By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press
The State Department is considering a plan that would reroute the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada away from environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska, an action that could delay a final decision on the project until after the 2012 election.
A U.S. official said told The Associated Press on Wednesday that rerouting the pipeline was a key issue that came up during public meetings and this fall in the six states through which the pipeline would run. The official asked not to be identified because no decision has been made.
Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. is seeking to build the $7 billion pipeline to carry oil derived from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. A portion of the 1,700-mile pipeline would pass through Nebraska's Sandhills region and the massive Ogallala aquifer, which supplies water to eight states.
A State Department decision to reroute the pipeline would require an environmental review of the new section, a process that would likely push a final decision on the pipeline past the 2012 election.
The heavily contested project has become a political trap for President Barack Obama, who risks angering environmental supporters if he approves the pipeline and could face criticism from labor and business groups for thwarting jobs if he rejects it. Some liberal donors have threatened to cut off funds to Obama's reelection campaign if he approves the pipeline, which has become a major focal point of environmental groups who say it would bring "dirty oil" that requires huge amounts of energy to extract. They also worry that the pipeline could cause an ecological disaster in case of a spill.
Thousands of protesters gathered across from the White House on Sunday to oppose the pipeline. The crowd linked hands to surround the White House, keeping pressure on Obama as his administration decides whether to approve the project. The State Department has authority over the project because it crosses a U.S. border.
The Keystone XL pipeline would double the capacity of an existing pipeline operated by TransCanada, and supporters say it could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil while providing thousands of jobs. TransCanada has said any delay in the approval process could cost it millions of dollars and keep thousands of people of from getting jobs.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said deliberation over whether to reroute the pipeline is part of a broad review of issues that include environmental concerns, energy security, jobs, economic impacts and foreign policy.
"So all of these are blended together. It's not just one issue. It's a range of issues that we're looking at," Toner said.
Meanwhile, the department's inspector general has launched a review of the Obama administration's handling of the pipeline request. The review is being conducted in response to complaints from Democratic lawmakers about possible conflicts of interest in the review process.
Deputy Inspector General Harold W. Geisel said the special review will center on whether the State Department "and all other parties involved" in the project followed federal laws and regulations related to the pipeline, which would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma before reaching Texas.
Associated Press writer Matthew Lee contributed to this story.
Matthew Daly can be followed at http://twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC
Tagged: Keystone XL oil pipeline

































Comments
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 6 months ago
The pipeline and the route it takes are indeed important, and present a real risk of significant pollution wherever it might get placed. But the larger problem is the environmental disaster of mining tar sands for oil-- it not only completely and irrevocably destroys the areas that are being mine. The carbon footprint of the oil derived from it is easily double that of other sources of oil.
distant_voice 1 year, 6 months ago
And the answer, of course, is to continue to transfer North American wealth to the Middle East Shieks, continue our dependence on their oil, and do absolutely nothing to take care of our own needs. Yes, extracting oil from the sands is more expensive and risky than typical production. And if you look at all forms of energy production, you'll find the alternatives are ALWAYS more expensive and risky. So are you suggesting we do nothing? Or are you suggesting we all place wind turbines on our cars?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 6 months ago
"And the answer, of course, is to continue to transfer North American wealth to the Middle East Shieks, continue our dependence on their oil, and do absolutely nothing to take care of our own needs."
The answer is to find answers-- not just throw up our hands and say there are no alternatives-- because there are alternatives, even if you don't like them.
"Yes, extracting oil from the sands is more expensive and risky than typical production."
No, it's just plain suicidal, and therefore idiotic.
RickSuttle 1 year, 6 months ago
No. The answer is to stop over-consuming oil. How many times every day do you see an individual driving an over-sized passenger vehicle. There is no reason for Americans to continue to drive huge, unnecessary transportation. We are 5% of the world's population, yet we consume 25% of its resources. American waste and greed know no bounds. Our rates of consumption are shameful. We need to live more sustainable lifestyles.
blindrabbit 1 year, 6 months ago
distant_voice: Not wind turbines on cars but a quick read of "Windwagon Smith" will bring some levity to the subject!
Commenting has been disabled for this item.