ES.1.2
Background
Keystone’s first application for the Keystone XL pipeline was submitted on September 19, 2008, and a Final EIS was published on August 26, 2011. The route proposed included the same U.S.- Canada border crossing as the currently proposed Project but a different pipeline route in the United States. The 2011 Final EIS route traversed a substantial portion of the Sand Hills Region of Nebraska, as identified by the NDEQ. Moreover, the 2011 Final EIS route went from Montana to Steele City, Nebraska, and then from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf Coast area.
So, now that the southern pipeline was passed by the state it doesn't matter. All that matters is the new extension. Of course it won't connect with the southern pipeline right? So why discuss it?There it is. The extension in isolation of any impacts on any aspect of the USA's environmental status.
The map to the below right is the ENTIRE project. The garage coming from Canada they call crude oil will travel the entire length of the country, but, hey it doesn't matter anymore.
So, now there are reasons to prevent this disaster not only from the fraud in identifying the product in question, but, also for LIMITING the assessment to a shortened project. That is more fraud. Like I stated, the garbage in this proposed pipeline goes the entire length of the country. It is not going to stop in Nebraska and magically appear at the Texas refineries. The garbage product is traveling the entire length of the country and that FACT was completely removed from the assessment.
The map below is the Nebraska Sandhills.
In November 2011, the Department determined that additional information was needed to fully evaluate the application — in particular, information about alternative
routes within Nebraska that would avoid the NDEQ -identified Sand Hills Region.
So, what do you think? Did they avoid the NDEQ -identified Sand HillsRegion?Of course not. They renamed it and the federal government took possession of it. How about that? The federal government carved out a piece of land from a state. Interesting. Eminent Domain. Can you imagine?
The US State Department in talks with Nebraska carved out a section of the Nebraska Sandhills IN ORDER to satisfy Trans-Canada.
The aquifer is still in danger. An aquifer doesn't recognize the artificial definition of the US State Department and Trans Canada. Nebraska didn't have an option to simply throw the entire mess out of their state. They were required to provide land for this disaster waiting to happen.
The area of the Sandhills the State Department (click here) is using in their most recent study comes from a shrunken map formally submitted by the Nebraska DEQ through the MOU they have with the State Department. You see, its Nebraska's role to define the route, and they did...all to benefit TransCanada (who paid $5 million for the DEQ report and used a contractor HDR they are working with on other projects as well, yes this is a conflict).
Bottom Line
Tarsands does not expand unless Keystone XL is built. The State Department's assumption that tarsands development does not change with or without this pipeline is wrong and laughable. Why would TransCanada spend billions on building the pipeline and millions on lobbying unless this piece of infrastructure is the--not a--but the lynchpin for the expansion of tarsands. Without this pipeline Canada stays at 2 million barrels a day, with it they get 3 million barrels a day. The President has the ability to keep a million barrels of tarsands in the ground a day. With a stroke of a pen he can protect property rights, water and make a dent in climate change. This report is laughable using the wrong assumption and therefore the wrong science. -Jane Kleeb, jane@boldnebraska.org, 402-705-3622
So, the pipeline that runs the entire length of the country will have 3 millions of Canadian garbage running through it.
Here is the lie of all lies:
The new proposed route differs from the 2011 Final EIS Route in two significant ways: 1) it would avoid the environmentally sensitive NDEQ - identified Sand Hills Region (because the federal government conducted eminent domaine to remove the land from Nebraska and renamed it. That is the ONLY reason the pipeline avoids environmentally sensitive NDEQ - identified Sand Hills Region) and 2) it would terminate at Steele City, Nebraska. (Blatant lie. The assessment ends in Steele City, Nebraska). From Steele City, existing pipelines would transport the crude oil to the Gulf Coast area. In other words, the proposed Project no longer includes a southern segment and instead runs from Montana to Steele City, Nebraska.
Now if the Canadian garbage is going to be TRANSPORTED BY EXISTING PIPELINE that means that is included in any ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I ever heard of.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (click here)
NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An EIS is a full disclosure document that details the process through which a transportation project was developed, includes consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives,...
An environmental impact statement is the most detailed document required. The EIS is suppose to make it clear whether or not there are alternatives and what those alternatives might be. The EIS is suppose to determine any and all adverse effects of any project.
The EIS within this assessment is fraudulent. It doesn't clearly define the product and misnames it. It allows corruption by assisting a commercial enterprise outside the USA, namely Trans-Canada, to impose the demand for a state of the USA to carve out land to assign to federal and commercial authorities. The land is named the Trans-Canada/US State Department Sandhills. That is profound corruption. The "Trans-Canada/US State Department Sandhills." I'll be damned. The federal government now takes land by eminent domaine and hands it over to a private industry outside the USA.
The assessment does not include alternatives. It identifies the pipeline as the only answer. Why? Because it misnames the product and doesn't properly identify it as a poor energy source of which alternatives include wind and solar and hydroelectric. More fraud. Automobiles now operate on less fuel than ever before. They have new CAFE standards (click here) and there are major and minor auto manufacturers in the USA now producing electric cars. The fuel demand in the USA is falling and will continue to fall and the pipeline will be a tragedy to this country within 2 years, in 2016 when new standards will begin.
This project is NOT a bridge. It is an active TRANSPORT infrastructure that has the potential to destroy aquifers. NOT A BRIDGE. It does not exist in isolation of any additional environmental impact after it is built. This is more fraud.
This Supplemental EIS provides a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts from the proposed Project; it has been revised, expanded, and updated to include a comprehensive review of the new route in Nebraska as well as any significant new circumstances or information that is n ow available and relevant to the overall proposed Project.
The CO2 accounted for are the emissions from the PIPELINE and not the product it transports or the release in the production process. This pipeline will be carrying some of the dirtiest from of petroleum product on the planet. I don't care if Canada doesn't appreciate the climate effects on the USA, BUT, the USA needs to.
The assessment does not include alternatives. It identifies the pipeline as the only answer. Why? Because it misnames the product and doesn't properly identify it as a poor energy source of which alternatives include wind and solar and hydroelectric. More fraud. Automobiles now operate on less fuel than ever before. They have new CAFE standards (click here) and there are major and minor auto manufacturers in the USA now producing electric cars. The fuel demand in the USA is falling and will continue to fall and the pipeline will be a tragedy to this country within 2 years, in 2016 when new standards will begin.
This project is NOT a bridge. It is an active TRANSPORT infrastructure that has the potential to destroy aquifers. NOT A BRIDGE. It does not exist in isolation of any additional environmental impact after it is built. This is more fraud.
This Supplemental EIS provides a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts from the proposed Project; it has been revised, expanded, and updated to include a comprehensive review of the new route in Nebraska as well as any significant new circumstances or information that is n ow available and relevant to the overall proposed Project.
The CO2 accounted for are the emissions from the PIPELINE and not the product it transports or the release in the production process. This pipeline will be carrying some of the dirtiest from of petroleum product on the planet. I don't care if Canada doesn't appreciate the climate effects on the USA, BUT, the USA needs to.
The Material Safety Data Sheet is only that of Crude Oil. There is no MSDS
for Canadian garbage. More fraud.
Appendix Q
Crude Oil Material Safety Data Sheets
The Canadian Garbage has high levels of NAPTHA (click here). Very different from crude oil. Appendix Q is only partially the information required for the safety of people, the land and wildlife.
The Canadian Garbage has to have high levels of NAPTHA otherwise it won't flow through the pipeline. The high levels of NAPTHA will be refined out of the product in refineries, but, that means added environmental problems within the refineries. More fraud.
Supposedly this is the graph of the 'lifetime' CO2 emissions from different sources. The Canadian Garbage is the column on the right. It is all debatable. The assessment is an interesting model, but, I really doubt the numbers.
There is far more CO2 emissions in the extraction of Canadian Garbage. Far more. I sincerely think the numbers in the graph are wrong. There is no comparison. The emissions from Canadian Garbage is far, far higher than a sincere source well of crude oil.
The Canadian Garbage has high levels of NAPTHA (click here). Very different from crude oil. Appendix Q is only partially the information required for the safety of people, the land and wildlife.
The Canadian Garbage has to have high levels of NAPTHA otherwise it won't flow through the pipeline. The high levels of NAPTHA will be refined out of the product in refineries, but, that means added environmental problems within the refineries. More fraud.
There is far more CO2 emissions in the extraction of Canadian Garbage. Far more. I sincerely think the numbers in the graph are wrong. There is no comparison. The emissions from Canadian Garbage is far, far higher than a sincere source well of crude oil.
