Lawsuit challenges U.S. approvals of Keystone XL pipeline | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Lawsuit challenges U.S. approvals of Keystone XL pipeline

Associated Press
1360395_web1_1021253-7360a9c4ff044dd78cfc4456fb48821e
AP
A TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline facility is seen Nov. 6, 2015, in Hardisty, Alberta. Environmentalists are asking a federal judge to cancel permits and other approvals issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.

BILLINGS, Mont. — Environmentalists are asking a federal judge to cancel permits and other approvals issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.

Attorneys for the Northern Plains Resource Council, Sierra Club and other groups filed the latest lawsuit against the long-delayed pipeline on Monday in Montana.

They claim the Army Corps did not examine the potential for oil spills and other environmental damages when it approved plans by pipeline developer TC Energy. The line would cross hundreds of waterways along a 1,184-mile path from Canada to Nebraska.

An appeals court last month lifted an injunction that blocked construction of the project. That came after President Donald Trump issued a new permit in a bid to nullify a legal challenge to the pipeline.

Categories: News | World
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.