Keystone XL - IMPACT STATEMENT, poorly done, MORE WORK IS NEEDED

” They (EPA) rated it “Insufficient Information,” which means that they do not know enough to fully assess the environmental impacts of a tar sands pipeline traversing the continent.
Here are the reasons EPA said that State’s DEIS needs more work:

• Increased carbon pollution: EPA acknowledged the DEIS’s attempt to do a life-cycle analysis of the pipeline’s emissions, which found that emissions from oil sands crude would be 81 percent higher than regular crude, or an incremental increase of 18.7 million metric tons of CO2 per year. EPA noted that “If GHG intensity of oil sands crude is not reduced, over a 50 year period the additional CO2 from oil sands crude transported by the pipeline could be as much as  935 million metric tons.” These statistics are alarming, yet EPA’s analysis did not stop there. 

Tar sands oil is particularly dirty to clean up: The EPA notes that diluted bitumen is very dense and sinks to the bottom of rivers and lakes. The  2010 Enbridge spill will require dredging, because normal cleanup methods do not suffice.

Who needs drinking water?: Though Keystone’e proponents received praise for moving the original route away from the Sand Hills, it still crosses the Ogallala Aquifer. 

http://www.alternet.org/environment/epa-slams-states-draft-impact-statement-keystone-xl?akid=10360.294211.67VZRS&rd=1&src=newsletter829656&t=25