TransCanada Keystone – Turtle Talk

TransCanada received a permit with conditions in 2008, but lack of DOS approval led to it expiring before the foreign company could start construction on the Keystone XL pipeline. Several tribes and state citizens are fighting renewal before the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, which recently concluded nine days of hearings about the pipeline. Tribes asserted TransCanada had not met its burden of satisfying federal law as a condition of the permit.

Link to recordings and documents on the SDPUC website.

There already is a Keystone pipeline that runs through South Dakota. The Phase 1 pipe starts in Canada, at the same location the Keystone XL pipeline will start, then cuts east across Saskatchewan and Manitoba before going south to Nebraska. The XL version is bigger, obviously, and will cut an almost straight line from Alberta to Nebraska on its way to the Gulf of Mexico to take advantage of the Bakken crude boom in Montana and the Dakotas. PUC previously concluded that the negative effects generated from billions of gallons of oil pumping over the State’s water sources unsupervised was greatly outweighed by its benefits, namely the $9.1 million in tax revenue it was supposed to pay counties. However, the full amount was never paid and now TransCanada promises to pay even more money and still guarantees job growth that DOS has reported is negligible.

ICT on the Keystone Oil Pipeline that May Cross Sioux Nation Territory

September 22, 2011September 22, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. Additional coverage of the lobbying efforts of TransCanada in the Washington Post today.

Keystone XL Pipeline Map

Federal Court Dismisses Lakota Nations Suit re: International Pipeline

October 5, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate v. Dept. of State (D.S.D.) — Sisseton v Dept of State

This is an interesting case involving the President’s inherent authority to authorize an international oil pipeline as a part of his foreign affairs power.

An excerpt:

I want to emphasize that the granting of this motion will not give the defendants a free pass to “do-as-they-please.” They will, of course, still be subjected to the rigorous federal environmental and historical preservation laws throughout the construction and operation phases of the proposed pipeline. In this case, however, the court lacks the authority to strike down the issuance of the permit. Alternatively, if the court did have such power, I find that a good faith effort was made to identify historic properties that may be affected by this project.