The debate, which centres on routing and permitting, is not expected to arrive to a conclusion any time soon, Bloomberg reports. However, the court’s ruling could force President Obama’s hand in making a final decision whether to green light the stalled project or delay it indefinitely.
Opponents are challenging the constitutionality of Nebraska’s pipeline siting law, filed in May 2012, which gave Governor Dave Heineman authority to approve a route for the Canada-to-Texas proposed pipeline on private land, without having to first go through regulators.
But in February, a Nebraska state judge struck down that law, handing a temporary victory to landowners. The decision forced the U.S. State Department to put on hold its review of project pending a resolution, which might not come until early 2015.
The proposed project would transport crude from the Canadian oil sands in Alberta to refineries on the US Gulf Coast and should counteract some of the pricing pressures bitumen producers are under.
Supporters have said it would be a boon for job creation and domestic energy production, but opponents have warned that fuel extraction from the oil sands —among the most carbon-intensive methods of energy production— would likely increase should the project be approved.
Let the project go. EU would love the luxury to have a neighbor such as Canada. They don’t, they have Russia. Russia means harassment. Why so? Because almost all Russian oil companies are state owned. Putin is using them as political tools. They are not businesses. USA should be less arrogant towards Canada, and I am not speaking as a Canadian, I am from EU.
Canada is our friend, we should not screw them. If there is another arab oil embargo, we will need every bit of the oil from Canada. This is just stupid, it is obviously in Americas interest and more important than even the strategic oil reserve.
love when articles use the term “would likely” or “Could” as though they mean something completely different would likely does not mean “will” and Could” is ambiguous as “could not”.
Sidenote: California thermal recovered oil has a significantly higher carbon “footprint” than does Canadian crude. Odd (spin) that this fact is continually ignored when condemning oil