LAST DAY TO SUBMIT COMMENTS AGAINST KEYSTONE XL / KXL IS FRIDAY, 7 MAR 14 & The Keystone Saga Can Still End Happily - Here's How 5MAR14

FRIDAY, 7 MAR 14, is the last day to submit your comments to the US State Department opposing the keystone xl pipeline. Please click the link and submit your comments and share this with others. From Daily Kos, 350.org, Credo, NRDC, LVC and others.....

This Friday marks the deadline for public comments on the Keystone XL pipeline before the Obama administration makes the final decision about whether or not to issue a permit.

Please join Daily Kos and CREDO by signing and sending the petition urging the Obama administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

This pipeline would accelerate global climate change and be a game changer in climate destruction. Not only does oil production from the Alberta tar sands emit much more greenhouse gas than traditional oil production, the process involves clearing large swaths of arboreal forest, uses huge amounts of water to separate the bitumen from the sand, and produces excessive waste byproduct.

And those are the consequences before anything even enters the KXL pipeline. KXL presents the very likely risk of an oil spill in the Midwest United States. A pipeline spill along the proposed route of KXL could contaminate the Ogallala aquifer-–which is used to supply the country’s agricultural production in the Plains and supplies 82 percent of the drinking water to over 2 million people around the aquifer.

We cannot allow President Obama to approve the KXL pipeline and accelerate the rate of climate change while putting the American public at risk.

Please join Daily Kos and CREDO by signing and sending the petition opposing Keystone XL. We will deliver all of the comments to the State Department through the official channels provided at regulations.gov at 5:00 PM eastern Friday, March 7.

Keep fighting,
Rachel Colyer
Campaign Director, Daily Kos 

The Keystone Saga Can Still End Happily - Here's How

by Raul Grijalva

As Kossacks and a lot of other Americans know, being against the big, ugly Keystone pipeline deal has nothing to do with wanting to live in caves or get rid of civilization as we know it. In fact, we’re opposed to Keystone because we don’t want to live in caves or get rid of civilization as we know it. It’s important to remember what’s at stake here. Opening up a big patch of dirty tar sands to years of development is the last thing our environment needs. The rest is industry window dressing.
A lot of people already know this, and the environmental risks of a long pipeline carrying heavy sludge across the Great Plains should be enough to shut the whole thing down. But the story doesn’t stop there. There’s corporate influence-peddling, years of bad science passed off as the last word, contractors failing to disclose their conflicts of interest, and industry inflating its job creation numbers. It’s actually a pretty interesting story. Follow me past the fold to hear how I’m trying to help write a happy ending.

Last week I wrote an op-ed for the New York Times highlighting an important part of the case against Keystone. In a nutshell, approving it would send a terrible signal about how the federal government weighs science against corporate interest in making environmental decisions. The State Department has been contracting out the job of assessing Keystone’s environmental impacts since 2008, and (to cut a long story short) they haven’t been picky about who they’ve hired.
Friends of the Earth has a great timeline of all the problems that process has created. If you’re not familiar with the history, take a look. It speaks volumes. The State Department doesn’t have much in-house experience doing environmental science, and its reliance on outside expertise has led it to hire not one but two companies – Cardno ENTRIX and then Environmental Resources Management (ERM) – that have done lots of work for TransCanada, Keystone’s parent company. That wouldn’t be a huge problem if they hadn’t both refused to disclose that work until after the contracts were signed.
These conflicts of interest go back a ways. In October 2011, the New York Times made it clear exactly how flagrant the choice of Cardno ENTRIX really was:

The [State] department allowed TransCanada, the company seeking permission to build the 1,700-mile pipeline from the oil sands of northern Alberta to the Gulf Coast in Texas, to solicit and screen bids for the environmental study. At TransCanada’s recommendation, the department hired Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston, even though it had previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a “major client” in its marketing materials. While it is common for federal agencies to farm out environmental impact studies, legal experts said they were surprised the State Department was not more circumspect about the potential for real and perceived conflicts of interest on such a large and controversial project.

So what happened? The State Department inspector general was asked to look at whether the choice of Cardno ENTRIX was improper. The IG slapped them on the wrist and said no big deal – even though, as the New York Times explained, its own report found the following:

The State Department failed “to perform any independent inquiry to verify Cardno Entrix’s organizational conflict of interest statements.” TransCanada was not asked by the State Department to view and certify Cardno Entrix’s conflict of interest statements.
Overall, the review found that the State Department’s “limited technical resources expertise and experience” limited [the] environmental review process. The officers in charge of the review, according to the report, had “little or no” experience with environmental law “and had to seek training and learn quickly on the job.”

This suggested to me and some of my colleagues that the State Department wasn’t the right agency to be in charge of this process. (In fact, the only reason the State Department is in charge of this process is that Congress hasn’t stepped in to supersede an outdated executive order.) We thought maybe, at best, the State Department would learn an important lesson and hire a better contractor to write a final environmental impact statement. Well, the State Department – at TransCanada’s urging – hired ERM. You can guess what happened next. Take it away, Buzzfeed:

TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone Pipeline, never disclosed its previous work with a contractor the company later recommended for a key environment study, according to documents obtained by an environmental activist group. [. . .] Ties between ERM and TransCanada have been reported before, as has ERM’s contention that it had no conflict with TransCanada. What the new documents show, environmental groups who reviewed them say, is that TransCanada recommended ERM as one of the firms that had no significant conflict when it came to evaluating the environmental impact of Keystone. The critics say they also show the State Department has gotten itself into the same trouble with contractor selection it did the last time it hired a consultant for Keystone, a process that led to criticism from the Inspector General’s office. State denies that there was anything wrong with the process.

Just last week, the State Department inspector general . . . slapped them on the wrist. Again. The Wall Street Journal – hardly a launching pad for anti-corporate broadsides – noted how soft the IG report really was, considering its findings:

The inspector general report released Wednesday said the State Department had “created misperceptions” about ERM’s disclosures by failing to fully explain the company’s relationship to TransCanada earlier. The report said the State Department's handling of ties between the two companies suggested “ERM had not provided all required information to the Department and that ERM and the Department were attempting to conceal conflicts of interest.”

Supposedly, all this is a matter of “misperception.” Well, I don’t think so. I think the public perception that this is a Bush-era throwback is spot on. That’s why I recently asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether the State Department process for choosing contractors is broken and needs to be fixed. I’m proud to have the support of Sen. Barbara Boxer, the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and one of the best friends the environment has ever had in Congress. We’re going to get to the bottom of this.
You can help. If you think the State Department, and our whole federal government, should do a lot better than we’ve seen so far, make your voice heard. This is the last week the State Department is accepting public comments on whether Keystone is in the national interest. Submit your public comment now and make sure we start putting science ahead of corporate demands once and for all. I’m proud to be a leader in this fight, but I’m just one voice. So are you. So are each of us. And we’re always stronger when we work together.

Originally posted to Raul Grijalva on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:36 AM PST.

Also republished by Climate Change SOS, Kitchen Table Kibitzing, DK GreenRoots, Climate Hawks, EcoJustice, and Baja Arizona Kossacks. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/05/1282313/-The-Keystone-Saga-Can-Still-End-Happily-Here-s-How?detail=action 

ERM: Lying to the State Department on keystone xl 15AUG13

THE battle against the keystone xl pipeline continues with protest, civil disobedience, and petition campaigns to Pres Obama, congress and the State Dept by many, many environmental and social activist groups. It will be no surprise if the president goes back on his word and approves this project, so we have to remain vigilant and keep up the pressure. Here is a petition from SumOfUs calling on the State Dept to reject the "environmental impact study" by erm and mandate a honest, independent study on the proposed pipeline. Click the link to sign on...

President Obama says he’ll put the brakes on KXL if it has a significant impact on the climate -- but the company hired to assess the climate impact of KXL lied about deep ties to Big Oil, especially its relationship with KXL’s owner, TransCanada. Tell the State Department to fire the firm and conduct an unbiased assessment of KXL’s climate impact.

President Obama said he'd put the brakes on the Keystone XL if it's shown to "significantly exacerbate the climate problem."

“Great!” you say, “90% of climate scientists agree that the pipeline will cause a significant impact on climate, so this is an open-and-shut case.” Except it’s not. That’s because the official study that the President will use to assess the environmental impact of KXL is being written by a firm with deep ties to the owners of Keystone XL, TransCanada, and other Big Oil Companies. Worse yet, to secure the contract with the State Department, ERM lied to the State Department about its dirty ties to Big oil.

But word is leaking out about this massive conflict of interest, and the State Department has launched an investigation into ERM’s lies. 

State Department: Fire ERM for lying and commission a new, unbiased assessment on the environmental impact of the Keystone XL.

ERM has heavy ties to TransCanada, the owner of Keystone XL. Even more shocking, as a dues-paying member of the American Petroleum Institute -- the lobbyist for Big Oil -- it has a clear vested interest in the pipeline’s approval. Of course, ERM knew that if it told the truth about its ties to oil companies, it never would have gotten the contract.

ERM has a history endorsing projects with shoddy records. The worse example of it greenlighting disastrous projects is the controversial 1,300 mile-long Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline that runs through the Caspian Sea. ERM assessed the pipeline as environmentally and socio-economically sound -- yet, spills and explosions have occurred on a regular basis. Do we want the same type of spills to occur along the route of the Keystone XL because ERM okayed it?

A new environmental impact assessment of the Keystone XL is necessary anyway because the State Department admitted that it doesn’t even know the exact route of the pipeline. As such, the true environmental impacts of the pipeline on the water and land along the Keystone XL proposed route are not assessed in ERM’s fraudulent assessment. Not only would a new assessment by a firm without influence from Big Oil reveal the dangers to our climate, it would also document TransCanada's notorious and lengthy record of oil spills and the impact those spills had on the land and water.

A new assessment could prevent the next Exxon Mayflower spill. Let's call on the State Department to fire ERM and conduct a real assessment of the impacts of the Keystone XL.

Click here to tell State Department to conduct an environmental study that will show the true impact of the Keystone XL.

Thanks for all that you do,
Angus and the rest of us.

**********
More Information:

Conflict of interest: State Department contractor on Keystone XL study lied about ties to TransCanada & oil industry, Friends of the Earth, 10 July 2013
State Department Admits It Doesn't Know Keystone XL's Exact Route, DeSmogBlog, 8 July 2013
State Department watchdog probes Keystone XL Review, Christian Science Monitor, 5 Aug 2013  

State’s ‘Environmentally Sound’ Keystone Assessment Done By Firms Linked To TransCanada, Exxon Mobil, BP And Kochs 7MAR13

THE duplicity of the Obama administration on this and other critical issues is becoming the norm. It seems we have to fight our own government on all the issues we knew we would have to fight a romney-ryan administration on, and that is not only disappointing, it is a damning indictment of Obama and his willingness to use deception, manipulation and misrepresentation on the same scale as the gop / tea-baggers. 350.org and it's allies are planning a response, go to www.350.org to join the movement and receive updates. See my earlier post Breaking news on Keystone & XLKeystone Pipeline Infographic: 'Built To Spill' 1MAR13 & 29AUG11 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/breaking-news-on-keystone-xlkeystone.html
and State Department Keystone XL Pipeline Analysis Disspirits Climate Change Community & State Department's Keystone XL Analysis Upsets Environmentalists 1MAR13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/state-department-keystone-xl-pipeline.html
From ThinkProgress....

By Jeff Spross 

Yesterday, we found out via Inside Climate News and Brad Johnson over at Grist that the environmental impact statement the State Department just released on the Keystone XL pipeline was written by a private consulting firm being paid by the pipeline’s owner.

This obviously raises concerns about conflicts of interest with the report itself, but it also highlights the problems with turning government work and analysis over to private firms with possible financial ties to other private entities who may be affected by that work and analysis — a phenomenon that’s been underway since the 1990s.

State’s report, which found that the pipeline was “unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands,” and will “not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects,” was written by Environmental Resources Management (ERM). Several years ago, Cardno Entrix, another private consultancy, was contracted by TransCanada to handle the State Department’s initial draft of the environmental impact statement, the Department’s hearings on the pipeline, and even its Keystone XL website.

As Johnson reported, ERM was paid “an undisclosed amount under contract to TransCanada” for the assessment:

The documents from the ERM-TransCanada agreement are on the State Department’s website, but payment amounts and other clients and past work of ERM are redacted. In the contract documents, ERM partner Steven J. Koster certifies that his company has no conflicts of interest. He also certifies that ERM has no business relationship with TransCanada or “any business entity that could be affected in any way by the proposed work” (notwithstanding the impact statement contract itself). In a cover letter, Koster promises State Department NEPA Coordinator Genevieve Walker that ERM understands “the need for an efficient and expedited process to meet the demands of the desired project schedule.”

An investigation by Inside Climate News finds that ERM’s report draws from work done by other oil industry contractors, Ensys Energy and ICF International.

According to State’s report, the department “directed the preparation,” but the project’s manager is the only government official actually listed on the cover page.

Inside Climate News reported Ensys has worked with ExxonMobil, BP and Koch Industries, though Ensys president Martin Tallet emphasized the consulting firm has also worked with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the World Bank. “We don’t do advocacy,” Tallett told Inside Climate News, pointing out that EnSys employees acted as expert witnesses for various state water agencies and against the oil industry in court cases on groundwater contamination from MBTE, a gasoline additive. “If we were the pet of government agencies or oil companies, the other side wouldn’t come to us.” ICF International declined to comment on the Keystone report.

According to both David Driesen, a law professor at Syracuse University and a former attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Joel A. Mintz, a law professor at Florida’s Nova Southeastern University, conflicts of interest can be difficult to avoid in practice, whatever the official statements:

“I think the question of conflict of interest is a legitimate one,” Driesen said. If consulting firms are “used to working for industry clients, it’s possible they would subtly orient their analysis in a certain way, and that could be reflected” in the document.…

“The marketplace and ethics sometimes collide,” said Mintz, who is a member scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform, which favors green policies. “If their livelihood comes from consulting for the oil and gas industry, I think it would be expected they’d be sympathetic to their future and past clients. They’ll want to keep consulting.”

As Inside Climate News points out, State’s Keystone report is actually part of a larger trend, spanning more than a decade, of government farming out work it used to do in-house to private contractors. While the Defense Department has driven the majority of the contracting the United States government does with private firms, the practice ramped up in other departments significantly in the 1990s with the arrival of then-Vice President Al Gore’s “Reinventing Government” initiative. Since then, the federal workforce has shrunk as the contractor workforce has grown.

According to a report by the Center for Public Integrity, the government was spending $200 billion a year on private contractors as of 2003. A scholar at the Brookings Institution named Paul Light called this workforce the “shadow government,” estimating its size in 1999 at 5.6 million. Government agencies now routinely outsource reports like State’s environmental impact statement because they don’t have the staff or resources to handle the work in-house, and given the ubiquity of consulting firms’ work with industry, it’s difficult to find a company that doesn’t have industry ties.

Kathleen Clark — a practicing lawyer and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, and an expert on government ethics — told Inside Climate News that, “In general, the government has rather strict standards for conflict of interest for its own employees, and in general when it outsources work to contractors, it doesn’t outsource those standards.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/07/1688231/keystone-assessment-conflicts/?mobile=nc