Keystone XL pipeline foes plot lawsuit, protests
LINCOLN, Neb. — With yet another obstacle removed for the Keystone XL pipeline, opponents were pressing a lawsuit to challenge the project, public protests and an effort to inject the issue into the November elections.
Both supporters and opponents were quick to claim victories with the State Department report released Friday, which raised no major objections to the pipeline.
The oil industry, some union groups and congressional Republicans called on the Obama administration to move forward with the project, while a coalition of landowners and environmentalists say there is still cause for denying a federal permit. The project would ship 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to Texas Gulf Coast refineries.
Meanwhile, farmers and ranchers in Nebraska who oppose the pipeline are planning to run for seats on a state board that regulates power stations needed along the project route. And national activists say they have recruited more than 75,000 volunteers willing to participate in civil disobedience, should President Obama approve the Keystone project.
The project now goes to a 30-day comment period and a review by Secretary of State John Kerry and other agencies. Obama has 90 days to make the decision on the pipeline, but the White House on Friday disputed the notion that the report is headed to a fast approval. Oil began flowing last week through an Oklahoma-to-Texas section approved by Obama.
“There's no question if the president approves this permit, that there will be civil disobedience,” said Jane Kleeb, executive director of the group Bold Nebraska, which has helped organize opposition in the state. “We've said from the beginning that we will support the landowners and what they want to do and what they think is best for their property. I think you'll see some landowners driving really slow on their county roads to block the (pipeline) trucks.”
Project backers said the report, the latest in a five-year review by state and federal agencies, bolsters their case for the pipeline and eliminates the need for further delays.
The Keystone XL is “not about energy versus the environment. It's about where Americans want to get their oil,” said Russ Girling, CEO of pipeline developer TransCanada. “Keystone XL will displace heavy oil from such places as the Middle East and Venezuela, and of the top five regions the U.S. imports oil from, only Canada has substantial greenhouse gas regulations in place.”
Opponents were planning to host vigils throughout the nation Monday and “pipeline meet-ups” throughout February to encourage people to raise the issue with candidates in the 2014 election. They were waiting for a Nebraska judge to rule on a lawsuit challenging a state law that allowed the project to proceed. A ruling is expected by late March, and whatever the outcome an appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court is a near certainty.
Kleeb said 115 landowners in Nebraska still refuse to sign agreements with pipeline developer TransCanada and would engage in nonviolent civil disobedience if the company tries to lay pipe through their land.
Polls have shown that a majority of Nebraskans support the project, but opponents argue it threatens a region of fragile, sandy soil in the northern part of the state.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Scientists hope tiny robotic bee’s big dreams take flight
- National Guard leaves Ferguson as protests over shooting wane
- Boston Marathon suspect’s friend guilty of obstruction
- Police say couple wanted Amish girls for slaves
- Health care data breaches hit 30M patients and counting
- EPA cites risks from air toxics in urban areas, improvements
- Fla. ban on gay marriage upended