A government watchdog has found no evidence that the State Department’s environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline was biased in favor of the project’s proponent and cleared the agency of most other allegations of wrongdoing, including conflict of interest.
Howard Geisel, the State Department’s deputy inspector general, said in a report that the department’s selection of Cardno Entrix as its third-party contractor for the Keystone XL review “did not present a conflict of interest,” even though the company reviewed past TransCanada Corp. proposals and had done contract work on corporate projects for TransCanada.
The report also found “no evidence that TransCanada had improperly influenced the Department’s selection of Cardno Entrix.”
And it determined the State Department “did not violate its role as an unbiased oversight agency,” and it found no evidence that communications between department officials, TransCanada, the Canadian government, supporters and opponents of Keystone XL “deviated from the Department’s obligations under Federal law.”
The report was requested by Democratic members of Congress who have criticized the proposed pipeline for its environmental impacts and suggested bias and conflict of interest may have played a role in the department’s 2011 study, which determined no major environmental impacts from Keystone XL.
For the time being, the Obama administration has rejected a permit for it, citing a congressionally imposed decision deadline that it said didn’t provide enough time for a needed additional environmental study. The State Department has said additional concerns about the pipeline’s proposed route through Nebraska’s Sandhills, which sit atop a drinking-water aquifer, came after the original study was completed.
Republicans, irate with the Obama administration’s decision to reject a permit, have pushed legislation that would approve the pipeline. The report likely won’t reduce the intensity of their support for the pipeline, which they say would create jobs and boost energy security.
“This report should fully address any concerns raised by the Members who requested the report and the president should move the Keystone project forward immediately,” Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in an email.
At the same time, the report faulted the State Department on some points.
The report said the State Department didn’t completely incorporate some concerns from other federal agencies in its environmental study, “such as the manner in which alternative routes were considered.” It also said the department’s “limited technical resources, expertise, and experience” impacted the department’s ability to carry out the environmental review process required by law.
Bill McKibben, an environmental activist who has organized protests against Keystone XL, seized on that finding as confirming opponents’ concerns.
“The more we learn about Keystone and the State Department’s review process, the clearer it is that we were right to mount spirited protests last summer and fall,” he said in an emailed statement. “As this report reveals, the environmental review wasn’t carried out at arms length, nor with the technical know-how that was clearly required.”
The Democrats who requested the study had alleged the department had a conflict of interest in choosing Cardno Entrix because TransCanada listed Cardno as a “major client” and the two companies had participated in the same corporate projects. They also had said they were “disturbed” at news reports that TransCanada influenced the contractor selection process by screening candidates.
But the inspector general disagreed with the conflict of interest accusation because the past dealings between the two companies “are not directly related to the Keystone XL project and are either federally controlled relationships or minimal financial relationships.” And the report said TransCanada’s influence in the contractor-selection process was, at most, “minimal.”
Still, the report faulted the State Department for not doing enough to ensure the correctness of Cardno Entrix’s statement listing its conflicts of interest. McKibben added that he was pleased that the department told the inspector general it agreed to change its process for selecting third-party contractors.
Another day, and yet another congressman du jure
Perhaps, a more critical DOS function in this matter: The US Department of State IS required, under recent NATO treaty (Lisbon-2010) provisions and the Defense Authorization Act of 2012, H. R. 1540 pp (339 – 341), to conduct a NATO Energy Security evaluation. It is a good idea to ‘look under the hood’, of any public policy proposal. It is ALSO a good idea to check for investment conflict of interests, in ANYTHING that the US Congress touches.
Does the Keystone XL Pipeline enhance or degrade NATO Energy Security?
SEC. 1233. REPORT ON ENERGY SECURITY OF THE NATO ALLIANCE.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Adopted in Lisbon in November 2010, the new NATO Strategic Concept declares …
(2) The new NATO Strategic Concept further declares that … ‘‘to deter and defend against any threat to the safety and security of our populations”, the NATO alliance will, ”develop the capacity to contribute to energy security, including protection of critical energy infrastructure and transit areas and lines, cooperation with partners, and consultations among Allies on the basis of strategic assessments and contingency planning.”.
(gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf)
Enhance or degrade NATO Security?
Perhaps the members of congress will share their investment strategy in these securities. In my humble opinion, it might help a little, if Congress reduced their lying, cheating, stealing and sedition.
(/2012/02/10/us/politics/house-passes-bill-banning-insider-trading-by-members-of-congress.html?hp)
House Passes Bill Banning Insider Trading by Members of Congress – New York Times – By ROBERT PEAR Published: February 9, 2012
“We need to stop the insidious practice of insider trading, giving members of this body an unfair advantage over Americans who sent us here to represent them,” said Representative Kathy Hochul, Democrat of New York. “Let us begin the long process of restoring the faith of the American people in this institution.”
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who wrote the proposed disclosure requirement for political intelligence firms, said it was “astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision.”
The legislation, as passed by both houses, would cut off federal pensions for members of Congress convicted of felonies involving public corruption.
Federal securities law does not explicitly exempt members of Congress, but experts disagree on whether and when lawmakers may be found to have violated the law. The bill is meant to eliminate any ambiguity.
Who gives a crap!! This is why it takes the federal government a minnimum of 5 years to do anything.
We can’t keep holding back billion dollar projects over crap like this.
Build it!!
Some folks who recall and or experienced military attacks on this nation and other countries, tend to ‘give a crap’ about the forward looking defense posture of the USA and allies.
Where is the freaking oil and fuel destination?
Is Texas going to collect ANY revenue from the pipeline, oil or refining, for schools and roads?
Does the project HELP or HURT NATO security?
How many US politicians have been bribed?
Why was every word from the proponents of this project … false?
How much will the oil cost?
This is kind of Day-1 basic information for a feasible project. And the answer for US politicians bribed should be zero, but it’s apparently not, in this case.
Of course the IG found nothing. In the obama regime, IG’s get fired if they report the corruption rampant throughout his system of cronies.
Still wondering why the GOP is chomping at the bit to import, and ultimately export, the most expensive and dirtiest oil on the planet.