US Lawmakers Express Concerns Over Canada Pipeline

December 16, 2010 Updated: October 1, 2015

A Keystone pump station in Hartford, Mont. U.S. Politicians asked the U.S. State Department to conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement, expressing concern that the State Department's assessment of the environmental impact of the pipeline is inadequate. (Photo courtesy of TransCanada)
A Keystone pump station in Hartford, Mont. U.S. Politicians asked the U.S. State Department to conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement, expressing concern that the State Department's assessment of the environmental impact of the pipeline is inadequate. (Photo courtesy of TransCanada)
EDMONTON, Canada—Worried that TransCanada’s cross-border crude oil pipeline expansion project will soon be given the green light, U.S. lawmakers are pushing for a further environmental assessment.

Twenty-eight U.S. members of Congress signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing concern that the Department of State’s (DOS) assessment of the environmental impact of the pipeline is inadequate.

“Not only does tar sands oil have a higher lifecycle for greenhouse gas emissions, but it also has an environmentally destructive extraction process and environmentally precarious transpiration system,” reads the letter.

The members of Congress asked the DOS to conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement and expressed their discontent with Clinton’s recent comments that the DOS is “inclined to approve” the project.

The Keystone XL project involves construction of a 1,677-mile pipeline to transport crude oil from Alberta, Canada to U.S. refineries all the way to the Gulf Coast, crossing six U.S. states.

The project is an expansion of the Keystone Pipeline that began operation this year, transporting crude oil from Alberta to U.S. Midwest refineries. The expansion is slated to increase the capacity of the pipeline system to 1.1 million barrels per day.

The project has also come under heavy criticism for its planned route through the Ogalla aquifer in Nebraska, one of the world’s largest aquifers.

With memories of the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the major leak from the Enbridge oil pipeline into a Southern Michigan river still fresh, opponents fear potential leaks would contaminate the aquifer.

A similar letter to Clinton was issued by 50 members of the House of Representatives in June, saying that a complete environmental impact statement should be taken into consideration when evaluating whether the project is in the national interest.

Concerns were also raised by 11 U.S. senators in a letter sent to Clinton in October asking for a thorough and transparent review of the project.

A presidential permit for the project was expected this fall but was delayed until further environmental evaluations are performed.

Terry Cunha, a spokesperson with Calgary-based TransCanada, says the company is expecting to receive the permit in the first half of 2011.

Follow Omid on Twitter: @OGhoreishi