Lots to like in President Obama’s remarks earlier this week from New York:

“When it comes to energy, not only have we been able to double our production of clean energy, but even in terms of traditional energy, we will probably be a net exporter of natural gas in somewhere between five and ten years.  And so the idea of the United States being energy independent – which seemed far-fetched as recently as 10 years ago – now is actually a possibility.”

As well as those from Texas earlier this month, where he talked about job creation and driving economic momentum:

“… we've got to make America a magnet for good jobs. … And even as we’re working to reverse the trend of communities that have been hard hit with old manufacturing leaving, we’ve got to propose partnerships with local... more »

Each of the State Department’s four reviews of the Keystone XL pipeline – during the more than four years the project has been under consideration – focused primarily on the Keystone XL’s impacts on the environment: air, ground and surface water, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife and more. State went beyond the Keystone XL itself, evaluating the environmental impact of oil sands crude that would be delivered through it – as well as the impacts on Canada.

Bottom line: Each review came to the same conclusion – the Keystone XL’s construction and operation will not significantly impact the environment. From the most recent State assessment, issued in March:

The analyses of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed Project suggest that there would... more »

The Keystone XL pipeline is squarely in President Obama’s court. He should approve the full project – for the jobs, economic lift and strengthened energy security this shovel-ready project would provide for our country. (Photo below by Joe Wertz/StateImpact Oklahoma)

There’s no good reason to continue blocking the Keystone XL. Concerns about the environment? Answered. The State Department’s recent review:

The analyses of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed Project suggest that there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed Project route …

Note that State’s favorable environmental assessment includes the pipeline’s operation. It, too, will be safe, as API underscored in its official comments on State’... more »

The EPA was out yesterday with a letter urging yet even more delay for the Keystone XL pipeline – a project that already has been thoroughly reviewed by the State Department over more than four and a half years. In that context, EPA’s simply trying to heap delay on top of delay. Let's have a look at the first of EPA’s objections to State’s latest review:

The DSEIS reports that lifecycle GHG emissions from oil sands crude could be 81% greater than emissions from the average crude refined in the U.S. in 2005 on a well-to-tank basis, and 17% greater on a well-to-wheels basis.This difference may be even greater depending on the assumptions made.

Sounds ominous, but it’s also true that the difference could be even less, depending on the assumptions. Take the government of Alberta’s as... more »

On the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama’s decision boils down to this: Is the $7 billion project in the United States’ national interest? Economic, energy and environmental considerations figure into the answer, but ultimately the president is charged with determining whether Keystone XL will make our country stronger and safer without significantly impacting the environment and the people along its 1,179-mile route.

We say yes – for a number of good reasons.

The pipeline will make the U.S. stronger – economically, by creating jobs and providing broad economic stimulus, and more energy secure by bringing more than 800,000 barrels of oil a day to our Gulf Coast refineries from a friendly, stable source (Canada) as well as the U.S. Bakken region. As for the environment, four separ... more »