BANKS DODGY DEALS CAMPAIGNS
About BankTrack
Visit us
Organisation
Our team
Our board
Guiding principles
Team up with us
Jobs at BankTrack
Our annual reports
Funding and finances
History
BankTrack in the media
Our privacy policy
Donate
2023-03-17 00:00:00
Briefing: The role of financial institutions in decarbonising the steel sector
2023-03-09 00:00:00
Dutch bank ING supports controversial pipeline to import gas from authoritarian Azerbaijan
2023-02-23 00:00:00
Financial institutions need to address steelmaking’s coal addiction
2023-02-07 00:00:00
What COP15 means for banks: meeting the Global Biodiversity Framework requires protecting Indigenous rights and divesting from harmful industries
2023-03-20 08:50:41
Who dares to finance Eni and Exxon’s dangerous Rovuma gas plans in Mozambique?
2023-03-14 14:59:00
New ING policy could spark bank shift away from financing oil and gas infrastructure
2023-02-24 13:46:14
Pego power station conversion plans halted
2022-12-14 11:08:26
HSBC announces it will no longer finance new oil and gas fields
Connect
2022-11-22 00:00:00
Banking on Thin Ice: Two years in the heat
2022-11-17 00:00:00
BankTrack Global Human Rights Benchmark 2022
2022-10-21 00:00:00
Burning forests in the name of clean energy? How banks are failing to exclude the harmful wood biomass industry from finance
2022-06-28 00:00:00
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP): Finance Risk Update No. 3
2022-04-05 00:00:00
The BankTrack Human Rights Benchmark Asia
2022-03-30 00:00:00
Banking on Climate Chaos 2022
See all publications
Sections
Banks Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate
Banks and Human Rights
Banks and Nature
Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA
Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine
Tracking the Equator Principles
Tracking the PRBs
Find a Better Bank
Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter Login
Home › Partner news ›
Partner News

State Department Releases Supplemental Environmental Analysis on Keystone XL Tar Sands Oil Pipeline

2011-04-15 | Washington
By: Alex Moore and Matthew Cain, Friends of the Earth
2011-04-15 | Washington
By: Alex Moore and Matthew Cain, Friends of the Earth

WASHINGTON, D.C.-The U.S. State Department today released a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry highly polluting tar sands oil from Canada across six U.S. states to refineries in Texas.

The supplemental environmental analysis had been requested by communities that could be impacted by the pipeline, as well as by members of Congress, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA gave the State Department's first Draft Environmental Impact Statement its worst possible rating, "category-3 inadequate," for lacking detailed information about key environmental concerns, including pipeline spills, impacts on global warming, and pollution of air and water.

Alex Moore, Dirty Fuels Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, had the following statement:

"The State Department's first draft environmental analysis was so inadequate that it had no place to go but up in its second attempt. Unfortunately, the American public is still not getting a complete picture of the many serious dangers that this mega-pipeline would pose.

"On first reading, we are concerned that the State Department has still not done a serious and thorough analysis of significant dangers, including the safety of tar sands oil pipelines and the pollution caused by tar sands oil production.

"The State Department has taken an important step in categorically stating that tar sands oil has far higher greenhouse gas emissions than do other forms of oil used in the U.S.-this finding alone should lead the State Department to reject the permit for this pipeline.

"We are disturbed to see that the State Department is neither giving enough time for public comments nor has it scheduled any public hearings. This is not in line with President Obama's commitments to transparent and accountable government. The American people have a right to speak out about this risky dirty oil project."

When releasing the SDEIS, the State Department indicated that it will accept public comments for only 45 days and did not announce any public hearings.

In a letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on April 4, 2011, thirty-two local and national organizations, ranging from Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club to the Nebraska Farmers Union and Dakota Rural Action, called on the State Department to hold a 120-day public comment period and public hearings in states along the pipeline's route.

The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline is available here: http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/04_KX...

The letter sent by 32 groups to Secretary Clinton demanding a longer comment period and hearings is available here: http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/Letter-Clinton-public-comment-SEI...

The following are excerpts from the SDEIS section stating that tar sands oil has far higher greenhouse gas emissions than other forms of oil used in the U.S.:

Page 239: "As shown in Figure 3.14.3-1, the NETL WTW GHG emission estimates from gasoline produced from WCSB oil sands-derived crude oils are 17 percent higher than that the GHG emission estimates for gasoline produced from the average mix of crude oils consumed in the United States in 2005, and are approximately 19, 13, and 16 percent higher than GHG emission estimates for Middle East Sour, Mexican Heavy (i.e., Mexican Maya), and Venezuelan20 crude oils, respectively (NETL 2009)."

Page 243: "Despite the differences in study design and input assumptions, it is clear that WCSB crude oils, as would likely be transported through the proposed Project, are on average somewhat more GHG-intensive than the crudes they would displace in the U.S. refineries. ... he life-cycle GHG emissions associated with transportation fuels produced in U.S. refineries would increase with increased imports of WCSB crude oils."

Dodgy Deals
There are no active project profiles for this item now.

Keystone XL pipeline

United States
Project
On record
Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil

Keystone XL pipeline

United States
Sections
Banks Policies Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate Banks and Human Rights Banks and Nature Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine Tracking the Equator Principles Tracking the PRBs Find a Better Bank Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 24 324 9220
Contact@banktrack.org
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter
©2022 BankTrack
BankTrack is a registered charity in the Netherlands (ANBI) - RSIN 813874658
Find our privacy policy here

Stay up to date

Sign up now for all BankTrack's news


Make a comment

Your comment will be reviewed, before being posted