The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline has been the subject of increasing criticism and protest since September 2008 when TransCanada first submitted an application for a Presidential Permit. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this application was the subject of a State Department Inspector General investigation after the New York Times reported that there were significant conflicts of interest. The company that was awarded the contract to develop the EIS, Cardno Entrix, listed TransCanada as a major client. TransCanada was also very involved in the process for selecting who the contract would be awarded to. The State Department Office of the Inspector General completed a Special Review of the process at the prompting of several members of Congress and made changes in the awards process that would, presumably, reduce the likelihood of these conflicts occurring again.?After the application was denied January 18, 2012, President Obama backpedaled a bit and announced his support for the southern portion of the pipeline in March. In May, 2012, TransCanada submitted a new application for the northern portion of the pipeline.

This time the contract for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was awarded to Environmental Resources Management (ERM). When ERM released the EIS in March there was a an immediate outcry from many organizations who allege that the report downplays known risks of Tar Sands extraction and transportation. One reporter, Andy Kroll at Mother Jones uncovered evidence of conflicts of interest at ERM. Specifically:

“Experts who helped draft the report had previously worked for?TransCanada, the company looking to build the Keystone pipeline, and other energy companies poised to benefit from Keystone’s construction.?State released?documents?in conjunction with?the Keystone report?in which?these experts’ work histories were redacted?so that anyone reading the documents wouldn’t know who’d previously hired them. Yet unredacted versions of these documents obtained by?Mother Jones?confirm that three experts working for an outside contractor had done consulting work for TransCanada and other oil companies with a stake in the Keystone’s approval.”

The Checks and Balances Project?(C&BP), along with 11 other organizations, called on the State Department Inspector General to investigate these conflicts of interest. Earlier today, the C&BP released information which they say indicates that the Inspector General is, in fact, looking into these allegations. A few weeks after the C&BP sent the letter calling for an investigation, Mr. Elsner “received a voicemail from a Special Agent at the State Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG):?Hello Mr. Elsner, my name is Special Agent Pedro Colon from the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. ?I’m calling to inform you that we have received your request and are reviewing the matter. ?If you have any questions please contact me at?703-284-2688.” (Source: C&BP)

Mr. Elsner followed up by phone and email and was told that they could not comment on any potential investigations even to the person who filed the complaint. C&BP has stated that because they cannot comment, there must be an investigation. Mr. Doug Welty, who is the Congressional and Public Affairs Officer for the Office of Inspector General at the State Department did speak with me earlier today about the OIG hotline procedures. When a complaint comes in, the person making the complaint is given a reference number to use when contacting the OIG and only this person can follow-up on the complaint. The OIG will then look at the totality of the circumstances to determine the next appropriate action. The OIG cannot comment until the complaint has been resolved. Once it is resolved, then the person making the complaint can be told what the resolution is.

“The public was supposed to get an honest look at the impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline. Instead, ERM, an oil company contractor, misled the State Department, in what appears to be an attempt to green light the project on behalf of oil industry clients.

The American Public needs a full investigation into the conflicts of interest and misleading statements of the Keystone XL review contractor,?Environmental Resources Management.” (Source: C&BP)

Edited by:SB