CNN: Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota

By Mayra Cuevas and Steve Almasy, CNN

(CNN)A total of 210,000 gallons of oil leaked Thursday from the Keystone Pipeline in Marshall County, South Dakota, the pipeline’s operator, TransCanada, said.

Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning and officials are investigating the cause of the leak, which occurred about 3 miles southeast of the town of Amherst, said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

This is the largest Keystone oil spill to date in South Dakota, Walsh said. In April 2016, there was a 400-barrel release — or 16,800 gallons — with the majority of the oil cleanup completed in two months, Walsh said. About 5,000 barrels of oil spilled Thursday.

“It is a below-ground pipeline but some oil has surfaced above ground to the grass,” Walsh said. “It will be a few days until they can excavate and get in borings to see if there is groundwater contamination.”

There were no initial reports of the oil spill affecting waterways, water systems or wildlife, he said. TransCanada said it was working with state and federal agencies. “The safety of the public and environment are our top priorities and we will continue to provide updates as they become available,” the company said.

The sections of pipeline affected stretch from Hardisty, Alberta, to Cushing, Oklahoma, and to Wood River, Illinois, the company said.

The spill occurred in the same county as part of the Lake Traverse Reservation.

“We are concerned that the oil spill is close to our treaty land, but we are trying to stay positive that they are getting the spill contained and that they will share any environmental assessments with the tribal agency,” said Dave Flute, tribal chairman of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate.

Environmental activist group Greenpeace said the spill shows another section of the pipeline in Nebraska should not be approved.

“The Nebraska Public Service Commission needs to take a close look at this spill,” said Rachel Rye Butler of Greenpeace. “A permit approval allowing Canadian oil company TransCanada to build Keystone XL is a thumbs-up to likely spills in the future.”

New Keystone XL has been approved

The Keystone Pipeline system stretches more than 2,600 miles from Hardisty east into Manitoba and then down to Texas, according to TransCanada. The pipeline transports crude oil from Canada.

The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would stretch from Hardisty down to Steele City, Nebraska, would complete the entire proposed system by cutting through Montana and South Dakota.

In March, the Trump administration officially issued a permit that approved construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The approval followed years of intense debate over the pipeline amid hefty opposition from environmental groups, who argued the pipeline supports the extraction of crude oil from oil sands, which pumps about 17% more greenhouse gases than standard crude oil extraction. Environmentalists also opposed the pipeline because it would cut across the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world’s largest underground deposits of fresh water.

Tar sands oil is much thicker and stickier than traditional oil, significantly complicating cleanup efforts. The fact it’s thicker also means it needs to be combined with other hazardous materials to allow it to be transported in pipelines.

Native American groups have argued the pipeline would cut across their sovereign lands.

Trump said the new pipeline will be a big win for American workers, but critics say it won’t be, because most of the jobs would be temporary.

Drop in pressure was sign of leak

TransCanada said Thursday that the section of Keystone pipe that was leaking was isolated within 15 minutes after a drop in pressure was detected.

According to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ website, this is the third pipeline spill in the state this year. Another came in April when about 84 gallons of crude oil leaked from the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline in Spink County.

That pipeline, which runs through both Dakotas and two other states, drew fierce resistance from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in North Dakota, the tribe’s allies and environmentalists.

Opposition to the pipeline sparked months long protests, with as many as 10,000 people participating during the peak of the demonstrations. Clashes with police at the protests turned violent at times, with one woman nearly losing her arm after an explosion last November.

CNN’s Eric Levenson contributed to this report.

NPR

Keystone Pipeline Oil Spill Reported In South Dakota

Richard Gonzales        November 16, 2017   

A protest sign sits in the proposed path of the Keystone XL Pipeline in Silver Creek, Neb.  Nati Harnik/AP

TransCanada, the company that owns and operates the Keystone Pipeline, says that an estimated 210,000 gallons, or 5,000 barrels, of oil have spilled near the small town of Amherst, S.D.

The cause of the leak is under investigation, according to the company’s website. TransCanada crews detected a drop in pressure at about 6 a.m. CT Thursday morning and shut down the pipeline, which runs from Hardesty, Alberta, to Cushing, Okla., and Wood River/Patoka, Ill.

Amherst is about 200 miles north of Sioux Falls, S.D., and about 25 miles from the state’s border with North Dakota.

The conduit is not the controversial and long-delayed Keystone XL Pipeline that TransCanada is still shepherding through the approval process.

But as NPR’s Jeff Brady reports, the spill comes at a sensitive time for TransCanada.

“Regulators in the neighboring state of Nebraska are expected to announce a decision on the company’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline next week. The project and its route through Nebraska have been controversial. Some landowners are concerned about how an oil spill might harm their property and water supplies.”

The spill does nothing to enhance prospects for the XL Pipeline, which critics argue should not be allowed to operate.

“TransCanada cannot be trusted,” said Jane Kleeb, head of the Nebraska Democratic Party and a longtime activist opposed to Keystone XL, as quoted by the Washington Post.

“I have full confidence that the Nebraska Public Service Commission is going to side with Nebraskans, not a foreign oil company,” she added.

Brian Walsh, an environmental scientist manager at the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, said the company was aware of the spill at about 5:30 a.m. CT. But his agency wasn’t alerted until about 10:30 a.m. CT.

“There is a time lag there and I expect that that will be some of the questions we need to answer over the coming months,” he told Jeff.

In its statement, TransCanada said, “The section of pipe along a right-of-way approximately 35 miles (56 kilometres) south of the Ludden pump station in Marshall County, South Dakota was completely isolated with 15 minutes and emergency procedures were activated.”

The spill occurred about 3 miles southeast of Amherst on private land, which Walsh described as a “flat, grassy area for grazing.” The company tweeted a picture of the site late Thursday.

The company says that it is providing state and federal regulators “with accurate and confirmed information on an ongoing basis.”

EcoWatch

Trump Administration Reverses Ban on Elephant Trophy Imports

Lorraine Chow      November 16, 2017

Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. Steven dosRemedios / Flickr

The Trump administration has agreed to allow the remains of elephants killed in Zimbabwe and Zambia to be brought back to the U.S., a reversal of an Obama-era ban.

In 2014, the President Obama’s administration banned the imports of elephant trophies to protect the species. “Additional killing of elephants in these countries, even if legal, is not sustainable and is not currently supporting conservation efforts that contribute towards the recovery of the species,” they said at the time.

African elephant populations had once numbered between three to five million in the last century, but have been severely reduced to its current levels of 415,000 animals due to hunting and the illegal ivory trade, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), an agency within the Department of Interior, said Tuesday that reversing the ban would help preserve the species.

“The hunting and management programs for African elephants will enhance the survival of the species in the wild,” a FWS spokesperson said.

“Legal, well-regulated sport hunting as part of a sound management program can benefit the conservation of certain species by providing incentives to local communities to conserve the species and by putting much-needed revenue back into conservation.”

Under the new change, hunters who legally hunt or hunted an elephant in Zimbabwe from Jan. 21, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2018, or in Zambia between 2016 to 2018 can apply for a permit to import their trophy into the U.S.

Incidentally, the policy switch was first announced by Safari Club International, a hunting advocacy group that teamed up with the National Rifle Association to sue to block the 2014 ban.

“These positive findings for Zimbabwe and Zambia demonstrate that the FWS recognizes that hunting is beneficial to wildlife and that these range countries know how to manage their elephant populations,” said Safari Club International President Paul Babaz.

“We appreciate the efforts of the Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior to remove barriers to sustainable use conservation for African wildlife.”

But Elizabeth Hogan, World Animal Protection U.S. Wildlife Campaign Manager, said she was “appalled” at the decision by the Department of the Interior and is urging the Trump administration to reconsider.

“Trophy hunting causes prolonged, immense suffering for elephants and fuels demand for wild animal products, opening the door for further exploitation,” Hogan said.

“The U.S. must do all we can to ensure the genuine protection of African elephants, a species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The stalking, chasing and killing of animals for game hunting is abhorrent, and we should not prop up this sordid industry of trophy hunting. Wild animals belong in the wild—not targeted and killed in the name of entertainment.”

Wayne Pacelle, the president and CEO of The Humane Society, similarly condemned the new policy.

“Let’s be clear: elephants are on the list of threatened species; the global community has rallied to stem the ivory trade; and now, the U.S. government is giving American trophy hunters the green light to kill them,” he wrote in blog post.

Pacelle also criticized Interior Sec. Ryan Zinke’s department for forming the so-called International Wildlife Conservation Council—an advisory group that he said “would allow trophy hunters an even more prominent seat at the table of government decision-making, ignoring the copious science that trophy hunting undermines the conservation of threatened and endangered species.”

But Sec. Zinke, an avid hunter, said the council will “provide important insight into the ways that American sportsmen and women benefit international conservation from boosting economies and creating hundreds of jobs to enhancing wildlife conservation.”

President Donald Trump’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also hunting enthusiasts. Trump’s sons have been criticized by animal rights’ groups for posing in photos with their exotic and endangered big game catches such as elephants and leopards.

EcoWatch @EcoWatch

Trump Sons Auctioning Off $1 Million Hunting Trip to Celebrate Inauguration. OMG  http://ow.ly/K5bG307jdOP  @HuffPostGreen @greenpeaceusa       8:50 PM – Dec 20, 2016

The Nation

Democrats Will Need More Than Resistance to Govern

And that means running candidates who do more than oppose Trump.

By Robert L. Borosage     November 15, 2017

Phil Murphy, governor-elect of New Jersey, speaking at a campaign rally in October 2017. (AP Photo / Michael Brochstein)

Sweeping victories in last Tuesday’s elections provided a bracing tonic for Democrats. “If case there was any doubt,” tweeted former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, “the Resistance is real.” Tuesday’s victories should buoy Democrats but not mislead them. The reaction to Trump is fierce, but not sufficient to consolidate a new ruling coalition that can make the changes we need.

Turnout in Virginia, which featured the marquee gubernatorial matchup on Election Day, was at presidential-year levels. Democrats, people of color, and self-described liberals came out in large numbers. Women voted Democratic by large margins. The Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Ralph Northam—a charismatically challenged, eminently decent, experienced, establishment figure—didn’t light that fire. Middle-class voters in the Virginia suburbs braved a driving rainstorm to deliver a stunning rebuke to Trump, and to the vile “Trumpism without Trump” campaign run by former Republican lobbyist Ed Gillespie.

Democrats won big down-ballot as well, capturing 15 seats in the House of Delegates and coming close to erasing the previous 32-seat Republican advantage in the state House completely. This represents the most sweeping shift in control of the state legislature since the Watergate era. Insurgents also won, including Democratic Socialist Lee Carter, who took out the Republican majority whip, and Danica Roem, the first transgender candidate to win a state legislative seat in the country.

Virginia was not alone. Democrats also took back the governorship in New Jersey, won full control in Washington State, and elected the first Democratic mayor of Manchester, New Hampshire. Charlotte, North Carolina, elected its first African-American female mayor. In Maine, voters overwhelmingly voted to extend Medicaid under Obamacare.

Pollsters increasingly see the Republican majority in the House as endangered. Fury at Trump has mobilized Democratic and independent voters. The absence of Trump on the ticket may depress Republican turnout. The Republican Congress is even less popular than Trump.

In some ways, the more interesting race occurred in New Jersey, where the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Philip Murphy, an irrepressible happy warrior, also won big as expected. Murphy is yet another former Goldman Sachs banker, but sought to rise above it. (Twenty-nine percent of voters said his Goldman Sachs background made them feel worse about him; only 8 percent said it made them feel better, and they were probably Republicans.)Murphy presented himself as a progressive champion. He endorsed a $15 minimum wage, the creation of a public bank, and investment in infrastructure. He called for legalization of pot, embraced unions, and supported making New Jersey a sanctuary state.

Exit polls showed that Murphy, unlike Northam, won the male vote, losing white men by only 50-46 percent. Unlike Northam, he won a majority of those without college degrees. Like Northam, he had overwhelming majority among people of color, women and the young.

Murphy’s more progressive message was vital to his victory in the primaries and certainly didn’t hurt him in the general. New Jersey is bluer than Virginia, although not as diverse. Its voters were disgusted with departing Governor Chris Christie, and corruption was the biggest concern of voters. Fifty-four percent of New Jersey voters strongly disliked Trump and voted for Murphy 88-10. Thirty percent were from union households, and voted Murphy 64-35, accounting for much of his better showing among the non-college-educated.

Despite those results in New Jersey, there is a danger that Democrats ultimately will see hostility to Trump as the simple solution to their woes. Democrats, concluded Jonathan Chait, “don’t need to take a radical left-wing stance to oppose the GOP agenda. They can defend the prerogatives of fairly affluent voters who are still getting hurt at the expense of the super-rich. It is a very favorable position.” Or as Lee Drutman put it in The New York Times, reflecting the view of the party’s professionals, “the key to Democrats’ fortunes in 2018 and 2020 will be to execute on the fundamentals—pick quality candidates who don’t mess up, make sure to get voters to the polls, and take advantage of President Trump’s low approval numbers and the inevitable turn against Republicans. Ride the wave. Don’t get too fancy.”

That dramatically underestimates the task before Democrats. Democrats won in Virginia, New Jersey, Washington State, and Maine, but so did Hillary Clinton. Northam essentially followed the Hillary Clinton strategy in Virginia, building a majority grounded on the middle-class suburbs, the college-educated, women, people of color, and the young. That strategy worked for Clinton in Virginia and New Jersey in 2016, and Trump’s serial outrages fueled a fury that made it even more powerful in 2017.

Northam ran better than Clinton in almost every demographic and every region, but still lost Trump counties big-time. Northam’s call for civility and for working together didn’t succeed in appealing to white working people, particularly in rural areas. It succeeded overall in Virginia, a remarkably diverse and relatively affluent state. Exit polls reported that 33 percent of the electorate were people of color (who voted 80-19 for Northam). Fifty-eight percent were college educated, voting 60-39 Northam, while those without a college degree went 52-46 for Gillespie. Northam lost the white vote, particularly white men by 63-36. He lost whites without a college degree by a stunning 72 to 26.

Tuesday’s elections give Democrats obvious momentum. Democratic committees can expect a surge of fundraising. Candidate recruitment will get easier. Republican retirements have already accelerated.

With the architects of Democratic failure still in control of the party’s apparatus—the DNC, the party committees, the consultants, and contractors all remain pretty much the same—resistance is a tempting default position. It’s possible, as Ron Brownstein has suggested, that the furious reaction to Trump and the failed Republican Congress will suffice to let Democrats take back the House.

But resistance alone won’t suffice to consolidate a governing majority, much less provide a mandate for the reforms this country desperately needs. That coalition can only be built if Democrats work to enlist working people across lines of race, reflect their anger at an economy rigged against them, challenge business as usual, and build an agenda for real change. A recent in-depth study of the 2016 results found that 45 percent of the electorate were whites without a college degree. Democrats can’t write off that vote and hope to build governing majorities. The challenge, as David Leonhardt aptly phrased it, is that Democrats have to “get the white working class to focus on the working-class part of their identity rather than the white part.” And that won’t happen without a populist economic message and an agenda with real bite.

The fight about the party’s direction that began in the wake of defeat won’t end in the wake of Tuesday’s victories. Insurgent candidates—supported by organizations like Our Revolution, the Working Families Party, People’s Action, Democrats for America, and others—enjoyed remarkable success in down-ballot races on Tuesday. Centrist Democrats—like California Senator Dianne Feinstein and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin—already face primary challenges from the left. The party pros will decry the internal divisions, but the fact that grassroots activists are putting energy into electoral politics as well as protest movements, and are operating inside the party rather than outside in third parties, may well be the best hope for the Democratic Party’s renewal.

Support Progressive Journalism. If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation’s work. Get unlimited access to The Nation for as little as 37 cents a week!   Subscribe

Robert L. Borosage is a leading progressive writer and activist.

EcoWatch

Four Countries Leading on Climate