“Folks are playing a little bit of catch-up,” Kleeb said, adding that many Nebraskans are “angry that [Nebraska Republicans] could be so bold-faced as to side, from our perspective, with Big Oil.” She suggested that backing the project could be a liability for some Nebraska Republicans: Rep. Lee Terry has already come under fire from both a GOP primary opponent and a possible Democratic rival.
Pipeline opponents also question the objectivity of the firm chosen to write Nebraska’s environmental impact statement. The firm, HDR, agreed in 2009 to do engineering, procurement and construction work on a Trans-Canada natural gas-fired power plant in Ontario, according to HDR’s Web site.
In reality — at least in Nebraska — the process may not move as fast as Republicans want. Trans-
Canada, while eager to get the project moving, said it will not submit a new route until State and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality agree on what sort of review is required under the special Nebraska law passedin mid-November. Previously, Nebraska did not require an environmental impact statement; state officials say the review will take six to nine months, but it could take longer.
Shawn Howard, a TransCanada spokesman, said the company needs to do more work on the details of an alternative route around the sensitive Sand Hills, where the Ogallala Aquifer runs close to the surface. He said that the company was doing “helicopter flyovers” and scouting new corridors on the ground. One thing that wasn’t on the maps, he said, was a new wind farm.
“Until we’re satisfied that the DEQ in Nebraska and governor are on [the same] side with the preferred route, we won’t be tabling a plan publicly,” said Howard.
“We’re some time away from being able to file a plan,” he said.
Refiling the plan could put political pressure on the administration before the 2012 presidential election, though State still has discretion as to when it makes a final decision.
On Tuesday, State Department officials said they will not be pressured, warning that the GOP strategy could backfire, forcing an early rejection of the project.
“At the end of the day, this permitting decision, one way or the other, has to be based on a full accounting of the interests of the American people, where it goes, as well as all of the agencies that have to weigh in, and we want to take the time to do it right,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
Lou Pugliaresi, president of the oil industry-backed Energy Policy Research Foundation, said that the Keystone decision could have an impact in a swing state like Ohio, where crude oil production is rising.
“When you think that Obama did this for political reasons, he could end up with surging production out of Ohio. And then there would be an interesting discussion: Who do you want to turn to? The guys who shut down the Keystone or their opponent?” Pugliaresi said.
While delaying a pipeline decision until 2013 may have pleased foes of the Keystone XL, Pugliaresi said the message was muddled. He said, “what is the administration saying? That this is a technical glitch or that we don’t like oil sands or that we’ll not like it for one year and then we’ll be okay with it?”
Meanwhile, foes of the pipeline are not resting either. They are planning new fronts in their fight, looking beyond Nebraska to Texas, where the pipeline would run over the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer.
“I think we’ll see what happened in Nebraska happen in Texas,” said Kate Colarulli, associate director of the “Beyond Oil” campaign at the Sierra Club. The group is making common cause with some Tea Party leaders such as Debra Medina, who ran against Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the Republican primary in 2010 and who recently backed a group called Texans Against Tar Sands.
“Now with water and drought and wildfires, I think we’ll start to see some opposition, and from what I see very bipartisan,” Colarulli said. “I think we’re a couple of months away from this catching fire in Texas.”
Loading...
Comments