Even the House has deep divisions.
Oil & Gas Journal reporting.
A hearing on US Rep. Lee Terry’s (R-Neb.) bill to congressionally
authorize construction of the final portion of the proposed Keystone XL
crude oil pipeline revealed how wide the gap has grown between the
viewpoints of the project’s proponents and opponents.
Proponents reiterated that US failure to authorize construction would
force Alberta oil sands producers to pursue other export routes.
Opponents maintained that oil sands development economics have grown so
expensive that the permit’s denial would significantly slow down—and
possibly even halt—further oil sands development there.
A senior US House Energy and Commerce Committee member also warned
that congressional approval of HR 3 could result in legal challenges
that would delay the project’s construction longer than letting the US
Department of State’s review of Keystone XL’s revised application
proceed.
“This bill would circumvent the established process and open the
projects to a plethora of lawsuits,” warned US Rep. John D. Dingell
(D-Mich.). “Instead of legislative approval where it’s not needed, this
committee should be focusing on steps to make certain this project moves
forward without creating more opportunities for litigation.”
Terry said his bill is definitely necessary. “Not until Congress
became involved 2 years ago did the administration even begin to move on
this,” he said in his opening remarks at the Apr. 10 hearing by the
committee’s Energy and Power Subcommittee. “Here we are, April 2013,
still mired in the process. My bill would put an end to that.”
I'm starting to lose the bubble on this. Too many chefs getting into the soup. Some argue that the bill is not even necessary; just let the SecState / Presidential process run its course.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.