TransCanada pushes back at Johanns request for more pipeline review

Johanns and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) both contend the pipeline, as currently proposed, could spoil a key aquifer in their state, which would harm drinking water.



Girling argues the proposed and alternative routes already reviewed by 
the department take a diagonal path because it is the shortest path and is environmentally preferable. Johanns wants the department to
 consider running the pipeline parallel to an existing one. 
Girling contends that would lengthen the company’s proposed 
pipeline expansion by another 20 percent — adding 213 miles and nearly 3,000 more acres of land — and thus would prove more environmentally harmful
 and affect more landowners.

“There is no justification” for conducting another environmental review, Girling wrote, noting the current review has gone on for two years. “It has been open and transparent and has provided ample opportunity for public involvement,” he wrote.



Johanns wrote Clinton Monday asking for a new analysis to include “additional pipeline entry points into the United States and consider a route that would run parallel to the existing Keystone pipeline route.” He also wants another look at “any potential environmental benefit to a route that avoids the Sandhills region” of Nebraska and “any environmental significance of soil composition.”

The request follows separate letters Johanns and Nelson sent Clinton recently stating concern she is poised to approve the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project despite allegations it might spoil a key aquifer in their state.

“Conducting a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will increase the transparency of the environmental review process by providing a formal avenue to assess and respond to remaining concerns,” Johanns wrote 
Monday.

The proposed pipeline project would connect to an existing pipeline in Kansas and pump crude oil from the Alberta oil sands into Montana and through Nebraska, South Dakota, Oklahoma and finally into Texas.