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 5 Version 6
Report: Keystone XL pipeline 'won't boost oil sands use' Keystone XL pipeline report sees 'no objections'
(about 14 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.
Crucially, it found the proposed pipeline was unlikely to accelerate the pace of Canadian oil sands development. Environmentalists say the pipeline will lead to increased carbon emissions, contribute to global warming, and risk spills on its route.
But environmentalists say the pipeline would lead to increased carbon emissions, contribute to global warming, and risk spills on its route.
President Barack Obama has yet to decide whether he will permit it.President Barack Obama has yet to decide whether he will permit it.
On Friday, a spokesman said the White House would await further review from other US government agencies and the public. The 1,179-mile (1,897km) pipeline would carry tar sand oil from Alberta in Canada to Nebraska.
"The president has clearly stated that the project will be in the national interest only if it does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution," Matt Lehrich said. The oil would then be transported on existing pipes to refineries in Texas. The southern section of the project was finished last year.
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". The Keystone XL project aims to carry some 830,000 barrels of heavy crude a day from the fields in Alberta.
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 US still needs to approve 875 miles of the route across American land.
Rather, it is described as a technical assessment of the project's environmental impact. On Friday, a spokesman said the White House was still awaiting further review from other government agencies and the public.
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. "The president has clearly stated that the project will be in the national interest only if it does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution," Matt Lehrich said.
It would be built by TransCanada Corp, which first applied for a permit from the US government in 2008. In an environmental impact statement released on Friday, the state department said that approval was "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".
The report does not directly recommend approval of the 875-mile section. Rather, it is described as a technical assessment of the project's environmental impact.
The pipeline 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 debate, with environmental groups saying it would contribute to global warming.
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 opposition Republicans have long supported the initiative, saying it will boost the US economy, create jobs, and reduce North America's dependence on foreign oil.
The pipeline would also threaten leaks and spills along its route through the US, its opponents say. "This report from the Obama administration once again confirms that there is no reason for the White House to continue stalling construction of the Keystone XL pipeline," Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.
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. "So, Mr President, no more stalling- no more excuses. Please pick up that pen you've been talking so much about and make this happen. Americans need these jobs."
The approval process has been mired in Washington politics, with the Republicans aiming to force Mr Obama's hand. Environmental groups condemned the report. The National Resources Defense Council said it was "absolutely not in our national interest" to allow its construction.
"This report from the Obama administration once again confirms that there is no reason for the White House to continue stalling construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline," Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. "So, Mr. President, no more stalling- no more excuses. Please pick up that pen you've been talking so much about and make this happen. Americans need these jobs."
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.
National 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.
A decision is not expected for several months.
Environmental groups condemned the report.
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.
Other US agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, have 90 days to comment before the state department issues its final recommendation to Mr Obama.