This was sent to me as a comment to one of my postings. My concern is that as a comment it would not be seen by very many folks, so here is the full comment, more easily found, and more easily read.
A huge thank you to Andrew Ottoson for commenting. This is a very nice response. If Governor Schweitzer supports the pipeline, I wonder if he has addressed Representative Henry Waxman's concerns, if he opposes Waxman's stance, or if he supports Waxman's position. I don't know, but that's where the rubber meets the road. My impression is that Henry Waxman wants the project stopped. Period. It's my impression that the governors of Montana and North Dakota want what is best for their states as long as it is also in the best interests of the nation.
The original story that I referenced certainly suggested that Governor Schweitzer would oppose the pipeline if he did not get the concessions he wanted. I think the pipeline is important enough to be completed even if "we" don't get what we want. In fact, there are a lot of other pipeline companies in North Dakota employing lots of folks and takeaway capacity seems to be fine for the foreseeable future. The Keystone XL isn't going to make or break the Bakken and whether it taps into the Bakken pipelines should not be a litmus test for approving/disapproving an otherwise important project.
Andrew Ottoson's comment:
I think Governor Schweitzer's concerns have been addressed. More info:
"...Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and oil industry leaders in the two states met with TransCanada officials in March to press the company into allowing U.S. crude in the pipeline."
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_674e31be-7d51-11df-bc3b-001cc4c03286.html
“We continue to support the project,” Sarah Elliott, spokesperson for Gov. Brian Schweitzer, said on Tuesday. “It is another step toward better energy security and allows Montana oil another avenue to market.”
Schweitzer and North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven met during March in Billings with about 50 oil producers to discuss the possibility of an “on-ramp” for the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project of TransCanada.
“Montana and North Dakota are the only two states to have increased oil production over the last several years,” Schweitzer said at that time. “The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would provide infrastructure that could help maintain and even increase our level of production while bringing hundreds of new energy jobs and over $1 billion in investment to Montana.”
http://www.sidneyherald.com/articles/2010/07/10/news/doc4c34d12bdf6d9212039217.txt
Also, I don't know if Schweitzer has ever opposed KXL, just that he acknowledged pipelines pose certain environmental risks; sorry if my post is unclear on this. My post reflects that Schweitzer's words coincided with a moment when 50 members of the House of Representatives and Podesta were in the news for injecting environmental concerns into the public discourse on tar sands development.
Anyway, thanks for linking, and you may be interested in two more recent posts of mine on KXL:
http://andrewottoson.com/2010/06/perspectives-on-pipeline-safety/
http://andrewottoson.com/2010/07/list-keystone-xl-news-i-missed-while-out-of-town/
No comments:
Post a Comment