Environmentalists: Pipeline review biased

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- E-mails between lobbyists for a firm proposing a Canada-U.S. oil pipeline and the State Department reveal a sometimes-cozy relationship, environmentalists say.

The New York Times reports environmental groups say the e-mails show "complicity" between TransCanada, the pipeline company, and U.S. State Department officials charged with evaluating its environmental impact.

"You see officials who see it as their business not to be an oversight agency but as a facilitator of TransCanada's plans," said Damon Moglen, director of the climate and energy project for Friends of the Earth, whose Freedom of Information Act request resulted in release of the e-mails.

The e-mails reveal a State Department official at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa was invited to Fourth of July parties for TransCanada officials, shared information with the company about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's meetings and cheered TransCanada on, the Times said.

Moglen said e-mails mention multiple meetings between TransCanada officials and assistant secretaries of state while such access was denied environmental groups. They argue the Keystone XL project, as the pipeline is known, would result in unacceptable emissions and harm sensitive ecosystems.

The Times said many of the e-mails are between TransCanada's chief Washington lobbyist, Paul Elliott, a top official in Clinton' s 2008 presidential campaign, and Marja Verloop, counselor for energy and environment at the embassy in Ottawa.

Wendy Nassmacher, a State Department spokeswoman, said the e-mails did not show a bias in favor of the pipeline, which could carry 700,000 barrels a day.

"We are committed to a fair, transparent and thorough process," she said in an e-mail.

The State Department, charged with permitting pipelines that cross national borders, said in its final environmental impact statement the pipeline would have "limited adverse environmental impacts" if regulations are followed.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which can comment but not rule on such pipelines, had criticized the State Department's early assessments of the project but had not commented on the latest one.