State Department Says It Doesn’t Know Keystone XL Pipeline’s Exact Route

Photo: Shannon Ramos/Flickr

Yet the latest example of the absurdity surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline: It seems that the US State Department doesn’t even know the exact route the pipeline would take—and, somewhat amazingly, project developer TransCanada was never required to submit the exact GIS data to show it. 

This surprising bit of news comes via a FOIA request filed by Thomas Bachand for his Keystone Mapping Project. Desmogblog has a breakdown, but basically, when Bachand contacted the State Department, he received this reply (emphasis is mine):

Based on the subject matter of your request, we contacted the offices most likely to have responsive records: the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; and the Bureau of Energy, Economics and Business. We were informed by employees familiar with the records and organization of those offices that the Department does not have copies of records responsive to your request because the Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone pipeline project was created by Cardno ENTRIX under a contract financed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP, and not the U.S. government. Neither Cardno ENTRIX nor TransCanada ever submitted GIS information to the Department of State, nor was either corporation required to do so. The information that you request, if it exists, is therefore neither physically nor constructively under the control of the Department of State and we are therefore unable to comply with your FOIA request.

A map that TransCanada provides for Keystone XL’s proposed route.

Given that the impact statement was not completed by the State Department itself, but rather by a contractor of the project developer, I suppose isn’t that surprising that the State Department doesn’t have the plans. Nor, in today’s topsy-turvy security-obsessed political climate, is it that surprising that TransCanada would claim–rather feebly, I must say–that it cannot release the route data on grounds of national security—even though, as Bachand points out, several federal regulatory agencies regard pipeline’s route as public info.

Even if it’s common practice to farm out this sort of report to a contractor, it doesn’t make any easier to stomach this situation, given the controversy surrounding the proposed pipeline. At a minimum the State Department’s reply looks like a lack of concern over potential conflict of interest. You would think that for something of such self-proclaimed national importance you’d want a review that was absolutely beyond reproach, without even a whiff of potential conflict of interest or lack of due diligence. 

At this point I could see President Obama going either way on approving Keystone XL. Despite rhetoric in his recent climate speech that hinted that it might be rejected, there’s just too much wiggle room in his statements about the project increasing carbon emissions and too much room for argument that cheap Canadian oil is, in fact, a national interest–even if only viewed from a highly constrained perspective that entirely ignores environmental concerns. 

If Obama does approve Keystone XL it would assure his climate policy goes down in history as dismal—too little, too late, and, even within the genuine confines of current US domestic politics, far too unambitious.