No Fracking Way

Keystone XL Pipeline: Allowing Foreign Corporations To Take US Land For Profits (Capitalism At Its Finest)

by Richard Averett on June 2, 2015

Hi All:

My latest piece on DeSmogBlog* on the ruling in the now three-year-old Keystone XL South legal saga. It’s a story that got buried due to it happening on a Friday, but the US Appeals Court for the Tenth Circuit handed down a major ruling that set an important precedent going forward for all kinds of pipelines, including ones that carry fracked gas and fracked oil.
That is, it’s now basically okay to usurp the conventional and democratic National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process for permitting huge pipeline projects like Keystone XL South (in this case), Enbridge’s Flanagan South, the hotly-contest Enbridge Alberta Clipper expansion project, et al.
Also, worth pointing out that this ruling was handed down by two Obama-appointed Judges, with the other being a Reagan appointee. As you can see from reading the piece, the legal and factual logic the Judges used to come to their conclusion was fairly Orwellian.
Please read and share widely on Facebook/Twitter. Cross-posting also welcome, but please direct URL link to the original if you do.
Thanks much! Excerpt below.
Best,
Steve

Appeals Court Rules Keystone XL South Approval Was Legal, Lifting Cloud Over TransCanada

 

In a 3-0 vote, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Tenth Circuit has ruled that the southern leg of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline was permitted in a lawful manner by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Keystone XL South was approved via a controversial Army Corps Nationwide Permit 12 and an accompanying March 2012 Executive Order from President Barack Obama. The pipeline, open for business since January 2014, will now carry tar sands crude from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas without the cloud of the legal challenge hanging over its head since 2012.

As previously reported here on DeSmog, the Sierra Club and co-plaintiffs already lost their Appeals Court legal challenge to impose an injunction and stop diluted bitumen (“dilbit”) from flowing through Keystone XL South back in October 2013. Now that same Court, albeit different judges, have ruled that the pipeline approval process itself was also legally acceptable.

Blame the Victim

At its core, the case centered around legal issues pertaining to the March 2012 Obama White House Executive Order and accompanying Army Corps’ Nationwide Permit 12 issued to TransCanada to build Keystone XL South. Sierra Club and co-plaintiffs had argued that by issuing a Nationwide Permit 12, the Army Corps helped TransCanada dodge the more rigorousNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, thus violating NEPA.

The judges begged to differ, saying no violation of NEPA transpired because Sierra Club never mentioned concerns during the public commenting period, such as potential oil spills. In turn, argued one judge, that was not something “obvious” the Corps should have examined.

Judge Robert E. Bacharach, an Obama-appointee, wrote:

We may assume, for the sake of argument, that the Corps knew that issuance of the nationwide permit could lead to installation of oil pipelines, which in turn could create environmental risks from oil spills…Regardless of whether that view was correct, it went unchallenged in the public comments for theissuance of Nationwide Permit 12 and the State Department’s consideration of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Not mentioned by Bacharach: the Nationwide Permit 12 process, unlike a NEPA review, does not allow for public comment. Nor does it have public hearings. For example, at a June 2012 press conference, Texas-based landowner David Daniel decried the lack of chances to comment publicly on Keystone XL South.

Despite lack of an opportunity to submit public comments to the Corps on Keystone XL South, another judge used the same argument to side with TransCanada and the Army Corps.

“I conclude that Sierra Club’s argument that the Corps improperly deferred portions of its NEPA analysis to the verification stage was not made to the agency during the reissuance process and is therefore waived,” wrote Judge Carolyn McHugh, another Obama-appointee. “Sierra Club has pointed to no part of the record in which any commenter objected to the Corps’ decision to defer parts of its NEPA analysis to the district engineers or prospective lead agency.”

McHugh made that conclusion even though she sided with the Sierra Club’s argument that the Corps’ review was ultimately inadequate in its scope.

“To be sure, accounting in advance for the broad range of possible impacts resulting from the wide variety of utility lines authorized under NWP 12 is a daunting task,” she wrote. “But compliance with NEPA is not excused simply because compliance is difficult.”

Read more here.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

elizabeth carbone June 2, 2015 at 12:25 pm

DEFINITELY ORWELLIAN…

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post: