A House panel approved legislation today that would force the Obama administration to speed up decisions on a proposed pipeline to deliver Canadian oil sands crude to Gulf Coast refineries.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power approved the bill by a voice vote, clearing it for votes by the full panel and possible House floor consideration next month.
The legislation aims to speed up final State Department and Environmental Protection Agency reviews of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, nearly three years after TransCanada asked for U.S. approval to launch the project.
The State Department has pledged to make a final decision by the end of this year about whether approving the 36-inch pipeline is in the nation’s interest.
Republicans today said that’s still too slow. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., the head of the Energy and Commerce Committee accused the Obama administration of standing in the way of the pipeline project, which he said could help North America “break free from unfriendly sources of oil and bring down gas prices.”
Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., called the project long overdue.
“EPA has really been dragging its feet on this important project to build a pipeline through the middle of the United States,” Whitfield said. “We have a project here that would help increase the supply of oil in America, make us less dependent on foreign oil (and) create additional jobs. It seems to me that this is precisely what we need to be doing.”
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., would give President Barack Obama a Nov. 1 deadline to decide whether to grant or deny a permit for the pipeline. If the government issues a final environmental impact statement on the project before the end of October, Obama would have 30 days to make the decision.
Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois said the legislation would unnecessarily “short circuit the permitting process,” since the State Department has already said a final decision would be made by Dec. 31.
“This arbitrary timeline will reduce the allotted time that federal agencies will have to determine the national interest . . . by almost two thirds, while also reducing or eliminating the 30-day public comment period,” Rush said. “I find it difficult to understand why Congress needs to intervene to direct the administration to do what is already in the process of being done anyway.”
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., noted that “once it is built, we will live with the pipeline and its impacts for 50 years or more.”
“This is a decision that we need to make right,” Waxman said, adding that Terry’s bill, instead, says “whatever the risks and costs, just get it done.”
The proposed 1,661-mile Keystone XL would extend the TransCanada pipeline network that now ends in Cushing, Okla. The $13 billion project would allow up to 1.29 million barrels per day of oil sands crude to flow into refineries in the Midwest and the Gulf Coast — a 700,000 barrel-per-day increase over existing capacity.
Keystone XL advocates in Congress and the oil and gas industry say the project would allow the U.S. to get more oil for refining from a friendly ally in North America, rather than importing it from less stable regions overseas.
Environmentalists worry the pipeline would expand the marketplace for a particularly heavy crude with life cycle greenhouse gas emissions that can be 40 percent more than those of conventional oil. Although oil companies are adopting less invasive in situ techniques for extracting the oil from tar sands, it has traditionally been removed through open pit mining that conservationists say has ravaged Alberta’s boreal forest.
“My greatest concern is that Keystone makes us more reliant on the dirtiest source of fuel available,” Waxman said. “We should be reducing our oil dependency and using cleaner fuel, but Keystone is a big step in the opposite direction.”
Committee Republicans rejected a Democratic amendment that would give the president 120 days after the final environmental impact statement — or no later than Jan. 1 — to decide on the project.
Lawmakers also clashed over whether the project ultimately could raise oil and gasoline prices — at least for refiners and consumers in the Midwest, a now-oversupplied market.
TransCanada has acknowledged that the Keystone XL pipeline could limit the ability of Midwest refiners to negotiate the price discounts they now obtain for accepting the tar sands crude. That’s because the pipeline would give the Canadian crude a new outlet — and a set of eager customers — in the form of southeast Texas refineries.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said that even if Midwest refineries can’t obtain the same discounts, “that doesn’t automatically mean the price is going to be higher for the consumers.” He insisted that Midwest refineries could choose to use West Texas Intermediate crude or the Canadian oil coming down the pipeline — based on the best price.
That may overlook technological differences in refining the two products and capital investments required for adapting to a different form of crude.
“By bringing more oil into the U.S., it’s going to lower the price, unless the demand for oil worldwide goes up,” Barton added. “If that doesn’t happen — if all things are equal and you have normal business conditions — bringing more oil through this pipeline . . . is going to make a better deal for the Midwest, more choice and lower price.”
“Whitfield said. “We have a project here that would help increase the supply of oil in America, make us less dependent on foreign oil …”
===
Uhh Canada is a foreign country, and that’s where the oil is coming from.
EPA is standing in the way, by asking the comapany how are you going to handle spills, and pointing out that their estimate of spills is way off based on their track record on the other pipeline, and thats the EPA’s fault.
Waxman needs to go away.
So for almost 3 years, the government still hasn’t reached a decision. Yet moving up the due date for a decision by 60 days cuts the time by 2/3s? Congressman Rush needs to relearn math.
“based on the best price”
Americans believe that energy independence is equating domestic production with lower fuel prices. If we produce our own resources we will not have to pay the high price of foreign crude. The failure to see clearly that there is no correlation with domestic oil production and lower fuel prices is what is causing big headache for the Obama Administration and the people who are being gouged due to fuel prices and demanding Gulf drilling (pipelines). The same companies that promise crude oil independence say in the same breath that the savings to the public will be in 10 – 15 yrs. All domestic production of oil resources will do is line the pockets of oil companies with an oil transportation cost saving and a free oil spigot for their refineries. Will they pass the saving to the consumer? NO! The companies say 10-15 yrs before we can see any effect at the pump. We have been drilling in the Gulf for 50,000 yrs now and there is still no savings at the pump. There will never be a lower fuel price as a result of domestic drilling. Get that through your head! It’s all for profit at future gouging prices starting now.
Henry Waxman spilled the beans. This isn’t about a pipeline – it’s about using OIL – a product he abhors, no doubt while using lots of it himself.
If the government thinks the potential for oil spills from pipelines is a problem, then they should close down the pipelines delivering gasoline from gulf coast refineries to Chicago, NY, and Washington DC.
We can load gasoline onto north bound ships. If the ships arrive too late, y’all can drive down here and pick it up yourself.
Best wishes !
So Waxman and the Enviros prefer we import our oil from ship-tankers. Transporting oil by tankers is greatly more environmentally risky than using pipelines. The opposition to the pipeline is not based on facts or economics.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., noted that “once it is built, we will live with the pipeline and its impacts for 50 years or more.”
Duh! Secure, affordable energy from a friendly nation and a boost for our economy are “impacts” that I wouldn’t mind living with for the next 500 years.
Waxman, Obama, and many others on the left are opposed to fossil energy in any form. theis is not about a pipeline any more than a moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico is about safety or the environment. It is a back door effort to choke our economy and our country. We need to vote these guys out of office in 2012.
Just_The_Facts
You also might add that they also want to get it from places like Libya waging undeclared war. Fully 10% of the Wikileaks stuff is about… oil… surprise, surprise.
Blood and human rights abuses for oil. That is the Bush/Obama plan. Never mind getting it from places where human rights are respected.
@Ivar, the spill thing ……… is just a facade, an excuse to not build the pipeline.
They looking for any reason they can find.
Some Oklahoma oil producers , however, have opposed the pipeline in the past. They think it will lower the price they get for their oil in Cushing. They will only support the pipeline, if it contains the link from Cushing to Houston.