Keystone XL Pipeline, 2008-2021
This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.
 |
|
The Keystone XL pipeline would transport crude oil extracted from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, and shale oil from North Dakota and Montana to Nebraska. The Keystone XL pipeline would then connect to existing pipelines and transport oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. The pipeline would span 875 miles. TransCanada, a Canadian-based company, oversees the project.[1]
In November 2015, President Barack Obama (D) rejected TransCanada's application for a presidential permit to build the pipeline across the U.S.-Canadian border.[2][3]
On March 24, 2017, the U.S. State Department issued its presidential permit approving the Keystone XL pipeline. President Donald Trump (R) signed an executive order in January 2017 to expedite final approval of the pipeline within 60 days. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the pipeline required State Department approval before it could cross the U.S-Canadian border.[4][5][6][7]
On November 20, 2017, the Nebraska Public Service Commission voted 3-2 to approve construction of a portion of the Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska, though the commission rejected TransCanada's preferred route for the pipeline. The commission's ruling can be appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The U.S. State Department also announced it would review its presidential permit for the pipeline and decide whether additional permitting actions are needed in light of the Nebraska commission's decision to approve an alternative pipeline route.[8][9][10]
On November 9, 2018, U.S. District Judge Brian M. Morris blocked the permit issued by the Trump administration. Morris ruled that a supplemental environmental review had to be completed before the construction could proceed.[11]
On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden (D) signed an executive order which revoked the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline.[12]
- See also: Keystone XL Pipeline political timeline
Background
The 875-mile Keystone XL pipeline was proposed in 2008. The pipeline would link Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska. Part of the pipeline would transport crude oil from the Bakken oil fields of Montana to Nebraska. From Nebraska, crude oil would be transported to refineries along the Gulf Coast through existing TransCanada-managed pipelines. One of the pipelines, which links Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf Coast, was completed in 2013 and began shipping crude oil on January 21, 2014.[13][1]
Presidential permit
The Keystone XL pipeline would cross the U.S.-Canadian border and thus would require a presidential permit from the U.S. State Department. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all federal agencies must submit a report on the potential impacts of all major federal actions that may affect the environment. Under NEPA, the federal government was required to evaluate and document the pipeline's potential environmental impacts. TransCanada applied for a presidential permit in 2008. The permit was denied by the State Department under George W. Bush (R). The company re-applied for a permit in May 2012 after it modified the pipeline's route. The 2012 permit application required an additional environmental impact study.[1]
Obama administration
In November 2015, the Obama administration denied TransCanada a presidential permit. President Obama (D) argued that approving the pipeline would undercut federal climate change policies aimed at reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.[2]
In response, TransCanada said the company "will review all of its options in light of a permit denial for Keystone XL," including filing a new permit application. The company called the decision "a damaging blow to jobs, the economy and the environment on both sides of the border."[2]
Trump administration
On March 24, 2017, the U.S. State Department under the Trump administration issued its presidential permit approving the Keystone XL pipeline. In response to the decision, TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said, "We greatly appreciate President Trump's administration for reviewing and approving this important initiative and we look forward to working with them as we continue to invest in and strengthen North America's energy infrastructure."[14][15]
On November 9, 2018, U.S. District Judge Brian M. Morris blocked the permit issued by the Trump administration. Morris ruled that a supplemental environmental review had to be completed before the construction could proceed.[11]
Biden administration
On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden (D) signed an executive order which revoked “permits signed over the past 4 years that do not serve the U.S. national interest, including revoking the Presidential permit granted to the Keystone XL pipeline.”[16]
Nebraska commission
On November 20, 2017, the Nebraska Public Service Commission voted 3-2 to approve construction of a portion of the Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska, though the commission rejected TransCanada's preferred route for the pipeline. The commission held several hearings on the pipeline in 2017 and considered more than 500,000 comments on the proposed route. The commission's ruling can be appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.[9][10]
"As a result of today's decision, we will conduct a careful review of the Public Service Commission's ruling while assessing how the decision would impact the cost and schedule of the project," said TransCanada president and CEO Russ Girling.[9]
Jane Kleeb, chairwoman of the Nebraska Democratic Party and founder of Bold Nebraska, a group opposed to the pipeline said, "TransCanada did not get their preferred route which means years of new review and legal challenges are now on the table."[10]
On November 20, 2017, the U.S. State Department also announced it would review its presidential permit for the pipeline and decide whether additional permitting actions are needed in light of the Nebraska commission's decision to approve an alternative pipeline route.[9]
Economic impact
| Keystone XL jobs |
|---|
Direct jobs include all jobs produced directly by the Keystone XL project. This includes all construction jobs. Indirect jobs include the jobs that supply or assist in the pipeline's construction. Examples include the jobs related to providing concrete, fuel, surveys, welding materials, or other pipeline-related goods and services. |
In January 2015, the U.S. State Department released its final environmental impact statement for Keystone XL, arguing that the pipeline's construction would support approximately 42,100 jobs, which include direct, indirect, and induced jobs. Of that total, 16,100 direct jobs would be created, 3,900 of which would be construction jobs if the project is completed in one year or 1,950 jobs per year if the pipeline is completed over two years. Additionally, the pipeline's construction and operation would create 26,000 indirect or induced jobs.[17]
The 2015 report also estimated additional economic benefits associated with Keystone XL. The report's authors argued that the pipeline would produce approximately $2 billion in wage earnings in the United States and contribute around $3.4 billion (0.02 percent) to U.S. gross domestic product. Additionally, 17 of 27 counties with potential pipeline-related facilities would see an increase in property tax revenue of at least 10 percent.[17]
The following timeline shows TransCanada's job creation estimates between 2010 and 2013:[18]
The table below compares the job estimates produced by TransCanada in 2013 and the State Department in its 2015 report.
| Estimated jobs created by Keystone XL (as of 2016) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TransCanada (2013) | State Department (2015) | |||
| Construction jobs | 9,000 | 3,900† | ||
| Other direct jobs | N/A | 16,100† | ||
| Indirect and induced jobs | N/A | 26,000 | ||
| Total jobs during construction | 9,000 | 42,100 | ||
| Total permanent jobs after construction | 50 | 50 | ||
| † The 3,900 construction job estimate is included in the State Department's 16,100 job estimate. Sources: U.S. State Department, "Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project" Forbes, "Pipe Dreams: How Many Jobs Will Be Created By Keystone XL?" | ||||
Cost
In 2008, TransCanada estimated that the Keystone XL pipeline's total cost would be $5.4 billion. In November 2014, the company estimated that the pipeline's total cost increased to $8 billion given the delays in approval—a 48 percent increase over the 2008 estimate. As of September 2014, the company spent $2.4 billion on the project.[19]
| Estimated costs of Keystone XL (as of 2014) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | Cost | |||
| September 2008 | $5.4 billion | |||
| November 2014 | $8 billion | |||
| Source: Bloomberg, "TransCanada says Keystone XL project could rise to $8 billion" | ||||
Environmental impact
In 2012, Congress passed legislation requiring a study of the Keystone XL pipeline's potential environmental impact. In 2013, the National Research Council (a nonprofit, nongovernmental research organization established by Congress in 1916) found that the type of crude oil to be transported through the pipeline did not present a unique risk for pipeline failure and thus potential spills. Additionally, the report's authors argued that this crude oil is not more likely to cause spills than other types of crude oil.[1]
The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, argued in 2013 that the pipeline's approval could lead to increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and thus human-caused global warming. To support this claim, the group cited the U.S. State Department's March 2013 draft environmental impact report, which found that the process of extracting oil from Canadian tar sands until it is refined and burned as gasoline would produce 81 percent more CO2 than the same process involving conventional petroleum. The 2015 State Department report found that net CO2 emissions would remain unaffected whether or not the pipeline is built because the oil from Canadian tar sands would still be extracted and burned. Additionally, the report found that without the pipeline the oil would instead be delivered by trains, which produce more CO2 than pipelines.[17][20][21]
November 2017 spill
On November 16, 2017, the Keystone pipeline system leaked approximately 210,000 gallons of oil in northeastern South Dakota, according to TransCanada. According to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the leak was the largest Keystone pipeline spill as of November 2017. According to TransCanada, the pipeline was shut down within minutes of employees discovering an irregularity, and the spill had been controlled as of November 17, 2017.[22]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Keystone XL. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Congressional Research Service, "Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments," January 5, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 The New York Times, "Obama Rejects Construction of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline," November 6, 2015
- ↑ Calgary Herald, "Update: TransCanada issues statement on Keystone XL rejection," November 6, 2015
- ↑ Politico, "State Department to approve Keystone pipeline permit," March 23, 2017
- ↑ The Hill, "Trump takes action to move forward with Keystone, Dakota Access pipelines," January 24, 2017
- ↑ The Hill, "Overnight Energy: TransCanada reapplies to build Keystone XL," January 26, 2017
- ↑ Bloomberg, "Keystone Pipeline Gets Trump Approval as New Roadblocks Loom," March 24, 2017
- ↑ Omaha World-Herald, "130-plus citizens, groups file to intervene in approval process for Keystone XL route across Nebraska," March 24, 2017
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Washington Examiner, "Nebraska regulators approve in-state route for Keystone XL pipeline," November 20, 2017
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 CNN, "Nebraska approves path for controversial Keystone XL pipeline," November 20, 2017
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Federal Judge Blocks Keystone XL Pipeline Permit," November 9, 2018
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "President Biden Signs Executive Orders on Face Mask Mandate, Keystone Pipeline, Paris Accord," January 20, 2021
- ↑ The Guardian, "Keystone XL oil pipeline – everything you need to know," January 31, 2014
- ↑ Bloomberg, "Keystone Pipeline Gets Trump Approval as New Roadblocks Loom," March 24, 2017
- ↑ TransCanada, "TransCanada Receives Presidential Permit for Keystone XL, "March 24, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Biden kills Keystone XL permit, again," January 20, 2021
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 U.S. State Department, "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project," accessed January 22, 2015
- ↑ Forbes, "Pipe Dreams: How Many Jobs Will Be Created By Keystone XL?" May 10, 2013
- ↑ Bloomberg, "TransCanada Says Keystone XL Costs Increase to $8 Billion," November 4, 2014
- ↑ Natural Resources Defense Council, "Climate Impacts of the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline," October 2013
- ↑ Property and Environment Research Center, "Stopping Keystone Ensures More Railroad Tank-Car Spills," May 14, 2014
- ↑ CNN, "Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota," November 16, 2017
