This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25987747

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Report: Keystone XL pipeline 'won't boost oil sands use' Report: Keystone XL pipeline 'won't boost oil sands use'
(about 4 hours later)
The US state department has raised no major environmental objections to the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, according to a new report.The US state department has raised no major environmental objections to the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, according to a new report.
The proposed pipeline is unlikely to accelerate the pace of Canadian oil sands development, the report found. Crucially, it found the proposed pipeline was unlikely to accelerate the pace of Canadian oil sands development.
Environmentalists say the project would increase carbon emissions, contribute to global warming, and risk spills along its route. But environmentalists say the pipeline would lead to increased carbon emissions, contribute to global warming, and risk spills on its route.
It is unclear whether President Barack Obama will now back its construction.It is unclear whether President Barack Obama will now back its construction.
In an environmental impact statement released on Friday, the US state department said that approval of the project "is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices".In an environmental impact statement released on Friday, the US state department said that approval of the project "is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices".
Political debatePolitical debate
The report does not directly recommend approval of the 1,408km (875 mile) pipeline, which would carry oil from the western Canadian tar sands region to Nebraska.The report does not directly recommend approval of the 1,408km (875 mile) pipeline, which would carry oil from the western Canadian tar sands region to Nebraska.
Rather, it is described as a technical assessment of the project's environmental impact.Rather, it is described as a technical assessment of the project's environmental impact.
If it is approved by the White House and permitted for construction, it would connect to already-built US pipelines to transport more than 830,000 barrels of crude oil daily to Texas refineries.If it is approved by the White House and permitted for construction, it would connect to already-built US pipelines to transport more than 830,000 barrels of crude oil daily to Texas refineries.
It would be built by TransCanada Corp, which first applied for a permit from the US government in 2008.It would be built by TransCanada Corp, which first applied for a permit from the US government in 2008.
TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling said on Friday he was "very pleased" with the report's findings.TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling said on Friday he was "very pleased" with the report's findings.
The project, estimated at $7bn (£4.26bn), has become a source of significant political debate, with environmental advocacy groups saying it would contribute to global warming and pleading with Mr Obama to block it.The project, estimated at $7bn (£4.26bn), has become a source of significant political debate, with environmental advocacy groups saying it would contribute to global warming and pleading with Mr Obama to block it.
Environmental groups say oil extracted from tar sands produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude oil and must be more extensively refined to be turned into fuel.Environmental groups say oil extracted from tar sands produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude oil and must be more extensively refined to be turned into fuel.
The pipeline would also threaten leaks and spills along its route through the US, its opponents say.The pipeline would also threaten leaks and spills along its route through the US, its opponents say.
Meanwhile, the opposition Republicans have long supported the initiative, saying it would boost the US economy, create jobs, and reduce North America's dependence on foreign oil.Meanwhile, the opposition Republicans have long supported the initiative, saying it would boost the US economy, create jobs, and reduce North America's dependence on foreign oil.
The approval process has been mired in Washington politics, with the Republicans aiming to force Mr Obama's hand.The approval process has been mired in Washington politics, with the Republicans aiming to force Mr Obama's hand.
The White House stalled the project in 2011 amid concerns it would damage the environment along the route, and Mr Obama has yet to endorse it.The White House stalled the project in 2011 amid concerns it would damage the environment along the route, and Mr Obama has yet to endorse it.
The US state department approval is required for the initiative as the pipeline crosses the US border.The US state department approval is required for the initiative as the pipeline crosses the US border.
National interestNational interest
Now, other US agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency have 90 days to comment before the state department issues its final recommendation to Mr Obama.Now, other US agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency have 90 days to comment before the state department issues its final recommendation to Mr Obama.
A decision is not expected for several months.A decision is not expected for several months.
Environmental groups condemned the report.Environmental groups condemned the report.
The National Resources Defense Council said it was "absolutely not in our national interest" to allow its construction.The National Resources Defense Council said it was "absolutely not in our national interest" to allow its construction.
"Piping the dirtiest oil on the planet through the heart of America would endanger our farms, our communities, our fresh water and our climate," the council's international programme director, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, said."Piping the dirtiest oil on the planet through the heart of America would endanger our farms, our communities, our fresh water and our climate," the council's international programme director, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, said.