- Nov 16, 2004
- 67,305
- 86,211
- 113
Both from the Washington Post:
Today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tone-xl-oil-pipelines/?utm_term=.c74bfba59353
The executive order from Trump on the Keystone XL pipeline threatens to undo a major decision by Obama, who said the project would contribute to climate change because it would carry tar sands crude oil, which is especially greenhouse gas intensive because of the energy it takes to extract the thick crude. Obama’s announcement followed a similar finding by the State Department, which has reviewed applications for cross-border pipelines.
Two Years Ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-keystone-xl-pipeline/?utm_term=.7f47cf1132bd
The State Department has finished its massive environmental review of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, down to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would move on to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
Bottom line: The report concludes that blocking or approving the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline would not have a "significant" impact on overall greenhouse-gas emissions and future tar-sands expansion. That's because, it argues, most of Alberta's oil will likely find a way to get to the market anyway — if not by pipeline, then by rail.
Today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tone-xl-oil-pipelines/?utm_term=.c74bfba59353
The executive order from Trump on the Keystone XL pipeline threatens to undo a major decision by Obama, who said the project would contribute to climate change because it would carry tar sands crude oil, which is especially greenhouse gas intensive because of the energy it takes to extract the thick crude. Obama’s announcement followed a similar finding by the State Department, which has reviewed applications for cross-border pipelines.
Two Years Ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-keystone-xl-pipeline/?utm_term=.7f47cf1132bd
The State Department has finished its massive environmental review of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, down to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would move on to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
Bottom line: The report concludes that blocking or approving the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline would not have a "significant" impact on overall greenhouse-gas emissions and future tar-sands expansion. That's because, it argues, most of Alberta's oil will likely find a way to get to the market anyway — if not by pipeline, then by rail.
Last edited:
