Petition Circulating Against Keystone XL


LINCOLN, Neb., (UPI) — Concerned citizens in Nebraska are circulating a petition to urge state and federal officials to stop the Keystone XL oil pipeline, an advocacy group said.

Nebraska next week hosts a State Department meeting on a draft evaluation of TransCanada’s planned pipeline from Alberta province. The review stated any environmental threat from tar sands oil, the type designated for Keystone XL, would be present with or without the pipeline. Rail deliveries of crude oil should be considered when weighing the project’s national interest, however.

Pipeline opponent Bold Nebraska said that, despite a reroute, the pipeline would still run through sensitive ecosystems in the state that holds a key drinking water supply. The group added that tar sands may be more corrosive and thus more likely to cause pipeline spills.

“I am opposed to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline route because it is directly over the Ogallala Aquifer. Therefore, I am asking you to disapprove TransCanada’s pending permit request,” the petition reads. “Do not allow TransCanada to build a pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer and risk the potential damage to Nebraska’s water.”

The federal government needs to sign off on Keystone XL as a cross-border pipeline. Supporters say the project is good for the region’s economy and energy security. Opponents like Bold Nebraska say the environmental risks are too great to ignore.

UPI - United Press International, Inc.

Since 1907, United Press International (UPI) has been a leading provider of critical information to media outlets, businesses, governments and researchers worldwide.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.