Twenty-two House Democrats yesterday asked the Obama administration to abandon what they slammed as its "flawed" 2011 review of the Keystone XL pipeline and to conduct a new environmental study that "does not presuppose the development" of heavy Canadian oil regardless of whether the project is built.

While the $5.3 billion pipeline remains in limbo as the State Department and Nebraska officials prepare separate reviews of its rerouted path through the Cornhusker State, Keystone XL remains a prime mover for environmentalists and oil-industry backers who are preparing for it to surge back to the fore come spring -- particularly if President Obama wins re-election in November.

The first quarter of 2013 is expected to bring the completion of a new State Department environmental analysis that examines the XL line's rerouted path through Nebraska. The 22 Democrats yesterday argued that the State Department should perform a completely new review in the wake of the separation of a smaller, Obama-blessed southern leg from the original $7 billion pipeline that the president rejected in January.

"In light of the new route and a new termination point in Cushing, Oklahoma, the purpose and need for this project must be re-evaluated," the lawmakers -- led by Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Steve Cohen o Tennessee and Peter Welch of Vermont -- wrote to the assistant secretary of State in charge of the process. "Additionally, the final [analysis] that was issued by the State Department was flawed and should not be used as a baseline for a supplemental review."

The State Department already has settled on a supplemental environmental impact statement that attempts to use as much information as possible from the previous rounds of review of the XL line, which would nearly double U.S. import capacity for Canadian oil sands crude if approved. Following a push by environmental groups and climate scientists to consider the emissions implications of heightened oil sands development, the department told E&E Daily that it also would "consider any new and significant information relevant to climate change concerns" (EnergyWire, July 18).

Green groups and many Democrats charge that the XL line would subject U.S. consumers to new safety risks while providing an uncertain payoff, citing the more carbon-intensive nature of oil sands extraction as well as the lack of certainty that Canadian imports would bring down prices at the pump. The oil industry, business interests, Republicans and conservative Democrats hail the project as a job creator that ensures a steady fuel supply from a friendly neighbor to replace less-secure Middle Eastern imports.

The Democrats pointed to several issues that they hoped to see the State Department expand on in any new environmental review of the project. Those factors include the safety risks of transporting Canadian fuel in light of the 2010 Michigan spill involving the crude, the relative benefits of a route that entirely avoids Nebraska's Sandhills and Ogallala Aquifer, and an emissions analysis that does not assume oil sands operations would expand even if Keystone XL does not receive a permit.

The latter request reflects a central goal of the pipeline's foes, who have ramped up their opposition in recent months to other Canadian oil links -- including a western pipe and the reversal of a line that could eventually bring the heavy crude east -- as a means to keep the fuel source effectively landlocked.

Even as Obama's final verdict on the project remains unclear, his GOP presidential rival, Mitt Romney, has vowed to sign off on Keystone XL as one of his first acts in office, should he prevail on Election Day.

Click here to read the Democratic letter on Keystone XL.