes relatively high concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and benzene and a highly flammable natural gas compound called pentane. And as the Kalamazoo spill showed, DilBit spills in water are harder to clean up since the heavy oil sands oil sinks after the lighter components have separated, hence it can’t be easily skimmed off the top like conventional oil.

Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, said he is not convinced DilBit increases the risk of spills, but the possibility is “the big gorilla in the room that hasn’t been answered.”

“All the research shows it certainly could be more corrosive and more abrasive,” he said. “What the companies are doing to mitigate that before it goes into the pipeline is unclear to me, and it also seems unclear to the federal regulators…These companies aren’t forthcoming about what they are using to move the oil with.”

The National Transportation Safety Board is still investigating the Kalamazoo and Romeoville spills on the Enbridge system. Damon Hill, a spokesman for the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), said the agency is currently reviewing the safety of Enbridge pipelines, as a routine matter, not because of the spills.

“PHMSA maintains stringent federal pipeline safety regulations requiring operators that transport hazardous liquids to demonstrate that their pipeline system is compatible with the type of product being transported to ensure its ability to operate safely without incident,” Hill said.

Last October Enbridge opened a new pipeline, the Alberta Clipper, taking oil sands from Canada to Superior, Wisconsin; and the company has proposed expanding its existing Southern Access pipeline by hundreds of miles in Wisconsin and Illinois. Last summer the CEO of Enbridge’s U.S. subsidiary, Pat Daniels, said the Southern Access project is on hold for economic reasons. Grymala did not respond to queries about its status.

The Keystone XL proposal is currently undergoing a mandated review under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and U.S. legislators including Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) have spoken out against it. Sen. Ron Wyden has called for a Federal Trade Commission investigation of claims the pipeline will drive up oil prices.

But Cunha said TransCanada is confident about the prospects of the Keystone XL.

“We believe that the Keystone XL Pipeline will be approved and built,” she said by email. “Keystone XL will help replace unstable crude oil from regions like Libya and the Middle East with stable, secure supplies from both the U.S. and Canada. This $7 billion project will spur more than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy and directly create 20,000 high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs across the U.S.”

Swift said U.S. residents should be worried not only about the potential problems from Keystone XL, but with existing risks from the pipelines carrying oil sands, including a sprawling network underlying the Chicago area.

“You have a lot of older pipelines that may have additional risk factors in the Midwest – if you’re running this kind of stuff in a pipeline that already has 40 years use, you’re basically dealing with a very abrasive product that is moving in a pipeline that may already be weakened,” said Swift. “This issue is not going away for the Midwest. It’s absolutely critical that we get a handle on it.”

Kari Lydersen is a Chicago-based freelancer and author whose work appears in The Washington Post, The New York Times and other outlets.

Photo by mic stolz via Creative Commons

This work by Midwest Energy News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Signed, fracked over in the Midwest

Posted on 06/13/2011 by Molly Priesmeyer

It’s not easy being sand these days–or a riverbed or prairie land or a forest. That’s because new oil-sand processing and natural-gas fracking facilities are popping up like weeds in Canada and the Midwest, resulting in destruction of the land and ongoing environmental issues.

Tar-sand processing has become such a controversial issue its placed Canada square in the face of serious international criticism for under-reporting its carbon emissions from tar sands facilities, which also happen to be the fastest-growing polluter in the country. And this Friday’s Minneapolis Star Tribune had an excellent introduction on the increase of hydro fracking, a process by which natural gas is extracted from silica sand.

Josephine Marcotty writes:

Energy and mining companies are buying and leasing large tracts of land from Black River Falls, Wis., to Red Wing, Minn., and south along the Mississippi. Sand pits, processing facilities and transportation hubs seem to be opening monthly.

It’s an economic boon for some small towns — a chance to share in the wealth generated by the domestic production of energy. But it is extracting a price from the land, and many people who live and work near the open sand pits fear for their drinking water, streams and health. Silica sand dust causes a number of lung diseases, including cancer.

She also notes that one executive looking to extract sand for gas production told investors that his company had access to more than 20 million tons of sand reserves in Minnesota. In other words, seven Metrodomes of sand would be removed from Minnesota’s natural prairies and forests, leaving behind swaths of barren land and environmental hazards, including contamination of water tables.

Locals in Wisconsin and Minnesota are crying foul over the increase in fracking. Citizens groups have formed, creating petitions and trying to halt new projects. But they have an uphill battle, as industry leaders become closely intertwined with government officials.

This evening, a Department of Energy hearing on fracking takes place in Pennsylvania, where fracking has increased at an alarming rate. However, pro-industry leaders are already coming out swinging, offering to pay transportation costs to supporters.

Still, despite industry best efforts to quell its detractors, public concern over fracking is growing. And for good reason. Earlier today Food and Water Watch released a report outlining the serious health and environmental issues that result from fracking. The findings include:

Toxic chemicals present in fracking fluid could cause cancer and other health problems.
Fracking wastewater contains high levels of radioactivity and other contaminants that wastewater treatment plants have had difficulty removing; this potentially contaminated wastewater can then be discharged into local rivers.
In Pennsylvania, more than 3,000 gas fracking wells and permitted well sites are located within two miles of 320 day care centers, 67 schools and nine hospitals.

The organization recommends banning shale gas fracking in the United States. And if it happens, New Jersey might lead the way. New Jersey legislators have joined forces with Food and Water Watch and the Sierra Club to call for a ban in that state. So far, only 55 municipalities have called for a ban on fracking. And so far, none of the those municipalities are in Wisconsin and Minnesota, where plans to increase fracking only continue.

Oil sands on The Daily Show

Posted on 06/10/2011 by Ken Paulman

Not many people realize that most of America’s imported oil comes from Canada, and the majority of that from the oil sands of Alberta. While the Canadian press provides fairly comprehensive coverage of this key oil source, it’s not a topic that comes up often in the American media.

So it came as a bit of a surprise to me that The Daily Show sent Wyatt Cenac to Alberta to do a segment on Canadian oil production:

The Daily Show – Canadian Oilverlords
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Some might question the fact that the piece completely ignores the environmental and climate impact of oil sands production. In fact, it’s really just a vehicle for making fun of Canadians’ easygoing demeanor and enthusiasm for hockey (perhaps the lowest-hanging fruit you’ll find in the comedy world).

But it’s also worth a reminder – The Daily Show is a comedy program, not a news source.

Congress may push Obama for Keystone XL decision

Posted on 05/19/2011 by Ken Paulman

Politico’s Morning Energy email today included a link to a draft legislation from the House Energy and Commerce committee to “direct the President to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.”

The “North American-Made Energy Security Act” contains a list of familiar arguments for the pipeline’s approval — energy security, job creation, etc. The lawmakers paint a picture of the pipeline enabling the U.S. to drastically turn away from “distant foreign sources” of oil.

Oddly, the bill is careful to note that approving the pipeline will “result in no significant change in total United States or global greenhouse gas emissions” — emissions that Republicans in Congress have repeatedly claimed we shouldn’t worry about anyway.

But the most interesting part of the bill is this:

The principal choice for Canadian oil exporters is between moving increasing crude oil volumes to the United States or Asia, led by China. Increased Canadian oil exports to China will result in increased United States crude oil imports from other foreign sources, especially the Middle East.

That’s fine and good, but the problem is that Keystone XL doesn’t prevent Canada from exporting oil to China. If anything, it makes it easier.

As we’ve noted before, the main reason Canadian oil producers want Keystone XL built is because current infrastructure confines exports to the Midwest, which is currently oversupplied, suppressing prices.

As David Livingston noted back in January, reaching the Gulf Coast not only opens up more U.S. markets for Canadian oil, it also opens up rapidly growing Asian markets (you may recall that a decommissioned pipeline parallel to the Panama Canal was recently reopened to run in reverse – from east to west).

So basically, Keystone XL doesn’t necessarily guarantee all that oil will flow to the U.S. The price of oil will be determined by the global market, and the oil will go to wherever demand is greatest, provided the infrastructure is in place to move it.

Photo by Ray Bodden via Creative Commons

Class action suit over Keystone XL?

Posted on 05/17/2011 by Ken Paulman

Domina Law Group, an Omaha-based trial lawyer firm, is considering a lawsuit against TransCanada over its use of eminent domain to secure a route for the Keystone XL pipeline through Nebraska.

In a news release, Domina asks:

“TransCanada’s threat to use eminent domain under the authority of a Nebraska statute permitting pipeline companies to do so with no checks on their authority is a real concern. Does this mean any foreign company from any nation can announce a pipeline project and condemn Nebraska land even if the company serves the interests of a nation out of favor with our own?”

It’s a question that’s come up before, creating an interesting political alliance between environmental groups and political conservatives.

However, as SolveClimate News reported in March, a special legal status may make the pipeline immune to such lawsuits.

h/t Politico’s Morning Energy

Tag Archives: oil sands