Proposed pipeline expansion - a threat to Native communities

[admin]

August 18, 2011

Keystone XL Tar Sands Oil Pipeline

"Poses Grave Dangers" to Tribal Nations

National Congress of American Indians opposes Keystone XL Tar Sands Oil Pipeline; calls for energy demand to be met by responsible energy development

WASHINGTON, DC - In anticipation of a forthcoming Environmental Impact Statement by U.S. State Department on the proposed Keystone XL Oil Pipeline, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) issued a statement today saying the proposed pipeline expansion could severely impact Native American communities and "poses grave dangers if it is constructed." The statement released by NCAI, the nation's oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, reaffirms the position of its members and expresses solidarity with Canadian First Nations concerned about the project.

"The Keystone XL pipeline . . . would threaten, among other things, water aquifers, water ways, cultural sites, agricultural lands, animal life, public drinking water sources and other resources vital to the peoples of the region in which the pipeline is proposed to be constructed," reads an NCAI resolution (PDF) passed at the organization's most recent gathering of members this past June.

The organization is calling for domestic energy demands to be met by developing energy resources responsibly in order to protect vital natural resources, such as vast water reserves.

"Homeland and economic security starts with energy security, but Indian Country wants it to be done right; not at the expense of the health of our communities and resources, both tribal and non-tribal, " said Jefferson Keel, President of NCAI, citing the importance of looking to clean domestic energy as a more reliable solution. "During challenging economic times in our country and in our tribal nations, domestic energy when developed responsibly can create jobs while ensuring that our people and natural resources remain safe and plentiful."

The proposed expansion of the pipeline would cross through northern Alberta, Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Oklahoma with potential devastating impacts on communities in surrounding areas and states. A recent study by a University of Nebraska hydrologist outlines a worst case spill scenario, estimating that Keystone XL could spill as much as 7.9 million gallons in Nebraska's Sandhills, polluting 5 billion gallons of groundwater with benzene, contaminating water used for agriculture and drinking drawn from the Ogallala Aquifer, and more than 6.9 million gallons of tar sands crude at the Yellowstone River crossing. That estimate far exceeds the Exxon Mobil's July 1, 2011 spill of 42,000 gallons near the Apsáalooke (Crow) Nation territory in south-central Montana, contaminating 240 miles of the Yellowstone River.

Responsible alternatives to importing energy resources from outside the United States are abundant, and specifically on tribal lands. In addition to plentiful traditional energy options on tribal lands, the National Renewable Energy Lab's (NREL) estimates that the wind potential in Indian Country could provide 32 percent of U.S. annual electric generation, where as solar energy potential in Indian Country equals twice the total amount of electricity the U.S. generates per year.

The U.S. State Department is expected to issue the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the pipeline in mid-August. Following the issuance of the FEIS, the State Department will undergo a 90-day process to determine whether the pipeline serves the national interest. The National Interest Determination is made by the U.S. State Department and is the final step in the permitting process.
- - -

The National Congress of American Indians
Resolution #MKE-11-030
TITLE: Opposition to Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and Urging the U.S. to Reduce Reliance on Oil from Tar Sands and Instead, to Work towards Cleaner, Sustainable Energy Solutions

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the following resolution; and

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and

WHEREAS, a major oil transmission pipeline is planned to extend from northern Alberta, Canada, from areas that have sand mixed with tar and oil, called “tar sands,” to refineries in the United States; and

WHEREAS, the route of the pipeline, called Keystone XL because it is the second oil transmission pipeline to be constructed by the same company that built the first Keystone pipeline, crosses through Indian country in northern Alberta, Saskatchewan, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, near and potentially over, many culturally significant areas for Tribal Nations within those provinces and states; and

WHEREAS, based on the relatively poor environmental record of the first Keystone pipeline, which includes numerous spills, U.S. regulators shut the pipeline down in late May, 2011, and, therefore, based on the record of the first Keystone pipeline, and other factors, it is probable that further environmental disasters will occur in Indian country if the new pipeline is allowed to be constructed; and

WHEREAS, the First Nations of Canada, representing the vast majority of First Nations impacted by “tar sands” development, have unanimously passed resolutions supporting a moratorium on new “tar sands” development and expansion until a “cumulative effects management system” is in place, and are also in opposition to the pipeline; and

WHEREAS, many U.S. Tribal Nations are also in opposition to the Keystone XL
pipeline because it would threaten, among other things, water aquifers, water ways, cultural sites, agricultural lands, animal life, public drinking water sources and other resources vital to the peoples of the region in which the pipeline is proposed to be constructed; and

WHEREAS, Indian tribes including the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians are also in
opposition to the Exxon-Imperial “Heavy Haul” proposal to transport “tar sands” equipment
through the Nez Perce Reservation and across scenic highways, and several Indian tribes have
joined in litigation to stop this proposal; and

WHEREAS, the pipeline is unnecessary as a number of other pipelines are not at full
capacity to carry oil from Canada to refineries in the U.S., and the oil is also not likely to end up on the U.S. market but will be exported to foreign countries; and

WHEREAS, Tribal Nations and First Nations within Indian country near the route of the
proposed pipeline have already stated their opposition to the proposed route of the pipeline, and because of earlier opposition from both Tribes and environmental groups, a supplemental
environmental impact statement has been required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency from the proposed operators of the pipeline, a draft of which is now available for public comment; and

WHEREAS, since the pipeline is designed to cross the U.S.-Canadian border, the United
States Department of State is the lead U.S. agency in evaluating whether the pipeline should be
allowed to be constructed in the U.S.; and

WHEREAS, the First Nations of Canada and Tribal Nations within the U.S. have a long
history of working to ensure protection of their environment, and the Keystone XL pipeline poses grave dangers if it is constructed.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NCAI does hereby oppose the
Keystone XL pipeline and the Exxon-Imperial Heavy Haul proposal and their negative impacts
on cultural sites and the environment in those portions of Indian country over and through which it is proposed to be constructed, and agrees to file comments regarding this opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline with the Secretary of State as soon as possible; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI hereby urges all affected Tribal Nations
to submit comments to the U.S. Department of State regarding the Keystone XL project; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI hereby expresses its solidarity with
Canadian First Nations in their efforts to protect their communities, aboriginal land and treaty
rights, and their request for a moratorium and better management practices on expanded “tar
sands” development and opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the United States is urged to reduce its reliance on
the world’s dirtiest and most environmentally destructive form of oil – the “tar sands” – that
threatens Indian country in both Canada and the United States and the way of life of thousands of citizens of First Nations in Canada and American Indians in the U.S., and requests the U.S.
government to take aggressive measures to work towards sustainable energy solutions that
include clean alternative energy and improving energy efficiency; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.

CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2011 Mid-Year Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at the Frontier Airlines Center in Milwaukee, WI on June 13-16, 2011, with a quorum present.
http://www.ncai.org/fileadmin/resolutio ... 11-030.pdf

[admin]

This is a guest blog post by Danielle Droitsch,
who is a Senior Advisor to NRDC's International Program

August 18, 2011

Today, the nation’s oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), announced their opposition to the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This important announcement adds to the growing chorus of voices across the United States opposed to this pipeline and clearly finds that an additional tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest.

The NCAI resolution firmly states how Keystone XL is not in the national interest:

...the United States is urged to reduce its reliance on the world’s dirtiest and most environmentally destructive form of oil – the ‘tar sands’ – that threatens Indian country in both Canada and the United States and the way of life of thousands of citizens of First Nations in Canada and American Indians in the U.S., and requests the U.S. government to take aggressive measures to work towards sustainable energy solutions that include clean alternative energy and improving energy efficiency…

Why is the National Congress of American Indians concerned? Should Keystone XL rupture, it has the potential to impact many tribes and thousands of their individual members. The resolution says “it is probable that further environmental disasters will occur in Indian country if the new pipeline is allowed to be constructed.” The NCAI may be rightly concerned about the almost 1 million gallons of tar sands that spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan a year ago, the spill of 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River this summer and the more than 30 leaks from TransCanada’s brand new Keystone pipeline in its first year of operation in the US and Canada.

The resolution also expresses solidarity with the Canadian First Nations who have been raising concerns about Keystone XL and tar sands development in the province of Alberta for years. The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations in Canada, representing over 630 First Nations communities and more than 700,000 First Nations spoke of concerns about the impact of tar sands development on affected communities:

"The health impacts of the oil sands are a real concern and have been raised in recent studies. In Canada, we are particularly disturbed by the high rate of cancer in the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and support the call for an independent health study to examine the people there to assess potential health damage from the oil sands." --Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, Assembly of First Nations.

President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should pay heed to the voice of tribal governments. As the NCAI resolution states, there are broader questions about whether Keystone XL is aligned with America’s clean energy future. Shortly, the US State Department will release the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the pipeline. The question will be whether that environmental review was thorough enough. But there will also be a new question: Does Keystone XL serve the national interest? The National Congress of American Indians will very likely say no.

[admin]

Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

October 7th, 2011

Dene National Chief Bill Erasmus and other representatives from the Dene Nation, will hand-deliver The Mother Earth Accord, a solidarity document, to representatives of the U.S. government in Washington today, where Assembly of First Nations Regional Chiefs are attending the Keystone Pipeline hearings.

"Development on First Nation territory must include full consultation with our peoples, as this is our constitutionally protected right based on our relationship with the Crown and under the Treaties," said Dene National Chief and AFN Regional Chief for Northwest Territories Bill Erasmus. He has met with senior officials in the Obama administration together with other First Nation leaders a number of times, regarding First Nation concerns with the project.

"The Keystone pipeline project must be reconsidered in a way that protects First Nation rights and responsibilities," said AFN Alberta Regional Chief George Stanley. "As stewards of the land, it is our responsibility to ensure Mother Earth is protected for our future generations."

Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo expressed his support for First Nations advancing a basic standard of free, prior and informed consent prior to development on First Nation territories. "We support the efforts of Indigenous rights holders, including First Nations and Tribal Governments, impacted by TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline development."

The US government is expected to make a final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline by early November.

BACKGROUND:
viewtopic.php?p=13662#p13662
- - -

Mother Earth Accord

Tribal Government Chairs and Presidents, Traditional Treaty Councils, and US property owners, with First Nation Chiefs of Canada, impacted by TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and tar sands development present at the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Emergency Summit, September 15-16, 2011, on the protection of Mother Earth and Treaty Territories:

Recognizing that TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline would stretch 1,980 miles, from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Nederland, Texas, carrying up to 900,000 barrels per day of tar sands crude oil, which would drive additional tar sands production;

Recognizing the existing resolutions and letters in opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline;

Guided by the principles of traditional indigenous knowledge, spiritual values, and respectful use of the land;

Affirming our responsibility to protect and preserve for our descendants, the inherent sovereign rights of our Indigenous Nations, the rights of property owners, and all inherent human rights;

Affirming our Indigenous view that the Earth is our true mother, our grandmother who gives birth to us and maintains all life;

Recognizing that the tar sands in northern Alberta, Canada is one of the largest remaining deposits of unconventional oil in the world, containing approximately 2 trillion barrels, and there are plans for a massive expansion of development that would ultimately destroy an area larger than the state of Florida;

Recognizing that tar sand development has devastating impacts to Mother Earth and her inhabitants and perpetuates the crippling addiction to oil of the United States and Canada;

Recalling in September 2010, the Assembly of First Nations of Canada called on the United States government to take into account the environmental impacts of tar sands production on First Nations in its energy policy, citing the high rates of cancer in the downstream Fort Chipewyan community, which prominent scientists say are potentially linked to petroleum products;

Recognizing the findings published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that tar sands production releases 13 elements considered priority pollutants under the U.S. Clean Water Act, including lead, mercury, and arsenic into the Athabasca River in northern Alberta, which flows 3,000 miles downstream to the Arctic Ocean;Recognizing that tar sands production produces three times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventional oil and NASA climate scientist James Hansen has said that if the tar sands are fully developed, it will be “essentially game over” for the climate;

Recognizing that Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands development have more than doubled since 1990, which is the main reason Canada is failing to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol;

Concerned that Indigenous people are most vulnerable to the social, cultural, spiritual, and environmental impacts of climate change;

Recognizing that Exxon-Imperial and ConocoPhillips Heavy Haul shipments are attempting to haul more than 200 oversized loads of heavy oil machinery from the Port of Lewiston, Idaho along Highway 12 into Montana, then north to the tar sands project in Alberta, Canada;

Concerned that tar sands crude oil is more toxic, corrosive, and abrasive than conventional crude oil and poses additional pipeline safety risks that have not been fully assessed by the U.S. Department of State in its final Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline, issued August 26, 2011;

Recalling that TransCanada’s year-old Keystone pipeline, from Manitoba, Canada to Patoka, Illinois and Cushing Oklahoma, has had 14 spills in the U.S. portion since it started operation in June 2010, and was temporarily shut down by regulators in late May, 2011;

Recognizing TransCanada’s extremely poor safety record for the Keystone pipeline, it is probable that the Keystone XL pipeline will have frequent spills because it will have similar design specifications;

Concerned that oil spills from the Keystone XL pipeline would destroy live-sustaining water resources, including the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water for millions of people and farmland irrigation throughout the Midwestern United States;

Concerned that construction of the Keystone XL pipeline will impact sacred sites and ancestral burial grounds, and treaty rights throughout traditional territories, without adequate consultation on these impacts;

Concerned that the Keystone XL pipeline would increase air pollution in the communities surrounding the refineries that the pipeline would service where people of color, Indigenous peoples, and poor people are already experiencing high rates of cancer and respiratory illness;

Recalling that TransCanada’s permit application to the Canadian government for the Keystone XL pipeline said it will increase oil prices in the United States by $4 billion per year;

Acknowledging that the Keystone XL pipeline is not designed to provide the United States with energy security and that industry documents indicate Gulf Coast refineries operate in a free trade zone and plan to refine tar sands oil into petroleum products that are intended for export overseas;

Therefore, we are united on this Mother Earth Accord, which is effective immediately, that it be resolved as follows:
We support and encourage a moratorium on tar sands development;

We insist on full consultation under the principles of “free, prior and informed consent,” from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples both in the United States and Canada;

We urge regional authorities to halt the Exxon-Imperial and ConocoPhillips Heavy Haul shipments of tar sands equipment through the United States and Canada;

We urge the United States and Canada to reduce their reliance on oil, including tar sands, and invest in the research and development of cleaner, safer forms of sustainable energy and transportation solutions, including smart growth, fuel efficiency, next-generation biofuels and electric vehicles powered by solar and wind energy.

We strongly believe that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in the national interest of the United States or Canada; and

We urge President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to reject the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

[admin]

Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

November 7th, 2011

Indigenous Peoples were among the hundreds who "surrounded" the White House in Washington Sunday, demanding action by President Obama to prevent Tar Sands expansion by rejecting the proposed Keystone Pipeline expansion project.

Check out Brenda Norrell's report
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebo ... -your-word

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebo ... -your-word



The TarSandsAction group reports . . .
Reaction to Inspector General Investigation
of State Department’s Keystone XL Review

November 7, 2011

In response to the State Department’s inspector general decision to conduct a “special review” of the department’s analysis of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, Bill McKibben, who helped to lead yesterday’s 12,000 person ally outside the White House, said:

“It’s good to see the administration beginning to listen to responsible lawmakers, and we look forward to the results of this inquiry about the warped environmental review process. But it’s important to understand that the process has always been the smaller of our objections. while we’ve been dismayed by the corrupt conduct of the state department, our real problem has from the start been the fact that these tar sands are the second largest pool of carbon on earth. Since the State Department didn’t even bother to study that global warming question, the only real answer is to send this back for a whole new review — or, better yet, for the President to simply back up his campaign promises and deny the permit outright.

“Everyone should know that this will only encourage people across America to step up the tar sands fight. We’re headed to Obama offices across the country, including his headquarters in Chicago and in all the swing states, with the same message: President Obama promised to fight for the climate and now without Congress in the way, he can actually do it.”

Tar Sands Action is planning a large demonstration at OFA headquarters in Chicago on Nov. 16.
http://www.tarsandsaction.org

[admin]

The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN)
We won one battle against big oil, but not the war:
Statement of IEN on the Obama Administration decision on Keystone XL Pipeline

Mother Earth Achieves a Victory Today with Obama Administration Decision to Delay the Keystone XL Pipeline Decision

The United States Department of State and President Barack Obama announced they would seek a new environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline. This will delay and hopefully stop the Trans Canada Corporation from pursuing to build the 1,700 mile long Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline is part of the expansion of the flow of dirty oil from the tar sands of Canada. The Indigenous Environmental Network, through its Canadian Indigenous Tar Sands Campaign and its Keystone XL Pipeline organizing work has successfully put an indigenous and human rights face to this dangerous and environmental destructive tar sands pipeline.

The Obama Administration decision to delay the Keystone XL Presidential Permit decision until 2013 to evaluate other options, such as rerouting the pipeline around the Ogalalla Aquifer and the Sand Hills of Nebraska buys time to strengthen the organizing work to stop the pipeline entirely. However, it is hopeful this delay will give the government the ability to offer this project the scrutiny it deserves. One of the demands the Indigenous Environmental Network has requested of the U.S. government within its pipeline environmental assessment process is the need to strengthen and ensure pipeline safety overall, in the U.S.

Yesterday’s decision by the Obama Administration is a small step in the right direction – an ethical decision. We say ethical, as a challenge to the conservative pro-oil people that try to spin Canadian tar sands oil as “ethical oil”. We are cautious. The overall fight to shut down the tar sands and all its pipeline infrastructures still remains.

IEN has been part of a massive successful movement of Native Nations from Canada to the U.S. standing with environmental organizations, faith-based groups, youth and students, labor and rural citizens living along the proposed pipeline demonstrating opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and the expansion of the tar sands.

The recent “Circle Around the White House” this past Sunday brought over 12,000 people forming a circle three time deep. Clayton Thomas-Muller, IEN Canadian Indigenous Tar Sands campaign helped coordinate Native Nation voices at the Circle with Vice President Tom Poorbear of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Debra White Plume, Oglala Lakota representing Owe Aku speaking loud and clear against the pipeline and the tar sands.

All the nation-wide and local actions against the Keystone XL pipeline and against the expansion of the tars sands helped elevate the level of awareness of what the pipeline is all about. Hundreds of thousands of people wrote letters, made calls, and used social networking tactics mobilizing for the protection of the environment, demanding climate justice and challenging corporate power structures of oil cronyism and the Koch brother oligarchs. A big thanks and hand shake to everyone!

There is growing opposition to the Canadian tar sands.

It is the tar sands in northern Alberta, Canada, located with the traditional territories of Cree, Dene and Métis indigenous communities from where the dirty tar-like oil is taken out of the ground, devastating the ecosystem, polluting the water and causing human health illnesses and deaths. With the voices of the First Nation Chiefs such as Bill Erasmus of Northwest Territories, Canada and George Stanley, from Alberta, Canada and the voices of Native grassroots young people from the tar sands impact zone, Americans are better informed of the human rights issues connected to the pipeline.

The decision by President Obama is a clear message that the tar sands are a toxic energy source, a major emitter of greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, a polluter of precious water and an unsustainable type of development that violates the rights of Indigenous peoples.

For the past few months, people-centered actions have brought people from all walks of life, and on both sides of the U.S. – Canadian border, questioning the energy, economic and climate policies of both countries that only deepen the addiction to dirty oil and continue global warming. We saw people starting to see the need to support a movement away from a fossil economy to an economy that respects the rights of Mother Earth.

Water is Life. Water was a major issue from the downstream communities of the tar sands in Canada to the people living in rural America along the proposed pipeline. The decision by the Obama Administration could protect a water source, the Ogallala Aquifer that provides safe drinking water for 3 million people.

We are keeping all eyes open, and ears to the ground. There are other tar sands pipeline proposals such as the Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project that would stretch from Alberta’s tar sands to a new port to be built in Kitimat, on British Columbia’s west coast. From there, over 225 crude oil tankers would travel B.C.’s northern inside coastal waters for export to international markets. Opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline and related tanker traffic is strong and growing, in particular in light of Enbridge’s recent oil spills in Illinois and Michigan.

Just a week ago, Obama announced his administration’s lifting of a moratorium on offshore oil exploration and now pursuing so-called “moderate” expansion of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic oceans of Alaska. The five-year plan, released by the US Interior Department, proposes to prepare a five-year schedule of oil and gas lease sales in both the Beaufort and Chukchi to oil companies for oil drilling.

We are fully aware, despite the delay; it is still “business as usual”.

This has to become more than simply a delay. We will work to ensure this moment is remembered as the beginning of the end for the tar sands.

Clayton Thomas-Muller, Tar Sands Campaigner, Indigenous Environmental Networks’ Canadian Indigenous Tar Sands Campaign says: “Did we win the war against big oil, no. Did we win this battle against big oil, yes! To date there is a 1.9 billion cost overrun for Trans Canada as a result of our campaign. This 12 to 18 month delay means investor confidence loss for Trans Canada-pipeline. We must continue to be vigilant as we have another half dozen other infrastructure choke points we need to target in the strategy to stop the Tar Sands.”

Kandi Mossett, Indigenous Environmental Network Tribal Campus Climate Challenge organizer says: "The decision to delay the pipeline is a victory and I will gladly celebrate that victory; even if only for a moment. I live in North Dakota where the Keystone I pipeline still runs through and still has the potential to continue to leak and perhaps even be expanded. So, I will not become complacent nor quit speaking out against the Canadian tar sands until they are shut down permanently. When I begin to hear the U.S. Administration talking about alternatives to the fossil fuel industry, and the creation of green jobs, instead of alternatives to pipeline routes it will truly be music to my ears; then and only then will I know we have succeeded in protections for our Mother Earth and for the future generations."

Tom B.K. Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network says: “The position taken by the Obama administration today to delay the permit for the Trans Canada Keystone XL pipeline in order to do a new environmental review is the right decision – an ethical decision. We applaud President Obama and the State Department for listening to the voices of youth, elders, faith-based groups, labor, students, environmental organizations, Native Nations, and those living along the proposed pipeline, who are standing united against dirty oil from the tar sands. This is the beginning of a new era in which people are demanding that their rights be recognized. The need to protect our sources of clean water, to fight for stabilizing climate change, and to say “No” to corporate polluters setting the agenda in Washington is now. We must not let up. The struggle for environmental and economic justice - for energy and climate justice - and the fight for Native Treaty Rights must continue. Mother Earth has achieved victory today.”

Marty Cobenais, Indigenous Environmental Network, Keystone XL Pipeline organizer says: “I applaud President Obama for standing up for Mother Earth, and making this decision. This is an important first step to stop the expansion of the tar sands.”

[admin]

Special Briefing

Kerri-Ann Jones
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
November 10, 2011

MODERATOR: Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. We are pleased today to have Assistant Secretary Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, who will discuss the Keystone pipeline. She’ll have some opening remarks, followed by your questions. Just a reminder that this call is on the record. And with that, I’ll go ahead and turn it over to Dr. Jones for some opening remarks.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for joining this call. This afternoon I wanted to share with you a decision that the Department has taken, and we’ve taken a decision regarding the Keystone XL pipeline project to seek additional information regarding potential alternative routes. And these potential alternative routes that we would be looking into will be within the state of Nebraska.

When we released the Final Environmental Impact Statement in August, at that point we began the national interest period, which we kicked off with a period of extensive public comment. During that period, we had meetings in the states where the potential – the states that the potential pipeline would cross through as well as in Washington, D.C., and we also met with many of the state officials.

During that time, we heard a lot of comments and a lot of concern about the route through the Nebraska Sand Hills. And what that resulted in was another trip out to Nebraska and more consultations. And what we’ve heard is from many of the public in Nebraska as well as comments across the nation about the concern of the route going through these fragile landscape in the Sand Hills.

We have, under NEPA, looked at many alternatives. But at the time that we were doing that, we had not had discussions with the Nebraskans or heard these significant public comments. So we have decided really to focus on looking at alternative routes that would minimize or avoid the Sand Hills, and we had not done that in the Environmental Impact Statement. We feel that this additional information will be very important in contributing to our national interest review. So we are going to pursue that information at this time.

We’ve been doing these national interest discussions as well as this outreach based on what is in the executive order, which gives the State Department the authority to grant or deny these permits. And it defines the process where we are asked to go out and get comments and meet and talk to local officials.

So with that, let me stop but just reiterate with one point. One of the reasons we are deciding to take this time to look for this additional information is because we are committed to conducting a very thorough and comprehensive and rigorous and transparent process to get to our final determination.

So I’ll stop there and open it up for questions.

MODERATOR: Okay, Operator, we’re ready to begin the questions.

OPERATOR: Great. Our first question comes from Brett Harris with the Business News Network. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Dr. Jones, in the final impact assessment or the Final Environmental Impact Statement that the State Department put out earlier this year, it said that a number of other routes were already looked at in the process and that the existing route seemed to be the best one not only in terms of economic efficiency but in terms of environmental efficiency and environmental risk. So I’m just wondering what has changed between now and then. Is this just simply a reaction to the groundswell of concern from Nebraska?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, we’re really in a different period of review right now. The Environmental Impact Statement, which is done under NEPA, is really a technical analysis, and we did look at a number of routes. And what we did was look at whether there were any reasonable or really environmentally better routes than the one that was proposed. We did not look at that time at a specific route that did not go through the Sand hill region.

Now, in the national interest determination period, we are looking at a broad range of factors beyond the environmental impact, and we are looking at what citizens have to say and what the situation is across all of the states. One of the things that became clear to us as we were out in Nebraska was that, unlike many of the other states that the pipeline might pass through if it were to be approved, Nebraska does not have in place a regulatory framework that really allows them to participate in siting where the pipeline may go. And the citizens in the state of Nebraska have been so concerned that there’s been a special session called of their legislature to look into this.

So this decision that we’re taking is based on the process, the national interest process, where we are responding to what we have been hearing and we are looking at a route that we didn’t look at before but which we need to look at and do more analysis of because of what we had been hearing.

QUESTION: Just as a quick follow-up, just to be clear, you’re looking at a different route within Nebraska, not rerouting it around Nebraska?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: That’s exactly right. That’s exactly right. It is the Sand hill region in Nebraska that has been the focus of so much discussion.

MODERATOR: Okay, Operator, we’ll take the next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Joseph Morton with Omaha World Herald. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hello?

OPERATOR: Joseph, your line is open, if you could please check your mute button.

QUESTION: Sorry about that. Sorry about that. Yeah, just a quick follow-up, first of all, on that last comment. So the route that will be looked at will be one that hasn’t been studied yet in any of the environmental reviews to date?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: That’s correct. And it’s route or routes. What we are really looking at is an approach that would minimize or avoid the Sand hill region of Nebraska. Right now, the proposed route goes right through some of the Sand hill areas.

QUESTION: But some of the previous routes that were studied would have avoided the Sand Hills, but this – you have kind of a whole new route in mind?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, the alternatives that were looked at in the Environmental Impact Statement, yes, some of them avoided that area completely. But none of them followed the original route and then – or the proposed route – and then looked at what was happening in Nebraska. One of the messages we heard from the state of Nebraska, including the governor, was that there was support for the pipeline but not the particular route that was in place through their state. And so the route that’s in place in other states, many of them have worked with the applicant already to define those routes, for instance in Montana and South Dakota. So we’re really looking at the route that comes into Nebraska, and so yes, it would be that segment of the route that we have not studied yet in any way.

QUESTION: Okay. And you – previously, the State Department had sort of suggested it was the state’s role to look at siting and routes, and not the State Department. Is this kind of a case of you guys needing to step in because Nebraska doesn’t have that regulatory framework?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, we are looking for additional information because we don’t have information about a route that would avoid the Sand Hills and because there is such an interest from the state officials and from the citizens of Nebraska. We do recognize that the legislature is in special session now, and we know that this is under discussion, but we need this information to make sure that the national interest review that we do is truly comprehensive and has all the information we need to come to a decision that’s very well-informed. And we would work very much with the Nebraska legislature as they’re going through their discussions.

MODERATOR: Operator, we’ll go to the next question, please.

OPERATOR: All right. Our next question comes from Tom Zeller with the Huffington Post. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, can you hear me?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: We can hear you.

QUESTION: Yes, great. Thanks. I just want to clarify – I know we’ve kind of belabored this from the very beginning of the conversation, but you’re saying that the original EIS did not consider routes that did not go through the Sand Hills, although when I look at the EIS, I see lots of routes that were considered that did go around the Sand Hills and were set aside in favor of this one, which did go through the Sand Hills. But now it sounds like you’re saying the opposite. I just want to clarify that point.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: No, we’re not saying the opposite --

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: What we’re saying is we did not look at a route that was in Nebraska that specifically avoided the Sand Hills. We looked at a route that was much further west and we also looked a route that crossed further to the east, north of Nebraska. And so we did not look at a route that avoided the Sand Hills but was contained within the state of Nebraska.

QUESTION: I see.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: And that’s a discussion that has come forward in all of the public outreach we have been doing in our discussions with state and local officials.

QUESTION: And this route, if I can just follow up, this route or routes that you’re considering – the origins of that come from state or from stakeholders’ comments, or where does the idea for these routes come from?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: It comes from – the idea for the routes comes from stakeholders and public comment and state officials. I mean, we don’t draw routes. The applicant would have to sit down and talk with the – with state officials and, I think, decide what would be the route that they would think would be most appropriate. What we do is we look at what is best for the national interest, and we feel we don’t have this piece of information. And we’re being responsive to what we’ve heard from the public.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Jill Dougherty with CNN. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. I’m looking at some of the statements by various groups, and the American Petroleum Institute, of course, has a very strong comment. And they say that this is about politics and a radical constituency opposed to any and all oil and gas development – keeping them in the President’s camp in November for the election. I know that you’re on the technical side, scientific side, but the question just begs to be asked, which is why should we not interpret this as a step by the President to try to shore up some liberal groups that are opposed to this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: This decision is based on the process that we have been going through. This is not a political decision. We have been – in this national interest determination – out there as listening to what the public has to say, and this message about the Sand Hills of Nebraska has been coming strong and increasing intensity over the discussion we’ve been having since the end of August, when we released the Final Environmental Impact Statement. What is driving us is this process. If you look at what’s happening in Nebraska, I think you can see that this is something that has been gathering much more attention, much more public concern, and we don’t have a route that would avoid what many feel is a unique resource in Nebraska, and we feel we need that to make the correct decision.

MODERATOR: Okay, Operator. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Once again, if you would like to ask a question, as a reminder, please press *1. Once again, to ask a question, press *1. Our next question comes from Arshad Mohammed with Reuters. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Jones, who actually made the decision to explore the additional – or the additional routes, and thereby effectively delay any final decision on the matter? What person within the U.S. Government made that decision? And then, secondly, did U.S. President Obama or anyone else in the White House play any role in that decision?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: The first part of your question is, in the past, the decisions regarding permits have been made by the Deputy Secretary of State, and this decision to pursue additional information was approved by our Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns. And so that’s the first part of your question.

The second part is, regarding the White House, the White House did not have anything to do with this decision, except we consulted with them once we were moving toward it. But they did not direct us to make this decision or – this is – this authority is delegated to the Secretary of State through the executive order.

QUESTION: So not only did they not direct you to make the decision, but once you informed them that this was your decision, they did not make any effort to affect the decision in any way?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: No, they did not. The Secretary apprised the President of the decision of our moving in this direction earlier this week, and there was no effort to, sort of, influence our decision. It was our decision.

MODERATOR: Operator, next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Deborah Solomon with the Wall Street Journal. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks. I know you’re on the technical side, but, I guess I’m curious, was there any consideration given to the fact that this is set to create however many jobs, if you want to say 20,000 or whatnot, but that delaying the decision would delay these jobs in the middle of a pretty bad economic moment?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, as I’ve been mentioning, we’re in this national interest review period, and the economic impact of this project is one of the considerations that we are certainly looking at. So we are studying the number of potential jobs that could be created. And I’m sure you’ve been following this, but the range of the number of jobs that could be created has been estimated to be at the low end about 4,000 and at the high end about hundreds of thousands.

And so what we are trying to do right now is to conduct the analysis that gets us to a number that we know is accurate. These are short-term jobs. I know they’re important to the construction industry, and I know they’re important to local communities. So we will continue to study that question as part of our overall effort to conduct a very comprehensive national interest review.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MODERATOR: Okay. Operator, next question please.

OPERATOR: Next question comes from Nathan Vanderklippe with Globe and Mail. Your line is open.

QUESTION: It’s to follow-up on the question of what alternative route you’ll be looking at. I know the -- what is I believe is called the I-90 alternative looked at, jogging across a little bit in South Dakota and then avoiding the Sand Hills in Nebraska. Are you suggesting that you want to keep the route identical through North Dakota through South Dakota but change it only in Nebraska?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: That’s accurate. The only alternate routes we’ll be looking at are those which will affect Nebraska. The routes in Montana and South Dakota, those states have interacted with the applicant and suggested modifications that they felt were necessary. So we are looking at the route just in Nebraska at this time.

QUESTION: And what exactly is – has there been an order made to TransCanada? I mean, have they been ordered to file an amended EIS with this new route? Have they been ordered only to study a new route with the potential of the State Department still approving the existing route? What’s the nature of what’s happened here today with regard to State and TransCanada?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, during the national interest period we can – we have the authority to ask for additional information that we think is necessary. So we’re going to be working with TransCanada to discuss this further, and we’re just making the decision today and we’re going to be working with them going forward to sort of go through the steps of what’s going to be needed.

Certainly, TransCanada is the one with the expertise to sort of think about where a route could best go. So they will be the ones who will be out there talking to the Nebraskans and sorting this through. We will be working with them, but this decision has just been made very recently.

MODERATOR: Operator, next question please.

OPERATOR: Next question comes from Cody Winchester with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks. According to the statement you’d sent out, this would push the conclusion of the final EIS into the first quarter of 2013. Some of the company officials have testified that this kind of delay would effectively kill the project given how their shipping contracts are structured, complaining that this project has been – or this process has been unfair to them. Is that something you’d care to respond to?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, in the Media Note we do give sort of an estimation based on what we have seen with prior projects of this nature – and that’s just an estimation. I think the company has their own affairs and interests to sort of look into. We’re going to continue to work with them. We haven’t heard anything definitive from them about where they are about all (inaudible) just had some initial contacts. So I can’t really say more than that or – it’s an estimation. I think the company has to look at the timing. But what we do is we have to sort of look at making sure we do the best job we possibly can for the U.S. and the national interests of the country.

QUESTION: One quick follow-up. To clarify, this new environmental impact statement, is that going to be conducted for the entire route for the pipeline or just for the – where it would be rerouted?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: It would just be for the new – the suggested alternative route or routes. So it would only be really what’s called a supplemental environmental impact statement.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Operator, we’ll go for the next question, please.

OPERATOR: All right. Our next question comes from Sheldon Alberts with Postmedia News. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks for the call. I guess I was looking for a little more explanation regarding the route. Why is it that none of the previous environmental impact studies looked at the issue of the Sand Hills in more depth prior to the final study being released in August? There were abundant concerns raised by folks in Nebraska about the Sand Hills. I’m wondering if this doesn’t represent a failure by the State Department to do its job during the initial process.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, I think a couple of points I’d like to make. There are two different processes. The NEPA environmental impact process is a technical analytical process, and we looked at a number of routes and we analyzed them and we came to the conclusion that none of those were reasonable or environmentally better than the proposed route, based on a number of different criteria. So we followed the process of NEPA and correctly fulfilled and completed the environmental impact statement. And some of those routes, you’re correct, did avoid the Sand Hills. But they were the ones, as I had said earlier, which were far to the west or crossed north of Nebraska before going to the east.

What happens in the national interest period is it’s different from the environmental impact statement period. It’s a period where we are looking at what citizens have to say, what state and local officials have to say, what tribal officials have to say, and we look at more targeted kind of questions in a way that connect to the national interest, the bigger picture. We do this with eight other agencies that we work with. We look for their views.

So what we’re doing now is, having heard we’ve heard, that the Sand Hills, in addition to what we pointed out in the FEIS, we did call it out as an area that was very sensitive that had some qualities that would make it somewhat fragile. And we spoke to some mitigation methods and issues that the applicant was agreeing to do. But in the sum of talking to the citizens of Nebraska, hearing from state officials, and, as I said earlier, broader comments, it’s clear that this is a very important issue for the state, it’s a very unique area, and we did not have a route that was just in the state of Nebraska that avoided the Sand Hills.

So we are looking at something that is new and that we had not done before, even though we had done all of the appropriate work on alternative routes under NEPA. But we are now responding to this fact that we didn’t look at a route in Nebraska that avoided the Sand Hills.

QUESTION: Okay. So we’re going back to another technical analytical process then. I’m just a little confused as to how, if nothing was turned up in the first one, what’s changed in that other than the political questions that were raised and the concerns from the people of Nebraska following the EIS – the final EIS.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: But the concerns of the people are a legitimate factor to respond to. I mean, this area in Nebraska is a resource to the people. It’s something that it is – we heard loud and clear that it’s a unique area for the state and the alternative route will be -- that we examine will be different from anything we have looked at before. And the other piece of this is that the state officials, the governor and the legislators, are very concerned to the point where they have gone into a special session to see what can they do to try to put some kind of regulatory framework in place, because they don’t have them.

So I think the answer is that we have come to this decision during the national interest period, which is different from the NEPA environmental impact statement period, and we have now to look at this route that is in – just in the state.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Juliet Eilperin with Washington Post. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, Assistant Secretary. Just two things. One thing, can you talk about whether – how much you would be examining the greenhouse gas implications for the extraction of this oil as part of this supplemental impact statement? It sounds like your – that that’s not a factor.

And just a follow-up on what you’ve been saying, again – and I know this point has been made, but there were plenty of Nebraskans who submitted public comments as part of the Environmental Impact Statement specifically citing the Ogallala Aquifer. I believe that was probably the main source of objections that people from Nebraska were citing. So are you saying that it just wasn’t as relevant when you were doing a NEPA assessment as the national interest assessment? So I was hoping you could handle those, too. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Thank you. Taking the second one first is -- the whole issue of the aquifer was raised throughout the Environmental Impact Statement and the Ogallala Aquifer runs broadly across and around the state of Nebraska. I think it’s the uniqueness of the Sand Hills and some of the particular natural features that are there, which we did call out in the SEIS, that I think make it very unique to the people of Nebraska.

When we did the SEIS, the routes that we looked at and compared, we didn’t see, under the NEPA regulations, there was nothing really reasonable or environmentally better than the proposed route. Now, the concern of the citizens and the concerns of the state officials and the governor have raised this to an issue that is more in the national interest kind of determination period where we’re trying to be responsive to what the citizens are looking into and kind of look at the bigger picture here. And we don’t have a description of a route that would avoid the Sand Hills but is only in the state of Nebraska.

Their support – the governor has come out, as I said before, and said he supports this pipeline but not the route. So to get to the other question you raised, the purpose of what the review that we’re going to be doing is specifically to look at the alternative routes through Nebraska. It wouldn’t be broader than that.

MODERATOR: Okay, Operator, we have time for about two more questions, please.

OPERATOR: Okay. Our next question comes from Elana Schor with Greenwire. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you. My question deals with who would be in charge of this supplemental EIS. The third party contractor that your folks had worked with, Cardno Entrix, has been the subject of a whole lot of criticism from environmentalists and from senators as having kind of too close a financial tie with TransCanada. Do you plan to seek a new contractor to help with this SEIS, a new bidding process? How will that work?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, we recognize that this work is going to be very – remindful that this work is very unique to Nebraska, so we’re going to try to get the work done in a way that really gets us the information that we need. And, more specifically, in response to your question about Cardno Entrix, we conducted all of our work with that third party contractor according to the guidelines and the regulations and – well, we feel there is and we believe there is no conflict of interest there whatsoever.

QUESTION: So but does that mean you would consider them as a potential partner on the supplemental or --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: They would be considered as anyone else would be.

MODERATOR: Okay, Operator. We have time for one more question please.

OPERATOR: Our last question comes from Olga Belogolova with National Journal. Your line is open.

QUESTION: My question is actually the same one that was just previously asked, so I’m fine.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Okay, Operator, we have – hold on one second. Do we have more questions, Operator?

OPERATOR: We do have other questions in the queue at this time.

MODERATOR: Okay. Operator, we’ll go ahead and take one more question then.

OPERATOR: All right. And it comes from Anthony Yazaki with NHK. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. My question’s actually been asked and answered already. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Okay.

MODERATOR: Okay. Great, Operator. Well, thank you all of you for participating in today’s call. And again, just a reminder that that call – this call was on the record. Thank you very much.

[admin]

State of Nebraska to Play Major Role
in Defining New Keystone XL Route Away From the Sandhills

Lincoln, Nebraska - November 14, 2011 - TransCanada Corporation (TSX, NYSE: TRP) (TransCanada) today announced it supports proposed legislation within the State of Nebraska to move the Keystone XL pipeline project forward. This legislation, introduced earlier today in the State legislature, if passed, will ensure a pipeline route will be developed in Nebraska that avoids the Sandhills.

"I am pleased to tell you that the positive conversations we have had with Nebraska leaders have resulted in legislation that respects the concerns of Nebraskans and supports the development of the Keystone XL pipeline," said Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada's president, Energy and Oil Pipelines. "I can confirm the route will be changed and Nebraskans will play an important role in determining the final route."

Working together with the State Department, Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality will conduct an environmental assessment to define the best location for Keystone XL in Nebraska. We will cooperate with these agencies and provide them with the information they need to complete a thorough review that addresses concerns regarding the Sandhills region.

"The U.S. Department of State announced last Thursday that further assessment of alternative routes for Keystone XL was needed in Nebraska to move forward with the National Interest Determination. Today's proposed legislation is a critical step in making this happen," Pourbaix added. "The safe and reliable operation of our pipelines and all of our infrastructure has been TransCanada's priority for 60 years. This commitment will continue to guide us toward a positive outcome in Nebraska."

It is expected that once the pipeline is operational, Nebraska could see more than $150 million in property taxes to county and other local governments during the operating life of the pipeline - money that could be used to build new roads, schools and hospitals.

Construction of the pipeline in Nebraska would consist of five or six new pump stations and over 275 miles of new pipeline. The project is expected to employ over 2,200 construction workers in the state.

Keystone XL will be safe, built with high strength steel and with the highest safety standards of any pipeline in North America. 21,000 sensors monitor the length of the pipeline by satellite 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with data refreshed every five seconds. If there is a problem, automatic shut-off valves can be activated in minutes - shutting off the flow of oil.

With more than 60 years experience, TransCanada is a leader in the responsible development and reliable operation of North American energy infrastructure including natural gas and oil pipelines, power generation and gas storage facilities. TransCanada's network of wholly owned natural gas pipelines extends more than 57,000 kilometres (35,500 miles), tapping into virtually all major gas supply basins in North America. TransCanada is one of the continent's largest providers of gas storage and related services with approximately 380 billion cubic feet of storage capacity. A growing independent power producer, TransCanada owns, or has interests in, over 10,800 megawatts of power generation in Canada and the United States. TransCanada is developing one of North America's largest oil delivery systems. TransCanada's common shares trade on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges under the symbol TRP. For more information visit: http://www.transcanada.com and follow us on Twitter @TransCanada.

Forward-Looking Information
This news release may contain certain information that is forward looking and is subject to important risks and uncertainties. The words "anticipate," "expect," "believe," "may," "should," "estimate," "project," "outlook," "forecast" or other similar words are used to identify such forward-looking information. Forward-looking statements in this document are intended to provide TransCanada securityholders and potential investors with information regarding TransCanada and its subsidiaries, including management's assessment of TransCanada's and its subsidiaries' future financial and operations plans and outlook. Forward-looking statements in this document may include, among others, statements regarding the anticipated business prospects, projects and financial performance of TransCanada and its subsidiaries, expectations or projections about the future, and strategies and goals for growth and expansion. All forward-looking statements reflect TransCanada's beliefs and assumptions based on information available at the time the statements were made. Actual results or events may differ from those predicted in these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations include, among others, the ability of TransCanada to successfully implement its strategic initiatives and whether such strategic initiatives will yield the expected benefits, the operating performance of TransCanada's pipeline and energy assets, the availability and price of energy commodities, capacity payments, regulatory processes and decisions, changes in environmental and other laws and regulations, competitive factors in the pipeline and energy sectors, construction and completion of capital projects, labour, equipment and material costs, access to capital markets, interest and currency exchange rates, technological developments and economic conditions in North America. By its nature, forward looking information is subject to various risks and uncertainties, which could cause TransCanada's actual results and experience to differ materially from the anticipated results or expectations expressed. Additional information on these and other factors is available in the reports filed by TransCanada with Canadian securities regulators and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Readers are cautioned to not place undue reliance on this forward looking information, which is given as of the date it is expressed in this news release or otherwise, and to not use future-oriented information or financial outlooks for anything other than their intended purpose. TransCanada undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

- 30 -

[admin]

Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

November 15th, 2011
RE: The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline development . . .

The following is an excerpt from today's White House Press Briefing by Mark C. Toner Deputy Spokesperson, in Washington.

KEYSTONE

U.S. - Canada Bilateral Relationship
Making Decision in National Interest of U.S.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you can characterize the relationship between the U.S. and Canada right now with the proposal rerouting the pipeline.

MR. TONER: Yeah --

QUESTION: As you’re aware, Prime Minister Harper has said over the weekend in his bilat with the President that if there were delays, that they would look to sell elsewhere, specifically to Asia. So I was wondering if you could just characterize.

MR. TONER: Well, I talked a little bit about this yesterday. Speaking more broadly, the United States and Canada enjoy one of the closest and most extensive bilateral relations in the world. It’s reflected in our $1 billion[1] bilateral trade and investment relationship, and we also have extensive people-to-people ties. So it’s an economic partnership. It’s a close cultural partnership.

We said all along that our decision-making process with regard to Keystone was deliberate, was transparent, and ultimately we are making a decision that’s in the national interest of the United States. And that involves looking at a range of issues. Foreign policy is one of those, but also environmental. And that’s what, in fact, triggered our decision to look at a rerouting. And so that’s where we are. I’m aware of what was said after the bilateral meeting, but certainly we believe that the bilateral relationship remains strong and intact.

QUESTION: When you talk about the economic relationship and then, of course, the environmental concerns – but when we take into consideration that business can go from Canada to someone like China where there are – many environmentalists have expressed concerns about the danger of shipping oil to China, the type of environmental – or lax environmental rules that they have over there. So what’s the purpose of the delay if you take into that consideration those potential losses?

MR. TONER: Well again, this is a process and, as I said, it looks at a number of factors. And it would not be responsible for us to simply focus on one area of concern and disregard the others. And we believe we are doing – making – going through this decision-making process in a very deliberate fashion and trying to address all of these issues in our decision-making process. As I said, the decision last week, based on this public discussion period that we went through, raised concerns that we needed to look at a rerouting, and so we proceeded in that direction. But we’re committed to, as I said, to carrying this process out and making a decision and we are confident that it won’t hurt our trading relationship with Canada.

QUESTION: How would you respond to critics who are saying that the President’s actually giving in to part of his constituency of environmentalists?

MR. TONER: I can only say that, as we’ve said repeatedly on the record, that the White House had no bearing on this decision-making process. This was – you know the State Department has the lead on this issue and we’re going about it in a very transparent and apolitical way.

QUESTION: Still on the pipeline --

QUESTION: Doesn’t the fact that you’re considering a rerouting of this, instead of just denying the permit in the first place, mean that you’re inclined to approve it?

MR. TONER: Not necessarily. Again, we’re still in the decision-making process No decision’s been made and --

QUESTION: Yeah, but if you didn’t like the idea in the first place, you would’ve just said no to the permit. You wouldn’t have tried to find a way around to address some of these concerns, which, from – looking at it from the outside, strongly implies that you would like to be able to approve this.

MR. TONER: It doesn’t imply anything. We’re going about this in a deliberate fashion.

QUESTION: Oh? Then why not just say no?

MR. TONER: We’re looking at a range of issues, and we’re trying to make the best decision.

QUESTION: Why just not – why not just say no to the whole thing?

MR. TONER: Because we’ve – we’re basically – I just –

QUESTION: You have done that. Correct?

MR. TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: You could have not issued the permit. Instead you chose to look at another route –

MR. TONER: Matt, Matt, no decision’s been made. Our process continues. We’re looking at all aspects of the decision. Environmental is one of them. There’s other aspects as well as we move forward.

QUESTION: Well, why didn’t you just say no to the whole thing, then?

MR. TONER: Because we haven’t made a decision yet. We’re – the process is ongoing.

QUESTION: Well – (laughter) – you essentially have. You want to say yes. You’re looking for a way to say yes; that’s the way it looks.

MR. TONER: I disagree.

QUESTION: Last night TransCanada said they were going to reroute the pipeline.

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: There’ll be more environmental reviews with the – a Nebraska agency and the State Department. Can you give us a timeline on that?

MR. TONER: I – my best estimate is that the timeline has not changed at all with regard to what we said last week, that based on previous assessments of similar distance, we anticipate the evaluation could conclude as early as the first quarter of 2013. I don’t think that’s changed at all and I think we put out some comment last night that basically tried to address this. We – Nebraska, TransCanada are working together and we’re working to support them, but nothing’s changed with regard to the timeline that we laid out last week.

QUESTION: And finally, has it changed – has the Administration changed its point of view now that TransCanada’s saying we’ll go somewhere else? Has that changed anything with the Administration?

MR. TONER: It – again, I would just characterize it as TransCanada, Nebraska – the State of Nebraska seem to be working together constructively and we’re working as well with them.

[admin]

Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

January 18, 2012

The U.S. Government has rejected the controversial Keystone XL pipeline expansion proposal. Because of potential environmental hazards, the proposal has been vigorously opposed by First Nations in Canada and Tribal communities in the United States.

Today President Obama agreed with the U.S. State Department recommendation and its denial of the pipeline expansion proposal.

The State Department said: "Today President Obama agreed with the U.S. State Department recommendation and its denial of the pipeline expansion proposal. Today, the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department's recommendation, which was predicated on the fact that the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest." (See more below)
- - -

Denial of the Keystone XL Pipeline Application

January 18, 2012

Today, the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation, which was predicated on the fact that the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest.

Since 2008, the Department has been conducting a transparent, thorough, and rigorous review of TransCanada’s permit application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project. As a result of this process, particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, on November 10, 2011, the Department announced that it could not make a national interest determination regarding the permit application without additional information. Specifically, the Department called for an assessment of alternative pipeline routes that avoided the uniquely sensitive terrain of the Sand Hills in Nebraska. The Department estimated, based on prior projects of similar length and scope, that it could complete the necessary review to make a decision by the first quarter of 2013. In consultations with the State of Nebraska and TransCanada, they agreed with the estimated timeline.

On December 23, 2011, the Congress passed the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (“the Act”). The Act provides 60 days for the President to determine whether the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest – which is insufficient for such a determination.

The Department’s denial of the permit application does not preclude any subsequent permit application or applications for similar projects.

[admin]

Alberta Premier responds to U.S. decision on Keystone XL

January 18, 2012

Edmonton... Premier Alison Redford issued the following statement in response to the U.S. State Department’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.

“I am extremely disappointed with today’s decision by the State Department to reject the Keystone XL pipeline application. We believe the project provides the United States with energy security and thousands of job opportunities.

Today’s decision does not mean that America will consume one less barrel of oil. What it means is this: America will continue to import oil from jurisdictions with much weaker environmental policies and who do not share the same values as Canadians and Americans.

Alberta has always considered the U.S. our strongest and most important trading partner. The State Department’s decision strengthens our resolve to pursue access to alternative markets.

Today’s decision also reinforces the need for a Canadian energy strategy and why Alberta must focus on market diversification with a clear aim to Asia-Pacific.

I have discussed this issue with the Prime Minister on many occasions and we continue to be in constant communications with him.”

-30-

[admin]

Dogwood Initiative reacts to Keystone XL decision

January 18, 2012

VICTORIA, B.C. — In response to U.S. President Barack Obama’s announcement today that he is rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline as proposed, Emma Gilchrist, Communications Director for Dogwood Initiative, said the following:

“His decision to reject Keystone XL indicates Obama is listening to the citizens he represents and is taking environmental consequences seriously. It stands in stark contrast to the situation in Canada, where we have a prime minister who seems to view environmental consequences as an annoying diversion on the path to an approval and who refuses to listen to the thousands of British Columbians who are saying no to Enbridge’s tanker and pipeline proposal.

“Three-quarters of British Columbians consistently oppose introducing oil tankers to B.C.’s inside coastal waters, according to polling over the past five years. The Nebraska Sandhills were the showstopper for Keystone XL, and B.C.’s coast will be the showstopper for Enbridge’s tanker and pipeline proposal — the difference is you can’t reroute around B.C.’s coast.

“British Columbians bear the threat of a catastrophic oil spill and British Columbians are saying ‘no’ loud and clear. More than 20,000 people have signed Dogwood Initiative’s petition at notankers.ca since Minister Oliver’s comments 10 days ago — an unprecedented surge of opposition. The Conservative government’s attacks on democracy are clearly backfiring amongst British Columbians.

“Ramping up oilsands production to fill oil tankers larger than the Exxon Valdez bound for Asia is not in Canada’s best interests. As a country, we need to take a much broader look at how Canada’s non-renewable resources can be used in our nation’s best interests — not in the best interests of multinational oil companies and their political supporters.”

Emma Gilchrist
Communications Director
Dogwood Initiative
250-661-7277


-30-

[admin]

A Battle Won For Mother Earth. . .

January 18, 2012

Native Americans Applaud President Obama’s decision rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Obama acknowledges his commitment to Native Americans to listen to their concerns

Bemidji, Minnesota - Tribal leaders and Native organizations from the United States and Canada are standing together today pleased that President Barack Obama is acknowledging his pledge to listen to the voices of this countries’ original people, by rejecting the Transcanada Keystone XL pipeline. Recent months have brought tribal leaders to Washington DC requesting Obama to reject the pipeline. “Tribal governmental leaders from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Sac and Fox Nation met with President Obama and his administration in Washington DC in early December to deliver a message to reject the Keystone XL pipeline in defense of Mother Earth,“ says Tom B.K. Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network.

“I say miigwetch, thank you, to the Creator for giving President Obama and the U.S. Department of State the courage, strength and wisdom to deny the presidential permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Lifting up this issue as a Native rights issue bringing our tribal grassroots and governmental leaders together with environmentalist and private land owners of the prairie lands sent a message loud and clear that this was the right thing to do,” said Marty Cobenais, lead pipeline organizer with IEN.

Debra White Plume, a grandmother of the Oglala Lakota Oyate who was arrested in the Washington DC protest of the pipeline says, “Rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline is a reason to celebrate! At least that source of contamination that was a threat of our drinking water sources, the Missouri River, and the Ogallala Aquifer has been removed. Now we just have to stop the uranium mining that is poisoning the aquifer every day.”

“President Obama and the State Department deserve our thanks for having the foresight and courage to reject the permit application for the pipeline. The stated number of jobs on the project was so inflated that it started to outweigh the health, environmental and climate impacts being experienced by the Cree, Dene and Métis communities living downstream from the tar sands in Canada. In any of these carbon intense fossil fuel developments, and its pipeline infrastructures, economic externality costs have to be thoroughly assessed,” said Pat Spears, President of Intertribal Council on Utility Policy, based in South Dakota. “In the Northern Plains our tribes have alternatives for clean renewable energy.”

“This is one battle won for our Mother Earth,” said Clayton Thomas-Muller, campaign coordinator with IEN Canadian Indigenous Tar Sands Campaign. “Other pipeline battles linked to the Canadian tar sands continue. We remain vigilant in our work with First Nations in Canada and grassroots leaders to halt the tar sands. We are working with activists in British Columbia to stop the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, and other pipelines throughout Canada.”

For More information
Clayton Thomas-Muller IEN Tar Sands Campaign Coordinator email: ienoil@igc.org cell: (613) 297 7515

Marty Cobenais IEN Pipeline Organizer email: martyc@ienearth.org cell: (218) 760 0284

[admin]

Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

April 13th, 2012

A plan to expand an existing Alberta to Vancouver oil pipeline has been confirmed by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, the second-biggest U.S. pipeline partnership.

The planned expansion of its Trans Mountain pipeline now for sure faces further First Nations scrutiny and strong opposition. Tsleil Waututh First Nation (Burrard Indian Band) and environmental groups already have raised concerns about the size of Kinder Morgan's expansion and the amount of tanker traffic that the increased exports will create in Vancouver.

According to a news release, "The company plans to spend 18 months to 24 months writing detailed plans and building support among local communities, First Nations and aboriginal groups before applying for permission to build the line from Canada's National Energy Board".

The 1,150-kilometer (714-mile) pipeline system stretches from Alberta to Vancouver, providing the only access for Canadian oil to reach the West Coast. Kinder Morgan says it hopes it can expand the existing pipeline to open an outlet for Canada's oil-sands production more quickly than competitors seeking to build new pipelines.

Kinder Morgan is quick to point out the challenges faced by its competitors - TransCanada Corp. (TRP)'s proposed Keystone XL line, which would bring Canadian oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast, was rejected by President Barack Obama earlier this year because of environmental concerns. Enbridge Inc. (ENB)'s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would extend from the oil-sands region to Kitimat, British Columbia, is facing more than a year of regulatory hearings amid opposition from aboriginal groups.

[admin]

Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

First Nations have confirmed that they have serious concerns
about a recent announcement of an oil pipeline expansion in British Columbia.

April 17th, 2012

First Nations in British Columbia (Coldwater Indian Band,Whispering Pines Indian Band, Lower Nicola Indian Band) say outstanding grievances must be dealt with first, before pipeline company can even consider consulting with them to expand in their traditional territories. . .

"If they want to go through our territory they will have to deal with our reserves and our band members first," said Victor York, Chief of the Lower Nicola Indian Band. "Start with resolving outstanding issues, or who in this province is going to believe that Kinder Morgan Canada is a good corporate citizen worthy of regulatory approvals?"
He was responding to the announcement to expand Kinder Morgan's existing Trans Mountain, Alberta to Vancouver oil pipeline.

"The 24-inch pipeline crossing our reserves has leaked in places, but they denied it even as they hauled away truckloads of oil soaked soil in 2008," stated Harold Aljam, Chief of the Coldwater Indian Band. "Kinder Morgan Canada does not have a permit to operate the oil pipeline on our reserves and refuses to admit that as well. They will only deal with things that help them maintain the pipeline to a minimum standard. Anything else they stall on."

Michael LeBourdais, Chief of the Whispering Pines Indian Band explained the concerns this way,"They want to go through our territory and our reserves without rectifying existing wrongs. . ."They want 'to consult' about the future and ignore the past without considering the impact that a pipeline that size will have on our lives. They have already impacted our economic development projects with their existing 24-inch and 36-inch wide pipes crossing our reserve. They have impacted our leasing opportunities. They say it doesn't, but talk to our potential clients. Two big pipelines pretending to be in a 60-foot wide right of way with a 200-foot safety zone is an impediment."
- - -

Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

April 13th, 2012

A plan to expand an existing Alberta to Vancouver oil pipeline has been confirmed by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, the second-biggest U.S. pipeline partnership. The planned expansion of its Trans Mountain pipeline now for sure faces further First Nations scrutiny and strong opposition. Tsleil Waututh First Nation (Burrard Indian Band) and environmental groups already have raised concerns about the size of Kinder Morgan's expansion and the amount of tanker traffic that the increased exports will create in Vancouver.

According to a news release, "The company plans to spend 18 months to 24 months writing detailed plans and building support among local communities, First Nations and aboriginal groups before applying for permission to build the line from Canada's National Energy Board".

The 1,150-kilometer (714-mile) pipeline system stretches from Alberta to Vancouver, providing the only access for Canadian oil to reach the West Coast. Kinder Morgan says it hopes it can expand the existing pipeline to open an outlet for Canada's oil-sands production more quickly than competitors seeking to build new pipelines.

Kinder Morgan is quick to point out the challenges faced by its competitors - TransCanada Corp. (TRP)'s proposed Keystone XL line, which would bring Canadian oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast, was rejected by President Barack Obama earlier this year because of environmental concerns. Enbridge Inc. (ENB)'s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would extend from the oil-sands region to Kitimat, British Columbia, is facing more than a year of regulatory hearings amid opposition from aboriginal groups.

[admin]

(Tsleil-Waututh Nation, North Vancouver, BC - April 18, 2012)

Tsleil-Waututh Nation Opposes Kinder Morgan's Campaign to Make Vancouver An Oil Port City

Tsleil-Waututh Nation Chief Justin George stated in November 2011 that his community considers Kinder Morgan's proposal to expand the Trans Mountain Pipeline "a risk too great to accept". "Now that some of the details of this plan have been released" says George, "we want to make it crystal clear that we will oppose any and all increased oil tanker traffic in the Inlet and we oppose the notion of Kinder Morgan turning Vancouver into an oil port city."

"Tsleil-Waututh has inherent rights as a First Nation and we have never given up our interest and deep connection to the Inlet and our surrounding territory. We will assert our aboriginal rights and title to protect our collective future."

Don't confuse Tsleil-Waututh's opposition to the pipeline as an anti-business stance. Tsleil-Waututh is a progressive First Nation that is actively involved in residential development, construction, wind power, eco-tourism and are on record supporting the $8 billion dollar Seaspan project that will see the creation of 4000 plus employment opportunities and will be a true benefit to the local, provincial and national economy. Tsleil-Waututh sees those opportunities as sustainable and good business.

"It seems apparent to me that if this project goes ahead, gas prices in Vancouver will increase, refining capacity and the jobs associated with it will disappear and Vancouver property values will be affected by the day to day oil loss associated with the operation of tanker movement and the inevitability of an oil spill catastrophe" says George.

Chief George echoes the recent comments made by Mayors Corrigan and Robertson expressing their concerns and opposition to the Kinder Morgan project and adds "We live in the most beautiful city in the world and we live here because of the great quality of life our environment provides us with. The idea of having 400 Super Tankers in our Inlet on an annual basis and turning Vancouver into an export facility for heavy oil is simply unacceptable. We will work with the mayors, all concerned First Nations, all levels of government and the general public who oppose this project."

Kinder Morgan has announced their intention to file a Commercial Tolling Application in June. Chief George notes "It is our understanding that this will be the first opportunity for First Nations, local governments and citizens to express their concerns about this project in a regulatory process and we all need to make sure our voices are heard." Tsleil-Waututh understands that approval of this application clears the way for Kinder Morgan to export crude rather than refine it in Canada. It is a key to this project and without approval, the project is unlikely to proceed.

Kinder Morgan is currently required by the National Energy Board to sell a portion of its capacity domestically. This ensures that local refining capacity is maintained and critical supplies like jet fuel remain available at competitive prices.

Chief George encourages all Vancouver citizens to make themselves aware of the regulatory process that governs the approval and authorization of Kinder Morgan's proposed project. The first step is the Commercial Tolling Application. Details can be found on the National Energy Board website at http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rcmmn/hm-eng.html

MEDIA CONTACT
Ernie George, Director, Treaty, Lands and Resources Department. Telephone: (604)-290-3777

BACKGROUND
Tsleil-Waututh Nation is a progressive and vibrant Coast Salish community of approximately 500 members located along the shores of Burrard Inlet in North Vancouver, B.C., Canada. For more information please visit the Nation's Website at www.twnation.ca