Reply With Quote
13 Oil Spills in the last 30 Days
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/201...20pxhuffpo.jpg
Arkansas TV stations pull ad criticizing Exxon after legal threats
A satirical ad criticizing Exxon Mobil that was set to air this week on Arkansas TV stations was pulled at the last minute after the company threatened legal action.
The 30-second, crowd-funded ad, led "Exxon Hates Your Children," is part of a campaign organized by three groups targeting the $10 billion per year U.S. taxpayers spend to subsidize Exxon and other fossil-fuel industry giants. Oil Change International, The Other 98%, and Environmental Action accuse the company of acting like a bully.
"Instead of engaging their critics appropriately, Exxon uses its billions to hire high-priced lawyers to make scary-sounding but unsupported legal claims to suppress criticism," said David Turnbull of Oil Change International. "It's a window into how they have preserved billions in taxpayer handouts for their industry for so many years."
http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/...l-threats.html
13 Oil Spills in the last 30 Days
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/201...20pxhuffpo.jpg
Is Dilbit Oil? Congress and the IRS Say No
The oil industry has often said that dilbit, a heavy crude oil from Canada's tar sands, isn't much different from conventional crude oil. But when it comes to paying into a federal fund used to clean up oil spills, it's different enough to deserve a sizeable tax break.
Dilbit is exempt from the tax, because the 1980 legislation that created the tax states that "the term crude oil does not include synthetic petroleum, e.g., shale oil, liquids from coal, tar sands, or biomass..."
The Internal Revenue Service cited that 1980 text in a 2011 memo that confirmed the exemption for at least one company.
The tax helps support the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, whose primary funding comes from an 8-cent-per-barrel excise tax on domestically produced and imported crude oil and on imported refined products such as gasoline.
Money from the fund is helping to clean up the 2010 oil spill in Michigan, where a ruptured pipeline spewed more than 1 million barrels of diluted bitumen, or dilbit, into the Kalamazoo River. Unlike conventional crude oil, which floats on water, much of the dilbit sank into the river. Removing it has been so difficult that cleanup crews are still struggling to mop it up, making the Michigan disaster the most expensive oil pipeline spill in U.S. history.
The accident has cost $809 million so far, with $765 million paid by Enbridge, Inc.—the Canadian company whose pipeline ruptured—and its insurance company. The remaining $44 million is coming from the fund.
The nation's refineries pay the excise tax for imported crude oil, and these fees are considered standard practice in industry, said Esa Ramasamy, an editorial director at Platts, a global energy, petrochemicals and metals information provider. "It is accepted as part of the daily business routine. It's like an insurance policy ... [for] anything that can harm the environment."
Ramasamy said the 1980 definition of crude oil dates back to a time when it wasn't financially feasible to produce tar sands oil on a large scale. The first sizeable shipments of dilbit into the U.S. didn't occur until 1999.
Tar sands production is now "a huge industry," he said, and Congress didn't expect that when the tax was created.
The U.S. currently imports more than 1.2 million barrels of Canadian dilbit and synthetic crude (another kind of tar sands oil) per day. The tax exemption is worth at least $35 million a year, and that figure will grow as the industry seeks to buildthousands of miles of new pipelines—including the much-debated Keystone XL—to handle increased imports.
Watchdog and environmental groups say it makes no sense to exempt tar sands oil from a tax that is used to clean up tar sands spills.
"The key issue is, is tar sands crude oil?...When it comes to taxes, [the industry] get[s] to make the argument that tar sands isn't crude oil," said Anthony Swift, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who has spent years advocating for better pipeline safety. "But when it comes to the safety of moving tar sands in pipelines, they say it's just like crude oil."
Swift and other watchdogs say the exemption is particularly galling because dilbit is more corrosive to pipelines than conventional crude—something that the industry disputes.
"The question is why we should continue this exemption given that it's clear tar sands oil is more likely to spill because it's more corrosive...and more and more tar sands is coming into the U.S.," said Lorne Stockman, research director at Oil Change International, an advocacy group that supports clean energy.
The National Academy of Sciences has launched a study on dilbit and pipeline corrosion, but it will be limited to a review of the existing literature and won't involve any new research.
Ramasamy, the Platts oil expert, said tar sands imports might be subject to some other kind of environmental tax.
"Oil sands tend to be more acidic and corrosive than conventional crude," he said. "It takes a special kind of refinery to process them, because of the toxicity of [the] crudes. So I find it hard to believe there is no environmental tax on those crudes."
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20...idge?page=show
Short answer: change the law so imported dilbit is excise taxed at 8% like imported "oil".
Best Answer: block importation of dilbit completely. BigOil makes all private gains, while Human-Americans take all the risks.
"Appearing at the home of an outspoken critic of the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama on Wednesday night told a group of high-dollar donors that the politics of the environment "are tough."
Mr. Obama appears to be leaning toward the approval of the pipeline, although he did not specifically mention it to the donors. But he acknowledged that it is hard to sell aggressive environmental action — like reducing pollution from power plants — to Americans who are still struggling in a difficult economy to pay bills, buy gas and save for retirement."*
Will Obama even try to stop the environmentally devastating Keystone XL? Meeting with donors who oppose the Keystone pipeline, he pretty mush surmised that caring for the environment is "inconvenient," but we should definitely vote for more Democrats to be in office. Why? Whose interests does that protect? Does Obama do everything corporations tell him to do? Cenk Uygur breaks down the piping hot BS.
TYT: Obama & Keystone XL: A Politically Inconvenient Truth
A new report shows that Keystone XL would carry 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, equal to 51 coal plants worth of carbon.
Another way to put it: that's as much CO2 as 37.7 million cars to the road -- more cars than are currently driving in California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, New York and Florida combined.
But the State Department's initial report on the pipeline says it would have negligible climate impacts.
http://act.350.org/letter/kxl-sprint...1rdqc&rd=1&t=1
Slide show how Canada is pillaging and raping pristine wilderness
http://www.energy-reality.org/action...m_medium=email
BigNastyOil shills and dupes: NIMBY, so I don't care
Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Exacerbates Climate Change
The Keystone XL Pipeline would move enough tar sands oil to result in another 181 million metric tons of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere yearly. A new report prepared by environmental group Oil Change International (OCI) analyzes what the climate change impacts of the proposed pipeline might be.
Consultants hired by the U.S. State Department determined that completing the Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport tar sands from Canada to Texas would have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions, largely because they assumed that the tar sands oil would flow regardless. But the new report challenges that assertion, noting that the tar sands are stranded in Alberta and face few good pipeline prospects, either to Canada's west coast or via reversing the flow of existing pipelines to North America's east coast. "Other options like rail or truck are not feasible for the transportation of large quan ies," said Elizabeth Shope, anti–tar sands advocate with environmental group the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a conference call with reporters, noting that such alternative transportation more than triples the cost of moving tar sands oil. "It's increasingly clear that without Keystone XL, the tar sands will not be able to expand at such a reckless pace."
If Keystone XL is built, and an additional 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil flows south each day, the climate change impacts will be "unacceptable," said former NASA climatologist James Hansen on the conference call. "Yet, governments are not only allowing the development of any fossil fuel that can be found, but particularly unconventional oil like tar sands and shale oil." Based on an estimate of 598 kilograms of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil, Keystone's more than 300 million barrels a year would result in more pollution than that emitted by 37.7 million passenger cars.
http://news.yahoo.com/keystone-xl-oi...103000967.html
WC retort: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNrqc6yvTU
Grade Inflation: GOP Still Pushing False Keystone Job Numbers
During his opening statement on Tuesday’s Subcommittee hearing, Representative Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said:
At this point we are all familiar with the benefits of this project that would bring more Canadian oil to Midwestern and Gulf Coast refineries. The estimated 20,000 direct and 100,000 indirect jobs alone would likely make it a more successful jobs program than any project in the $800 billion dollar stimulus package or any other job creating effort the president currently has in the works.
In reality, Keystone would create 3,900 temporary jobs and only 35 permanent, while providing “negligible socioeconomic impacts,” according to a report by the State Department. While Republicans may try to blame the administration for the less than ideal jobs numbers, the report was actually written by a private consulting firm with links to the pipeline’s owner, TransCanada Corp., as well as Exxon Mobil, BP and the Koch brothers.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...e-job-numbers/
EPA releases harsh review of Keystone XL environmental report
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a sharply critical assessment of the State Department’s recent environmental impact review of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, certain to complicate efforts to win approval for the $7-billion project.
In a letter to top State Department officials overseeing the permit process for the pipeline, the EPA lays out detailed objections regarding greenhouse gas emissions related to the project, pipeline safety and alternative routes. Based on its analysis, the EPA said it had “Environmental Objections” to the State Department’s environmental assessment due to “insufficient information. ”
A State Department spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. The State Department assessment concluded that Keystone XL would have a minimal impact on the environment. But the EPA analysis appears to challenge that conclusion.
The EPA’s assessment came during the public comment period for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that the State Department issued last month. The study is supposed to be an exhaustive look at the effect of the proposed pipeline on air, water, endangered species, communities and the economy.
Other federal agencies have the right to comment on the assessment, but the EPA’s is the one most anxiously awaited because a negative analysis by the regulator could raise barriers to the project’s approval.
President Obama said in late 2011 that he would decide the pipeline’s fate, and a final decision is expected by summer.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/17.../p2p-75579247/
From a 350.org newsletter
"Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013
Friends,
Great news: sometime mid-morning yesterday we reached our goal, when the millionth public comment was submitted to the State Department opposing the Keystone XL pipeline. That's a lot.
In fact, at about the same hour the President put out an Earth Day proclamation saying "nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change." Now we have a chance to see if he means it!
The 350 team put together this graphic to celebrate the occasion and send a message to the President -- can you share it around with your social networks?
Click here to share on Facebook
If you're not on Facebook, consider forwarding this email to friends and family to share the good news.
Not long after we crossed the 1 million threshold, the EPA put out a statement that called the State Department's first analysis of the pipline 'insufficient,' pointing out that they got the numbers wrong on the risk of oil spills and the climate impact of the pipeline. That's a sure sign that the relentless pressure we're putting on is having an impact.
All these things came the day after many of us gathered in over 1000(!) living rooms, theaters and auditoriums across the globe to watch the Do the Math Movie, which covered the growth of our movement over the past year or two.
As impressive as all that is, I'm more excited for what comes next. The fossil fuel resistance is growing, and when the heat rises this summer, we're going to show how powerful we've become.
Many thanks for all you've done, and much more soon,
Bill"
Is JK telegraphing a decision against XL?
Kerry Says ‘The Science Is Screaming At All Of Us And Demands Action’. Will He Forsake The Climate For 35 Jobs?
Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a strong Earth Day message on climate change, calling it a “clear and present danger.”
He also repeated the line from his powerful March remarks on climate change that “the science is screaming” at us to act. But that raises the question — are Kerry and his boss really listening?
The White House started sending signals last month “the president is inclined to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.” And, for what it’s worth, David Gordon, State’s director of policy planning when Condoleezza Rice was Secretary, just told a Canadian newspaper “I would say the chances are about four-to-one” Obama approves the tar sands pipeline.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...e-for-35-jobs/
I'm pessimistic. Barry has repeatedly proved himself to a conventional political asshole (Harvard law grad, no surprise), not the bomb-throwing revolutionary the country needs to change direction and resisit the 1% and corporatocracy.
Coming Down The Pipeline
esterday, the 45-day "public comment" period on our old friend, the Keystone XL pipeline, ended, with over 800,000 comments weighing in on the elongated death-funnel designed to transport the world's dirtiest fossil-fuel from the ecological moonscape they've created in Alberta to refineries on the Gulf coast in Texas, and thence to the world, or what's left of it after we burn a good piece of it down. There is starting to be a stirring in the elite press that the White House may be preparing to quietly endorse this bag job. (My man Chuck Todd opined yesterday that he expects the administration to approve the completion of the pipeline some Friday afternoon, maybe at the beginning of the Memorial Day weekend.) The State Department's only public hearing on the project - conducted a week ago in Nebraska - turned out to be something of a pep rally for pipeline opponents.
It really is remarkable at this point how completely tattered the case for building the pipeline actually is. The jobs claims have been debunked time and again as inflated. The public-safety promises from TransCanada, the corporation seeking to completely the pipeline, have collapsed as badly as that pipeline in Arkansas did. And, in a country that prizes bipartisanship as much as this one allegedly does, the coalition against the pipeline is as diverse as could ever be expected - ranchers and tree-huggers, scientists and Native American activists. On the other side is money and power, and a simple brute desire not to be frustrated by the lines of ranchers, tree-huggers, scientists, and Native American activists. That's the whole fight now. One side wants what it wants because it wants it. Period. The president has to decide where he's lining up.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...ipeline-042313
McKibben claims the "over 800k" is over 1M
Exxon Earns $9.5 Billion Q1 Profit One Month After Arkansas Oil Spill That It Pays No Taxes To Help Clean Up
One month after dumping 500,000 gallons of tar sands crude oil from a ruptured pipeline in Arkansas, the most valuable and profitable corporation in the world ExxonMobil announced higher first quarter profits. Exxon earned $9.5 billion in the first quarter, compared to $9.45 billion last year, and Exxon’s total oil and natural gas production declined 3.5 percent.
Meanwhile, Exxon is exempt from paying taxes toward the oil spill liability fund that helps clean up spills like in Arkansas, where wildlife have been killed and covered by oil. The 1980 law exemption applies to diluted bitumen so companies escape paying the 8-cents-per-barrel fee to the fund that helps clean up hundreds of spills each year. At the federal level, Exxon’s tax rate comes to only 13 percent.
Here is how else Exxon spends its dollars, and what it receives in return:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...r-profit-2013/
– Exxon spent $12,970,000 on lobbying in 2012 to protect low tax rates and block pollution controls and safeguards for public health. In the first three months of 2013, Exxon spent $4.84 million lobbying.
– The company sent $3.6 million in total political contributions to PACs, candidates, and outside groups for the 2012 election cycle, and 89 percent of contributions went to Republicans. It has spent over $76,000 for the 2014 cycle so far.
– Exxon receives an estimated $600 million in annual federal tax breaks. In 2011, Exxon paid just 13 percent in taxes. The company paid no federal income tax in 2009, despite $45.2 billion record profits.
– In the first quarter, Exxon bought back $5.6 billion of its stock, or 59 percent of its profit, which enriches the largest shareholders and executives of the company.
– This year, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received a 15 percent raise to a $40.3 million salary.
Living in autoritarian, en led BigOil's
Houston's Most Polluted Neighborhood Draws the Line at Alberta Tar Sands
If the Keystone XL pipeline is approved, 90 percent of the tar sands crude that flows through it will be processed near an embattled Houston neighborhood called Manchester. Residents are joining up to demand a healthier future.
While it’s OK to visit the playground, she says, it’s not OK to bring her camera. On several occasions, security guards from the Valero refinery next door have appeared and ask her to leave, claiming that taking pictures in the park was “illegal.” They’ve even brought in Houston police as reinforcements. Valero, one of the major oil companies operating in this industrial part of Houston, keeps its security busy: Nieto says that they have harassed do entary filmmakers and journalists. And when college students participating in an “alternative spring break” program came to the park to talk to her about the neighborhood’s problems, a guard drove up in an unmarked vehicle and took video of the meeting on his cellphone.“I'm not afraid of the attention I'm getting from these people,” Nieto says, “because we want people to know that we're aware.”
http://truth-out.org/news/item/16035...erta-tar-sands
How about showing us the law that allows that.
I simply don't believe it, especially "ThuthOut."
http://rt.com/usa/exxon-study-cancer-spill-596/While many questions remain following ExxonMobil’s March 29 tar sands oil spill in Mayflower, Arkansas, a new independent study has revealed the existence of high levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the area.
The new research, co-published by the Faulkner County Citizens Advisory Group and Global Community Monitor, indicates that the 500,000 gallons of heavy bitumen oil released by a gash in ExxonMobil’s aging Pegasus pipeline has released hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as defined by the 1990 US Clean Air Act.
According to a press release in conjunction with the new study, the total of 30 toxic chemicals include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, n-hexane and xylenes. Consequences of exposure to these chemicals include damage to the human nervous system, muscular weakness and blurred vision, while breathing ethylbenzene and benzene in particular can cause cancer and reproductive issues.
According to April Lane of the Faulkner County Citizens Advisory Group, health reports collected from residents in the four weeks following the spill show they are demonstrating symptoms consistent with exposure to hazardous chemicals and independent air testing.
Elected officials in rural Nebraska pass anti-Keystone pipeline resolution
Source: Omaha World Herald
By Joe Duggan
FULL story at link.LINCOLN — Elected officials in a rural Nebraska county along the path of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline passed a resolution Tuesday opposing the highly controversial project, a leading opposition group reported.
Jane Kleeb, director of Bold Nebraska, said the Holt County Board of Supervisors passed the resolution at a meeting in O’Neill. She called it the first anti-pipeline resolution passed by an elected body in the state, although at least one pro-pipeline position has been adopted in a different county.
An assistant in the Holt County Clerk’s office said Tuesday the board was still meeting so she could not confirm the wording of any motions or resolutions discussed or voted upon.
Shawn Howard, a spokesman for the company seeking to build the Keystone XL, said he was unaware of any such resolution.
Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/2013043...ine-resolution
They always said that Obama would show his true colors once he wasn't bound by the need to run for re-election anymore.
Turns out his true colors are those of a measured pragmatist. All his leftist rhetoric ever was was lip service to draw campaign contributions from the socialist fringe.
What delicious schadenfreude there is now from watching the impotent rage of the hard left.
Looks to me like his true colors are cozying up the the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama urged by Democrat backers to reject pipeline
The biggest backers of the Democratic causes urged Barack Obama on Friday to take historic action on climate change by rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline.
In a letter seen by the Guardian, 150 high-profile figures, who between them raised millions for Obama's two election campaigns, urged the president to use the next four years to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. "Yours is the last presidency in which it is possible for America to choose a responsible path forward for itself, before climate disruption becomes unmanageably dangerous," the letter said.
Opponents of the pipeline fear the project seems headed for approval, despite Obama's promises to act on climate change in his second term. Obama told a group at a west coast fundraiser last month: "the politics of this are tough."
The letter contends that the Keystone XL project would be the most important environmental decision of Obama's presidency.
Opponents of the pipeline say it will open up the vast store of carbon in the Alberta tar sands. The pipeline could pump up to 830,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude to refineries on the Texas coast.
"This decision more than any other will signal your direction, your commitment, your resolve," the letter said. "It is the biggest, most explicit statement you will make in this historic moment, the moment when America turns from denial to solutions – or fails to."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...lock:Position7
My bet? He approves XL, in spite of all the hype about US becoming again a leading producer to its own oil.
secret muslim!!!!1!! al qaeda is behind the global warming hoax!!!!1! damn these engineerses thinking they know more than me!!!
Just like the Gulf is still ed, the Arkansas oil spill continues to
Arkansas Residents Sick From Exxon Oil Spill Are on Their Own
The Arkansas Department of Health says people with dizziness, nausea and headaches have the option to leave, and it is their personal choice.
"Overall, air emissions in the community continue to be below levels likely to cause health effects for the general population," Arkansas regulators wrote on a state-operated website that tracks Mayflower's air monitoring data.
Despite these reassurances, residents have suffered headaches, nausea and vomiting—classic symptoms of short-term exposure to the chemicals found in crude oil.
"Figuring out how to protect people after a disaster like this is very hard," said Aaron Bernstein, a public health expert and associate director of Harvard's Center for Health and the Global Environment. "People living near the spill early on could definitely have gotten sick" from the concentrations present in the air.
Much of the attention is focused on airborne levels of benzene, a known carcinogen that is toxic at very low doses. But crude oil also contains hundreds of other chemicals, and for some of these compounds, little is known about their effects on human health.
Given the gaps in scientific research, public health experts say it's hard to know what levels of exposure are safe.
The people with acute symptoms are going through something that is "real and really debilitating," said Wilma Subra, an environmental consultant who has spent decades working with communities hit by chemical accidents. Subra is the recipient of a MacArthur "genius" grant and works extensively with people impacted by the BP Gulf spill.
Subra said she's concerned that only 22 families were evacuated. "They focused on the 22 homes ... but all around there's residential homes, churches, schools, and those people were just ignored."
Three days after the spill, indoor air monitoring showed that the air inside the elementary school—which lies about half a mile from the rupture site—was safe to breathe. But eight students were sent home after falling sick from headaches and vomiting.
Shelia Harrell, who lives two blocks from where the crude oil bubbled out of the ground, said that although residents on the other side of the subdivision were evacuated, she received no guidance about whether she should leave her home as a precaution.
So Harrell and her husband stayed put, enduring several nights of burning, acrid odors. Now she's worried about what exactly she was exposed to during that time.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20...-are-their-own
Grayson slapping Boner for the Repugs' unCons utional H.R.3 "Northern Route Approval Act"
http://graysonforcongress.com/sites/...ker5-21-13.pdf
Exposed: Canadian Oil and Gas Workers, Many Unions, Now Oppose Keystone XL Pipeline
Amidst the ongoing jobs-vs-environment debate, however, one voice is noticeably absent: the bitumen workers in Canada who are largely against long-term tar sands extraction and the building of the pipeline.
“We're diametrically opposed to the construction of it,” said David Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), which represents 35,000 Canadian oil and gas workers, including thousands laboring in the country's tar sands. “The Keystone XL is not good for the economy, it's not good for the environment, it violates all kinds of First Nations rights.”
Coles says the union also opposes “the unfettered expansion” of tar sands extraction, saying “it's not in the best interest of Canada and it's not in the best interest of our members.” Coles and members of his staff were arrested in 2011 during a series of sit-ins in front of the White House to protest the pipeline. He says the CEP planned to send a delegation to subsequent rallies opposing the project, but called off plans after U.S. construction unions threatened to picket them.
It also claims the pipeline will establish “20,000 immediate private sector jobs that do not rely on any government funding.”
The alleged 20,000 figure was first pushed by TransCanada, the company slated to build the pipeline should President Obama approve it. The company boldly insists the XL will spur another 119,000 auxiliary jobs.
- a comprehensive study by Cornell Global Labor Ins ute casts severe doubt on these numbers. Researchers point out that half of the steal used for the pipeline will be manufactured abroad, most of the jobs that the pipeline creates will be temporary, and 85% to 90% of those jobs will go to workers from outside the U.S. states which the pipeline passes through.
The State Department's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL, which was released earlier this year, has been roundly condemned for relying on consultants with direct ties to TransCanada. Still, the study that was designed to help President Obama make up his mind found that the pipeline would create only 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs. Based on testimony that backers of the pipeline delivered to Canada's National Energy Board, Coles even estimated the number of jobs created could be as low as seven.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/16700...ne-xl-pipeline
British Columbia Rejects Tar Sands Pipeline
Efforts to expand production from the Alberta tar sands suffered a significant setback on Friday when the provincial government of British Columbia rejected a pipeline project because of environmental shortcomings.
In a strongly worded statement, the government of the province said it was not satisfied with the pipeline company's oil spill response plans.
The rejection of the pipeline – which was to have given Alberta an outlet to Pacific coast ports and markets in China – further raises the stakes on another controversial tar sands pipeline, Keystone XL.
Barack Obama is still weighing a decision on that pipeline, intended to pump tar sands crude to the Texas gulf coast.
British Columbia, in its official submission to a pipeline review panel, said the company had failed to demonstrate an adequate clean-up plan for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. It set five new conditions for the project's approval.
"Northern Gateway has presented little evidence about how it will respond in the event of a spill," Christopher Jones, a lawyer representing the province, said in a statement to the federal government panel reviewing the project.
"It is not clear from the evidence that Northern Gateway will in fact be able to respond effectively to spills either from the pipeline itself, or from tankers transporting diluted bitumen," Jones added.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...eline-enbridge
but Barry's gonna get down on his knees and suck off Rex Tillerson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
