Pipeline rejection could set precedent
Rejecting TransCanada Corp.'s $5.4-billion Keystone XL pipeline because of carbon emissions in the oil sands would set a precedent for all U.S. infrastructure projects, Chief Executive Officer Russ Girling said.
It would be harder to build car plants and T-shirt factories, as well as other cross-border pipelines, if President Obama makes a decision on the proposed Keystone XL line based primarily on emissions from oil-sands development, Girling said in an interview. New factories may face reviews based on their energy sources, he said.
“This has become a precedent for infrastructure in the U.S.,” Girling said. “We're not going to build any other export access into the U.S. out of Canada until we resolve this issue.”
Oil-sands developers are counting on Keystone XL to lift heavy crude prices by connecting them to the world's largest refining market in the Gulf Coast as they double production by 2025. Environmentalists are trying to block the 830,000-barrel-a-day line because they say it would encourage oil-sands development, which releases more of the carbon dioxide that scientists say is warming the planet than extracting some conventional forms of crude.
Calgary-based TransCanada is the country's second-biggest pipeline operator.
Girling said he expects an environmental report from the State Department to be released in “weeks, not months.” The department continues to ask TransCanada questions about the project, though inquiries have slowed, Girling said. While he sees a final decision by the end of March, he said there is a chance it may be left to the next U.S. administration.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.