Keystone Pipeline

The Keystone Pipeline System is an oil pipeline system in Canada and the United States, commissioned in 2010 and owned by TC Energy and as of 31 March 2020 the Government of Alberta.[8][9][10][11] It runs from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta to refineries in Illinois and Texas, and also to oil tank farms and an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.[12][13]

Keystone Pipeline System (partly operational and proposed)
Keystone Pipeline route
Location
Country	Canada United States
General information
Type	Crude oil
Owner	TC Energy
Website	keystone-xl.com

Keystone Pipeline (Phase 1) (complete)
Location
From	Hardisty, Alberta
Passes through	Regina, Saskatchewan Steele City, Nebraska
To	Wood River, Illinois Patoka, Illinois (end)
General information
Type	Crude oil
Construction started	Q2 2008
Commissioned	June 2010[1]
Technical information
Length	3,456 km (2,147 mi)
Maximum discharge	0.86 million barrels per day (~4.3×10^7 t/a)
Diameter	30 in (762 mm)
No. of pumping stations	39

Keystone-Cushing Project (Phase 2) (complete)[2]
Location
From	Steele City, Nebraska
To	Cushing, Oklahoma
General information
Type	Crude oil
Contractors	WorleyParsons
Construction started	2010
Commissioned	February 2011[3]
Technical information
Length	468 km (291 mi)
Diameter	36 in (914 mm)
No. of pumping stations	4

Cushing Marketlink Project (Phase 3a) (complete)[2]
Location
From	Cushing, Oklahoma
Passes through	Liberty County, Texas
To	Nederland, Texas
General information
Type	Crude oil
Contractors	WorleyParsons
Construction started	Summer 2012[4]
Commissioned	January 2014[5]
Technical information
Length	784 km (487 mi)
Maximum discharge	0.7 million barrels per day (~3.5×10^7 t/a)
Diameter	36 in (914 mm)

Houston Lateral Project (Phase 3b) (complete)[2]
Location
From	Liberty County, Texas
To	Houston, Texas
General information
Type	Crude oil
Contractors	WorleyParsons
Construction started	2013
Commissioned	2016,[6] online 2017
Technical information
Length	76 km (47 mi)

Keystone XL Pipeline (Phase 4)[7]
Location
From	Hardisty, Alberta
Passes through	Baker, Montana
To	Steele City, Nebraska
General information
Type	Crude oil
Contractors	WorleyParsons
Construction started	Unknown
Technical information
Length	1,897 km (1,179 mi)
Diameter	36 in (914 mm)

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd,[14] abbreviated here as Keystone, operates four phases of the project. In 2013, the first two phases had the capacity to deliver up to 590,000 barrels (94,000 m³) per day of oil into the Midwest refineries.[15] Phase III has capacity to deliver up to 700,000 barrels (110,000 m³) per day to the Texas refineries.[16] By comparison, production of petroleum in the United States averaged 9.4 million barrels (1.5 million cubic meters) per day in first-half 2015, with gross exports of 500,000 barrels (79,000 m³) per day through July 2015.[17]

The proposed Phase IV, Keystone XL (sometimes abbreviated KXL, with XL standing for "export limited"[18]) Pipeline, would connect the Phase I-pipeline terminals in Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska, by a shorter route and a larger-diameter pipe.[19] It would run through Baker, Montana, where American-produced light crude oil from the Williston Basin (Bakken formation) of Montana and North Dakota would be added[12] to the Keystone's throughput of synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the oil sands of Canada. The pipeline became well known when Phase IV KXL attracted opposition from environmentalists, becoming a symbol of the battle over climate change and fossil fuels. In 2015 KXL was temporarily delayed by President Barack Obama. On January 24, 2017, President Donald Trump took action intended to permit the pipeline's completion. On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order[20] to revoke the permit[21] that was granted to TC Energy Corporation for the Keystone XL Pipeline (Phase 4).

Description

The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. A fourth, proposed pipeline expansion segment Phase IV, Keystone XL, failed to receive necessary permits from the United States federal government in 2015. Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Nederland, Texas, in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.[notes 1][22] Phase III was opened on January 22, 2014, completing the pipeline path from Hardisty, Alberta to Nederland, Texas.[16] The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch (910 mm) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m³/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area".[12] The Keystone XL pipeline segments were intended to allow American crude oil to enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.[23][24]

Operating since 2010, the original Keystone Pipeline System is a 3,461-kilometre (2,151 mi) pipeline delivering Canadian crude oil to U.S. Midwest markets and Cushing, Oklahoma. In Canada, the first phase of Keystone involved the conversion of approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of existing 36-inch (910 mm) natural gas pipeline in Saskatchewan and Manitoba to crude oil pipeline service. It also included approximately 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new 30-inch-diameter (760 mm) pipeline, 16 pump stations and the Keystone Hardisty Terminal.[25]

The U.S. portion of the Keystone Pipeline included 1,744 kilometres (1,084 mi) of new, 30-inch-diameter (760 mm) pipeline in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Illinois.[25] The pipeline has a minimum ground cover of 4 feet (1.2 m).[26] It also involved construction of 23 pump stations and delivery facilities at Wood River, Illinois and Patoka, Illinois. In 2011, the second phase of Keystone included a 480-kilometre (298 mi) extension from Steele City, Nebraska, to Cushing, Oklahoma, and 11 new pump stations to increase the capacity of the pipeline from 435,000 to 591,000 barrels (69,200 to 94,000 m³) per day.[25]

Additional phases (III, completed in 2014, and IV, rejected in 2015) have been in construction or discussion since 2011. If completed, the Keystone XL would have added 510,000 barrels (81,000 m³) per day increasing the total capacity up to 1.1 million barrels (170,000 m³) per day.[27]

The original Keystone Pipeline cost US$5.2 billion. A press release from TransCanada in 2008 estimated the Keystone XL costs at approximately US$7 billion with a completion date of 2012.[27]

From January 2018 through December 31, 2019, Keystone XL development costs were $1.5 billion.[28]^:147

History

The project was first proposed in 2005 by the Calgary, Alberta-based TransCanada Corporation,[29] and was approved by Canada's National Energy Board in 2007.[30]

February 9, 2005 TransCanada Corporation proposed the project.[29]

October 2007 The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada asked the Canadian federal government to block regulatory approvals for the pipeline, with union president Dave Coles stating "the Keystone pipeline will exclusively serve US markets, create a permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce our energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector".[31]

September 21, 2007 The National Energy Board of Canada approved the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline, including converting a portion of TransCanada's Canadian Mainline gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline, on September 21, 2007.[30]

January 22, 2008 ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project.[32] March 17, 2008 During the final year of the Presidency of George W. Bush, the United States Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.[33]

June 17, 2008 TransCanada agreed that they would buy out ConocoPhillips' share in the project and revert to being the sole owner.[34] It took TransCanada more than two years to acquire all the necessary state and federal permits for the pipeline. Construction took another two years.[35] The pipeline, from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Patoka, Illinois, United States, became operational in June 2010.[36]

June 2008 The Keystone XL extension was proposed in June 2008.[26] June 17, 2009' TransCanada began the process of becoming the sole owner of the pipeline.[34]

September 2009The NEB – replaced in 2019 by the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) – started hearings.[37]

February 2010 South Dakota Public Utilities Commission granted a permit to proceed.[38] and in March 2010, the National Energy Board approved the project.[23][39][40]

June 2010 Keystone Pipeline (Phase I) was completed and was delivering oil from Hardisty, Alberta, over 3,456 kilometres (2,147 mi) to the junction at Steele City, Nebraska, and on to Wood River Refinery in Roxana, Illinois, and Patoka Oil Terminal Hub north of Patoka, Illinois.[1]

July 21, 2010 The Environmental Protection Agency criticized the State Department's draft environmental impact study for neglecting concerns about oil spill response plans, safety issues and greenhouse gas.[41][42] February 2011The Keystone-Cushing extension (Phase II) was completed running 468 kilometres (291 mi) from Steele City to a tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma.[15][3]

June 3, 2011 Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued TransCanada a Corrective Action Order (CAO), for Keystone's May 2011 leaks.[43] On April 2, 2016, PHMSA issued a CAO to TransCanada for a 16,800 US gallons (64 m³) leak in Hutchinson County, South Dakota,[44] and again on April 9.[45] The pipeline restarted at a reduced operating pressure on April 10 after the U.S. regulator approved the companies corrective actions and plan.[46] A 9,700 barrels (1,540 m³) leak occurred in Marshall County, South Dakota in November 2017.[47] This leak occurred early in the morning on November 16, 2017 near Amherst, South Dakota and was contained shortly after detection 35 miles (56 km) south of the Ludden pump station.[48]

August 26, 2011 The final environmental impact report was released on stating that the pipeline would pose "no significant impacts" to most resources if environmental protection measures are followed, but it would present "significant adverse effects to certain cultural resources".[49]

September 2011 Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute released the results of the GLI Keystone XL Report, which evaluated the pipeline's impact on employment, the environment, energy independence, the economy, and other critical areas.[50]

November 10, 2011 The Department of State postponed a final decision while investigating "potential alternative routes around the Sandhills in Nebraska" in response to concerns that the project was not in the United States' national interest.[51] In its response, TransCanada pointed out fourteen different routes for Keystone XL were being studied, eight that impacted Nebraska. They included one potential alternative route in Nebraska that would have avoided the entire Sandhills region and Ogallala Aquifer and six alternatives that would have reduced pipeline mileage crossing the Sandhills or the aquifer.[52][53]

March 2012 Obama endorsed the building of the southern segment (Gulf Coast Extension or Phase III) that begins in Cushing, Oklahoma. The President said in Cushing, Oklahoma, on March 22, "Today, I'm directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done."[54]

January 22, 2014 The Gulf Coast Extension (Phase III) was completed running 784 kilometres (487 mi) from Cushing to refineries at Port Arthur, Texas.[4][5]

January 2014 The US Department of State's (DoS) January 2014 "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement" (SEIS) said that, "because of broader market dynamics and options for crude oil transport in the North American logistics system, the upstream and downstream activities are unlikely to be substantially different whether or not the proposed Project is constructed".[55] January 9, 2015 The Nebraska Supreme Court cleared the way for construction, after Republican Governor Dave Heineman had approved of it in 2013.[56]

February 24, 2015 President Obama vetoed a bill that approved the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, saying that the decision of approval should rest with the Executive Branch.[57] The Senate had passed it 62–36 on January 29,[58] and the House approved it 270–152 on February 11.[59] The Senate was unable to override the veto by a two-thirds majority, with a 62–37 vote.[60] September 29, 2015 TransCanada dropped their lawsuit against Nebraska landowners who had refused permission allowing for pipeline easements on their properties, in order to exercise eminent domain over such use.[61]

November 3, 2015 U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry issued a determination that the project was not in the public interest. Kerry found that there was a "perception" among foreigners that the project would increase greenhouse-gas emissions, and that, whether or not this perception was accurate, the decision would therefore "undercut the credibility and influence of the United States" in climate-change-related negotiations.[62] On November 6, 2015, the Obama government rejected the pipeline.[63]

November 6, 2015 The Obama administration rejected the project of Keystone XL,[64] "over environmental concerns".[65] Financial commitment towards completion of the pipeline was weakened by a number of technological factors as well. Innovations in fracking had increased domestic production of oil and, according to the EIA, reduced annual demand of oil from foreign countries to an all-time low since 1985. Shifts to gasoline fuel for cargo vehicles, new technologies promoting fuel efficiency, and export restrictions that forced the price of oil to decrease also played a part.[66]

Mid-2016 A lateral pipeline to refineries at Houston, Texas and a terminal was completed, and was online in 2017.[6][16]

Donald Trump signing the Presidential memoranda to advance the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, January 24, 2017

January 24, 2017 In his first week in office, President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum to revive both Keystone XL pipelines,[67][68] which "would transport more than 800,000 barrels [130,000 m³] per day of heavy crude" from Alberta to the Gulf Coast.[65] March 9, 2017 The Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier of Alberta Rachel Notley attended North America's largest energy conference – CERAWeek in Houston, Texas.[65] An Angus Reed Institute poll published that week showed that 48% of Canadians supported the revival of the Keystone XL pipeline project.[65] The pollsters said that the support for the Keystone pipeline project by provincial NDP government and the federal Liberal government under Trudeau had a positive impact on Canadians' attitudes of the project.[65]

March 24, 2017 President Trump signed a presidential permit to allow TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline.[69][70] The State Department issued a new Record of Decision on the same factual record as before but now finding that granting the permit to be in the national interest.[67] November 2017 The Nebraska Public Service Commission approved (3–2) the construction of the pipeline, albeit through an alternative route which is longer, but deemed to have the least environmental impact compared to two other routes that were considered.[71] This proved to be a major setback for TransCanada since they would have "years of new review and legal challenges". TransCanada asked Nebraska to reconsider this decision[72] and worked with Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to determine the structural cause of a leak in South Dakota on November 21, 2017.[48][73]

November 2018 U.S. District Judge Brian Morris (District of Montana) enjoined construction of the pipeline and vacated the new permit because the policy reversal violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act.[74][75]

February 2019 District Judge Morris denied a request by TransCanada Corporation to begin constructing worker camps for pipeline although the company could begin construction of pipe storage and container yards as long as they were outside the proposed pipeline's right-of-way.[76]

March 2019 President Trump revoked the prior permit and himself directly issued a new permit for the pipeline.[67][70]

May 2019 TransCanada Corporation changed its name to TC Energy Corporation, as its business extends into the United States,[77] Mexico, as well as Canada where it has pipelines, power generation and energy storage operations.[78][79]

June 2019 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the Justice Department's motion to lift the injunction blocking construction and found that the new permit mooted the prior Montana lawsuit.[80]

August 2019, The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Nebraska Public Service Commission's approval of TransCanada's pipeline application.[81][82]

October 2019 The State Department solicited comments on its new draft supplemental environmental impact statement.[83][84]

March 2020 The Premier of Alberta Jason Kenney, who campaigned on promoting the province's oil and gas industry and has aggressively promoted the industry by repealing the carbon tax and establishing an energy war room (Canadian Energy Centre),[85][86][87][88] announced that the UCP government was taking an "equity stake" and providing a "loan guarantee", which amounts to a "total financial commitment of just over $7 billion" to the Keystone XL project.[89]

March 31, 2020 CEO Russ Girling announced that TC Energy "will proceed with construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline" and thanked President Donald Trump, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, and other government officials for "support and advocacy" for Keystone XL.[90] Girling said that this construction, which will take place during the COVID-19 pandemic, will follow government and health authorities guidance, to ensure the protection of workers, their families, and surrounding communities from the virus.[90]

April 15, 2020 District Judge Brian Morris issued a suspension for the pipeline's construction after the plaintiffs, the Northern Plains Resource Council, alleged the project was improperly reauthorised back in 2017.[91][92] In the summary judgment, the judge agreed that the Endangered Species Act was violated, thereby voiding the permit.

May 28, 2020 The United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit denied a motion to stay the District Judge's ruling.[93] This prompted Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco to file an application for stay to the Supreme Court. The application was granted consideration.

July 6, 2020 In the US Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resource Council case, the Supreme Court of the US ordered all Keystone XL work be halted.[94][91] The order, however, did not affect any other present or future pipeline construction in the United States, and would be in force until the circuit court, and then the Supreme Court deliver their final rulings.[95] In response, TC Energy stated that the US part of the project would be reassessed (but not abandoned); the Canadian part would proceed as before.[94]

January 20, 2021 United States President Joe Biden revoked the permit for the pipeline on his first day in office.[96]

Ownership

The company, which changed its name from TransCanada Corporation to TC Energy Corporation on May 3, 2020, to "better reflect the scope of our operations as a leading North American energy infrastructure company", is the sole owner of the Keystone Pipeline System.[28]^:5 The pipeline system was originally developed as a partnership between TransCanada and ConocoPhillips, but TransCanada acquired ConocoPhillips' interest in August 2009.[19]

As of 2008, certain parties who agreed to make volume commitments to the Keystone expansion had the option to acquire up to a combined 15% equity ownership,[27] which included Valero Energy Corporation[97] and Hogshead Spouter Co

Route

Phase 1 (complete)

Keystone 30 in (760 mm) pipeline (phase 1) near Swanton, Nebraska (2009)

This 3,456-kilometre-long (2,147 mi) pipeline runs from Hardisty, Alberta, to the junction at Steele City, Nebraska, and on to the Wood River Refinery in Roxana, Illinois, and Patoka Oil Terminal Hub (tank farm) north of Patoka, Illinois.[98] The Canadian section involves approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of pipeline converted from the Canadian Mainline natural gas pipeline and 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new pipeline, pump stations and terminal facilities at Hardisty, Alberta.[99]

The United States section is 2,219 kilometres (1,379 mi) long.[99] It runs through Nemaha, Brown and Doniphan counties in Kansas and Buchanan, Clinton, Caldwell, Montgomery, Lincoln and St. Charles counties in Missouri, before entering Madison County, Illinois.[36] Phase 1 went online in June 2010.[1]

Phase 2 (complete)

The Keystone-Cushing pipeline phase connected the Keystone pipeline (phase 1) in Steele City, Nebraska, south through Kansas to the oil hub and tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma, a distance of 468 kilometres (291 mi) long. It was constructed in 2010 and went online in February 2011.[3]

Truck hauling 36 in (910 mm) pipe to build Keystone-Cushing pipeline (phase 2) southeast of Peabody, Kansas (2010)

Phase 3a (complete)

The Cushing MarketLink pipeline phase started at Cushing, Oklahoma, where American-produced oil is added to the pipeline, then runs south 435 miles (700 km) to a delivery point near terminals in Nederland, Texas, to serve refineries in the Port Arthur, Texas, area. Keystone started pumping oil through this section in January 2014.[4][5][100] Oil producers in the U.S. pushed for this phase so the glut of oil can be distributed out of the large oil tank farms and distribution center in Cushing.

Phase 3b (complete)

The Houston Lateral pipeline phase is a 47-mile (76 km) pipeline to transport crude oil from the pipeline in Liberty County, Texas, to refineries and terminal in the Houston area. This phase was constructed 2013 to 2016 and went online in 2017.[6]

Phase 4

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline starts from the same area in Alberta, Canada, as the Phase 1 pipeline.[26] The Canadian section would consist of 526 kilometres (327 mi) of new pipeline.[39] It would enter the United States at Morgan, Montana, and travel through Baker, Montana, where American-produced oil would be added to the pipeline; then it would travel through South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipelines at Steele City, Nebraska.[8] This phase has generated the greatest controversy because of its routing over the Sandhills in Nebraska.[101][102][103]

In 2015, President Obama blocked the project, causing TC Energy to instigate a US $15 billion lawsuit under NAFTA.[104]

On January 24, 2017, President Donald Trump took action intended to permit the pipeline's completion, whereupon TC Energy suspended their NAFTA Chapter 11 action.[104]

On January 18, 2018, TransCanada announced they had secured commitments to ship 500,000 barrels (79,000 m³) per day for 20 years.[105]

On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden revoked the permit for the pipeline on his first day in office.[106]

On 4 February 2021, Jason Kenney said that the Government of Alberta intended to pursue justice through the NAFTA adjudication process, which persists until July 2023. A critic remarked that the US has never paid out under this scheme, and that in 2017 an executive order signed by Donald Trump "explicitly said the permit could be revoked at any time and that the (shareholders) would be (hung out to dry) if that happened."[104]

Issues

Political issues

Map showing how the United States House of Representatives voted on the Keystone Pipeline, November 14, 2014: "No" votes are colored in red; "Yes" votes in green.

According to a February 10, 2011 Reuters article, Koch Industries—then owned by Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, commonly referred to as the Koch brothers—were in a position to increase their profits substantially if the Keystone XL Pipeline were approved.[107] By 2011, Koch Industries refined 25% of all crude oil imported into the United States.[107] In response to the article, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush submitted a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee urging them to request documents from Koch Industries relating to the pipeline.[108][109][110]

The pipeline was a prominent issue in the 2014 United States mid-term elections, and after Republicans gained control of the Senate that year, the project was revived. The following year, President Obama said in his speech announcing the rejection of the pipeline on November 6, 2015, that Keystone XL had taken on symbolic importance, "for years, the Keystone pipeline has occupied what I, frankly, consider an overinflated role in our political discourse. It became a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter."[111] He went on to state that "approving this project would have undercut [the United States'] global leadership" on climate change.[112]

In January 2012, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) requested a new report on the environmental review process.

In September 2015, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton publicly expressed her opposition to the Keystone XL, citing concerns about climate change.[113] After Donald Trump's victory in that election, he released a presidential memorandum on January 24, 2017 announcing revival of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.[67] The order would expedite the environmental review, which Trump described as an "incredibly cumbersome, long, horrible permitting process."[114]

Indigenous Lands and Peoples

Many American and Canadian Aboriginals have opposed the Keystone XL project for various reasons,[115] including possible damage to sacred sites, pollution, and water contamination, which could lead to health risks among their communities.[116] Many Indigenous women in communities and tribes along this pipeline face a higher risk of sexual violence and violence with the increasing presence of "man camps" in their areas from the pipeline and oil.[117]

On September 19, 2011, a number of Indigenous tribal leaders in the United States and Canada were arrested for protesting the Keystone XL outside the White House. According to Debra White Plume, a Lakota activist, Indigenous peoples "have thousands of ancient and historical cultural resources that would be destroyed across [their] treaty lands".[116] TransCanada's Pipeline Permit Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission states project impacts that include potential physical disturbance, demolition or removal of "prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, objects, and locations with traditional cultural value to Native Americans and other groups".[118]

Indigenous communities are also concerned with health risks posed by the extension of the Keystone pipeline.[119] Locally caught fish and untreated surface water would be at risk for contamination through oil sands extraction, and are central to the diets of many Indigenous peoples.[120] Earl Hatley, an environmental activist who has worked with Native American tribes[121] has expressed concern about the environmental and public health impact on Native Americans.

TransCanada has developed an Aboriginal Relations policy in order to confront some of these conflicts. In 2004, TransCanada made a major donation to the University of Toronto "to promote education and research in the health of the Aboriginal population".[122] Another proposed solution is TransCanada's Aboriginal Human Resource Strategy, which was developed to facilitate Aboriginal employment and to provide "opportunities for Aboriginal businesses to participate in both the construction of new facilities and the ongoing maintenance of existing facilities".[123]

Eminent domain

When Nebraska landowners who had refused TransCanada the permission it needed for pipeline easements on their properties, TransCanada attempted to exercise eminent domain over such use. Landowners in the path of the pipeline have complained about threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land and lawsuits to allow the "pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval".[124] As of October 17, 2011, TransCanada had "34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas" and "22 in South Dakota". Some of those landowners gave testimony for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May 2011.[124] In his book The Pipeline and the Paradigm, Samuel Avery quotes landowner David Daniel in Texas, who claims that TransCanada illegally seized his land via eminent domain by claiming to be a public utility rather than a private firm.[125] On October 4, 2012, 78-year-old Texas landowner Eleanor Fairchild was arrested for criminal trespassing and other charges after she was accused of standing in front of pipeline construction equipment on Fairchild's farm in Winnsboro, a town about 100 miles (160 km) east of Dallas.[126] Fairchild has owned the land since 1983 and refused to sign any agreements with TransCanada. Her land was seized by eminent domain.

By September 29, 2015, TransCanada (later TC Energy) had dropped the lawsuit and acceded to the authority of elected, five-member Nebraska Public Service Commission, which has the state constitutional authority to approve gas and oil pipelines.[61]

Conflicts of interest

In October 2011, The New York Times questioned the impartiality of the environmental analysis of the pipeline done by Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston. The study found that the pipeline would have limited adverse environmental impacts, but was authored by a firm that had "previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a 'major client' in its marketing materials".[127] However, the Department of State's Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation of the potential conflict of interest, and its February 2012 report of that investigation states there was no conflict of interest either in the selection of the contractor or in the preparation of the environmental impact statement.[128]

According to The New York Times, legal experts questioned whether the U.S. government was "flouting the intent" of the Federal National Environmental Policy Act, which "[was] meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects".[127] The report prompted 14 senators and congressmen to ask the State Department inspector general on October 26, 2011 "to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process" for reviewing environmental impact.[129] In August 2014, a study was published that concluded the pipeline could produce up to 4 times more global warming pollution than the State Department's study indicated. The report blamed the discrepancy on a failure to take account of the increase in consumption due to the drop in the price of oil that would be spurred by the pipeline.[130]

On May 4, 2012, the U.S. Department of State selected Environmental Resources Management (ERM) to author a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, after the Environmental Protection Agency had found previous versions of the study, by contractor Cardno Entrix,[131] to be extremely inadequate.[132] Project opponents panned the study on its release, calling it a "deeply flawed analysis".[133] An investigation by the magazine Mother Jones revealed that the State Department had redacted the biographies of the study's authors to hide their previous contract work for TransCanada and other oil companies with an economic interest in the project.[134] Based on an analysis of public documents on the State Department website, one critic asserted that "Environmental Resources Management was paid an undisclosed amount under contract to TransCanada to write the statement".[135]

Diplomatic issues

Commentator Bill Mann has linked the Keystone postponement to the Michigan Senate's rejection of Canadian funding for the proposed Gordie Howe International Bridge and to other recent instances of "U.S. government actions (and inactions) that show little concern about Canadian concerns". Mann drew attention to a Maclean's article sub-titled "we used to be friends"[136] about U.S./Canada relations after President Obama had "insulted Canada (yet again)" over the pipeline.[137]

Canadian Ambassador Doer observes that Obama's "choice is to have it come down by a pipeline that he approves, or without his approval, it comes down on trains".[138]

There are 2.6 million miles (4,200,000 km) of pipeline in the United States (enough to wrap around the earth 100 times) transporting between 11 to 13 billion barrels (1.7 to 2.1 billion cubic meters) of fossil fuel, chemical, and water resources each day. According to U.S. Department of Transportation statistics, pipelines are 451 times safer than rail on a per-distance basis.

During the 2014 Pacific Northwest Economic Region Summit in Whistler, B.C., Canada's US Ambassador Gary Doer stated that there is no proof, be it environmental, economic, safety or scientific, that construction work on Keystone XL should not go ahead. Doer said that all the evidence supports a favorable decision by the US government for the controversial pipeline.[139]

In contrast, the President of the Rosebud Sioux Nation, Cyril Scott, has stated that the November 14, 2014, vote in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. House of Representatives is an "act of war", declaring:

We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation. We are a sovereign nation, and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people.[140]

Geopolitical issues

A map of world oil reserves according to OPEC, 2013

Proponents for the Keystone XL pipeline argue that it would allow the U.S. to increase its energy security and reduce its dependence on foreign oil.[141][142] TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has argued that "the U.S. needs 10 million barrels a day of imported oil" and the debate over the proposed pipeline "is not a debate of oil versus alternative energy. This is a debate about whether you want to get your oil from Canada or Venezuela or Nigeria."[143] However, an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute refers to some studies (e.g. a 2011 study by Danielle Droitsch of Pembina Institute) according to which "a good portion of the oil that will gush down the KXL will probably end up being finally consumed beyond the territorial United States". It also states that the project will increase the heavy crude oil price in the Midwestern United States by diverting oil sands oil from the Midwest refineries to the Gulf Coast and export markets.[50]

The US Gulf Coast has a large concentration of refineries designed to process very heavy crude oil. At present, the refineries are dependent on heavy crude from Venezuela, including crude from Venezuela's own massive Orinoco oil sands. The United States is the number one buyer of crude oil exported from Venezuela.[144] The large trade relationship between the US and Venezuela has persisted despite political tensions between the two countries. However, the volume of oil imported into the US from Venezuela dropped in half from 2007 to 2014, as overall Venezuelan exports have dropped, and also as Venezuela seeks to become less dependent on US purchases of its crude oil. The Keystone pipeline is seen as a way to replace imports of heavy oil-sand crude from Venezuela with more reliable Canadian heavy oil.[145]

TransCanada's Girling has also argued that if Canadian oil doesn't reach the Gulf through an environmentally friendly buried pipeline, that the alternative is oil that will be brought in by tanker, a mode of transportation that produces higher greenhouse-gas emissions and that puts the environment at greater risk.[146] Diane Francis has argued that much of the opposition to the oil sands actually comes from foreign countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, all of whom supply oil to the United States and who could be affected if the price of oil drops due to the new availability of oil from the pipeline. She cited as an example an effort by Saudi Arabia to stop television commercials critical of the Saudi government.[147] TransCanada had said that development of oil sands will expand regardless of whether the crude oil is exported to the United States or alternatively to Asian markets through Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines or Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain line.[148]

Economic issues

In 2011, Russ Girling, president and CEO of TransCanada, touted the positive impact of the project by "putting 20,000 US workers to work and spending $7 billion stimulating the US economy".[149] These numbers come from a 2010 report written by The Perryman Group, a financial analysis firm based in Texas that was hired by TransCanada to evaluate Keystone XL.[150][151] The Perryman Group numbers have been disputed by an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute, which found that while the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs, the impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest, which will likely reduce national employment.[40] However, the State Department estimated that the pipeline would create about 5,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs in the US during the two-year construction period, would increase gasoline availability to the Northeast and expand the Gulf refining industry. T.[152][153]

In January 2012, Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford appealed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to review TransCanada's claims that the Keystone Pipeline would create 20,000 jobs. Stating that the company had "consistently used public statements and information it knows are false in a concerted effort to secure permitting approval" of the pipeline, Radford argued that TransCanada had "misled investors, U.S. and Canadian officials, the media, and the public at large in order to bolster its balance sheets and share price".[154]

In July 2013, President Obama stated "The most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline, which might take a year or two, and then after that we're talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in an economy of 150 million working people." The estimate of 2,000 during construction came under heavy attack, while the long-term, permanent job estimates did not receive as much criticism.[155] According to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the pipeline will only create 35 permanent jobs.[156] The Associated Press noted that it was unclear where the president's figure of 2,000 jobs came from. The U.S. State Department's Preliminary Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, issued in March 2013, estimated 3,900 direct jobs and 42,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction.[157]

In 2010 Glen Perry, a petroleum engineer for Adira Energy, warned that including the Alberta Clipper pipeline owned by TransCanada's competitor Enbridge, there is an extensive overcapacity of oil pipelines from Canada.[158] After completion of the Keystone XL line, oil pipelines to the U.S. may run nearly half-empty. The expected lack of volume combined with extensive construction cost overruns has prompted several petroleum refining companies to sue TransCanada. Suncor Energy hoped to recoup significant construction-related tolls, though the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not rule in their favor. According to The Globe and Mail,

The refiners argue that construction overruns have raised the cost of shipping on the Canadian portion of Keystone by 145 per cent while the U.S. portion has run 92 per cent over budget. They accuse TransCanada of misleading them when they signed shipping contracts in the summer of 2007. TransCanada nearly doubled its construction estimates in October 2007, from $2.8-billion (U.S.) to $5.2-billion.[159]

Due to a 2011 exemption the state of Kansas gave TransCanada, the local authorities would lose $50 million public revenue from property taxes for a decade.[160]

In 2013, United States Democrats were concerned that Keystone XL would not provide petroleum products for domestic use, but simply facilitate getting Alberta oil sands products to American coastal ports on the Gulf of Mexico for export to China and other countries.[161] In January 2015, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on an amendment proposed by Senator Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., which would have banned exports from the Keystone XL pipeline and required that the pipeline be built with steel from the United States.[162][163]

In 2013, frustrated by delays in getting approval for Keystone XL (via the Gulf of Mexico), the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines (via Kitimat, BC) and the expansion of the existing TransMountain line to Vancouver, Alberta has intensified exploration of two northern projects "to help the province get its oil to tidewater, making it available for export to overseas markets".[164] By May 2012, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had spent $9 million and $16.5 million by May 2013 to promote Keystone XL.[161] Until Canadian crude oil accesses international prices like LLS or Maya crude oil by "getting to tidewater" (south to the U.S. Gulf ports via Keystone XL for example, west to the BC Pacific coast via the proposed Northern Gateway line to ports at Kitimat, BC or north via the northern hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, on the Beaufort Sea),[164] the Alberta government is losing from $4–30 billion in tax and royalty revenues as the primary product of the oil sands, Western Canadian Select (WCS), the bitumen crude oil basket, is discounted so heavily against West Texas Intermediate (WTI) while Maya crude oil, a similar product close to tidewater, is reaching peak prices.[165] In April 2013, Calgary-based Canada West Foundation warned that Alberta is "running up against a [pipeline capacity] wall around 2016, when we will have barrels of oil we can't move".[164]

Pipeline opponents warn of disruption of farms and ranches during construction,[166] and point to damage to water mains and sewage lines sustained during construction of an Enbridge crude oil pipeline in Michigan.[167] A report by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute noted of the 2010 Enbridge Tar Oil Spill along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan: "The experience of Kalamazoo residents and businesses provides an insight into some of the ways a community can be affected by a tar sands pipeline spill. Pipeline spills are not just an environmental concern. Pipeline spills can also result in significant economic and employment costs, although the systematic tracking of the social, health, and economic impacts of pipeline spills is not required by law. Leaks and spills from Keystone XL and other tar sands and conventional crude pipelines could put existing jobs at risk.."[166]

Safety issue

A USA Today editorial pointed out that the 2013 Lac-Mégantic derailment in Quebec, in which crude oil carried by rail cars exploded and killed 47 people,[168] highlights the safety of pipelines compared to truck or rail transport. The oil in the Lac-Mégantic rail cars came from the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, an area that would be served by the Keystone expansion.[169] Increased oil production in North Dakota has exceeded pipeline capacity since 2010, leading to increasing volumes of crude oil being shipped by truck or rail to refineries.[170] Canadian journalist Diana Furchtgott-Roth commented: "If this oil shipment had been carried through pipelines, instead of rail, families in Lac-Mégantic would not be grieving for lost loved ones today, and oil would not be polluting Lac Mégantic and the Chaudière River."[171] A Wall Street Journal article in March 2014 points out that the main reason oil producers from the North Dakota Bakken Shale region are using rail and trucks to transport oil is economics not pipeline capacity. The Bakken oil is of a higher quality than the Canadian sand oil and can be sold to east coast refinery at a premium that they would not get sending it to Gulf refineries.[172] The article goes on to state that there is little support remaining among these producers for the Keystone XL.

On November 6, 2015, President Obama rejected Keystone XL citing the urgency of climate change as a key reason behind his decision.[173]

Protests and opposition

Bill McKibben, environmental and global warming activist and founder of 350.org, the group that organized the 2009 international protests—described by CNN as "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history"—led the opposition to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.[174]

In the year before the 2012 United States presidential election, McKibben and other activists mounted pressure on then-President Obama, who was running for re-election. Obama had included a call to "be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil" in his 2008 United States presidential election.[175] A broad coalition of protesters, including Phil Radford, Daryl Hannah,[176] Dave Heineman, Ben Nelson, Mike Johanns and Susie Tompkins Buell challenged him to keep that promise.[175][177][126]

By August 11, there were over 1000 nonviolent arrests at the White House.[176]

On November 6, 2011, several thousand formed a human chain around the White House to convince Obama to block the Keystone XL project. Organizer Bill McKibben said, "this has become not only the biggest environmental flash point in many, many years, but maybe the issue in recent times in the Obama administration when he's been most directly confronted by people in the street. In this case, people willing, hopeful, almost dying for him to be the Barack Obama of 2008."[178]

In August 2012, the Tar Sands Blockade launched an indefinite tree sit in East Texas.[179] On October 31, 2012, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was arrested in Texas for criminal trespass after trying to deliver food and supplies to the Keystone XL protesters.[180][181]

An estimated crowd of 35,000–50,000 gathers near the Washington Monument in February 2013 to protest the Keystone XL pipeline and support action on climate change

On February 17, 2013, approximately 35,000 to 50,000 protesters attended a rally in Washington, D.C. organized by The Sierra Club, 350.org, and The Hip Hop Caucus, in what Bill McKibben described as "the biggest climate rally by far, by far, by far, in U.S. history".[182][183] The event featured Lennox Yearwood; Chief Jacqueline Thomas, immediate past chief of the Saik'uz First Nation; Van Jones; Crystal Lameman, of Beaver Lake Cree Nation; Michael Brune, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and others as invited speakers.[184] Simultaneous 'solidarity' protests were also organized in several other cities across the United States, Europe, and Canada.[185] Protesters called on President Obama to reject the planned pipeline extension when deciding the fate of the pipeline after Secretary of State John Kerry completes a review of the project.[186]

On March 2, 2014, approximately 1000–1200 protesters marched from Georgetown University to the White House to stage a protest against the Keystone Pipeline. 398 arrests were made of people tying themselves to the White House fence with zip-ties and lying on a black tarp in front of the fence. The tarp represented an oil spill, and many protesters dressed in white jumpsuits covered in black ink, symbolizing oil-covered hazmat suits, laid down upon the tarp.

Environmental concerns

Environmental concerns include the potential for air pollution, and for leaks and spills, that could pollute critical water supplies and cause harm to migratory birds and other wildlife.[41] One of the major concerns was the way in which the original route crossed the Sandhills, the large wetland ecosystem in Nebraska, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world.[102]

The Sandhills region and Ogallala Aquifer

A map showing aquifer thickness of the Ogallala Aquifer with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline route laid over

Since 2010, there were concerns that a pipeline spill could threaten the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world's largest fresh water reserves.[102][187] The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture.[188] Critics say that a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.[103][189]

On November 10, 2011, the Department of State postponed a final decision while investigating "potential alternative routes around the Sandhills in Nebraska" in response to concerns that the project was not in the United States' national interest.[51]

In its November 11 response, TransCanada pointed out fourteen different routes for Keystone XL were being studied, eight that impacted Nebraska. They included one potential alternative route in Nebraska that would have avoided the entire Sandhills region and Ogallala Aquifer and six alternatives that would have reduced pipeline mileage crossing the Sandhills or the aquifer.[52][53] The Keystone XL proposal faced criticism from environmentalists and a minority of the members of the United States Congress.

On November 22, 2011, the Nebraska unicameral legislature passed unanimously two bills with the governor's signature that enacted a compromise agreed upon with the pipeline builder to move the route, and approved up to US$2 million in state funding for an environmental study.[190]

On November 30, 2011, a group of Republican senators introduced legislation aimed at forcing the Obama administration to make a decision within 60 days.[191] In December 2011, Congress passed a bill giving the Obama Administration a 60-day deadline to make a decision on the application to build the Keystone XL Pipeline.[51][192]

In 2011, after opposition for laying the pipeline in this area, TransCanada agreed to change the route and skip the Sandhills,[101] even though pipeline industry spokesmen had maintained that existing pipelines carrying crude oil and refined liquid hydrocarbons have crossed over the Ogallala Aquifer for years in southeast Wyoming, eastern Colorado and New Mexico, western Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.[193] The Pioneer crude oil pipeline crosses east–west across Nebraska, and the Pony Express pipeline, which crosses the Ogallala Aquifer in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas, was being converted as of 2013 from natural gas to crude oil, under a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.[194]

In January 2012, President Obama rejected the application amid protests about the pipeline's impact on Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.[195] The deadline for the decision had "prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact".[51][196]

On September 5, 2012, TransCanada submitted an environmental report on the new route in Nebraska, which the company says is "based on extensive feedback from Nebraskans, and reflects our shared desire to minimize the disturbance of land and sensitive resources in the state".[197] The March 2013 U.S. Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) stated that the original proposals, would not cause "significant impacts to most resources along the proposed Project route". This included the shortening of the pipeline to 875 miles (1,408 km); its avoidance of "crossing the NDEQ-identified Sandhills Region" and "reduction of the length of pipeline crossing the Northern High Plains Aquifer system, which includes the Ogallala formation".[12] In response to a Freedom of Information Act request for route information, the Department of State revealed on June 24, 2013, that "Neither Cardno ENTRIX nor TransCanada ever submitted GIS information to the Department of State, nor was either corporation required to do so."[198] In response to the Department of State's report, which recommended neither acceptance nor rejection, an editor of The New York Times recommended that Obama should reject the project, which "even by the State Department's most cautious calculations—can only add to the [climate change] problem".[199][notes 2] On March 21, Mother Jones revealed that key personnel employed by Environment Resources Management (ERM), the consulting firm responsible for generating most of the SEIS, had previously performed contract work for TransCanada corporation. In addition, When the State Department released the original proposal ERM had submitted to secure the SEIS contract, portions of the work histories of key personnel were redacted.[200]

In April 2013, the EPA challenged the U.S. State Department report's conclusion that the pipeline would not result in greater oil sand production, noting that "while informative, [it] is not based on an updated energy-economic modeling effort".[201][202] Overall, the EPA rated the SEIS with their category "EO-2" (EO for "environmental objections" and 2 for "insufficient information").[203]

In May 2013 Republicans in the House of Representatives defended the Northern Route Approval Act, which would allow for congressional approval of the pipeline, on the grounds that the pipeline created jobs and energy independence. If enacted the Northern Route Approval Act would waive the requirement for permits for a foreign company and bypass the need for President Obama's approval, and the debate in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate, concerned about serious environmental risks, that could result in the rejection of the pipeline.[161]

In April 2013, TransCanada Corporation changed the original proposed route of Keystone XL to minimize "disturbance of land, water resources and special areas"; the new route was approved by Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman in January 2013.[204] On April 18, 2014, the Obama administration announced that the review of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline has been extended indefinitely, pending the result of a legal challenge to a Nebraska pipeline siting law that could change the route.

On January 9, 2015, the Nebraska Supreme Court cleared the way for construction, and on the same day the House voted in favor of the pipeline. On January 29, 2015, the Keystone XL Pipeline was passed by the Senate 62–36.[58] On February 11, 2015, the Keystone XL Pipeline was passed by the House of Representatives with the proposed Senate Amendments 270–152.[59] The Keystone XL Pipeline bill was not officially sent to President Obama, starting the official ten-day count towards the bill becoming law without presidential signature, until February 24, 2015. Republicans delayed delivering the bill over the Presidents Day holiday weekend to ensure Congress would be in session if the president were to veto the bill. On February 24, 2015, the bill was vetoed and returned for congressional action.[205] On March 4, 2015, the Senate held a vote and failed to override President Obama's veto of the bill; the vote was 62 to 37, less than the two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto.[206] The review by the State Department is ongoing. On June 15, 2015 the House Oversight Committee threatened to subpoena the State Department for the latter's withholding of records relevant to the process since March 2015 and calling the process "unnecessarily secretive".[207] Despite some records being posted by consulted agencies such as the EPA, the State Department has not responded to the request. On November 2, 2015, TransCanada asked the Obama administration to suspend its permit application for the Keystone XL.[208]

Potential for oil spills

University of Nebraska professor John Stansbury conducted an independent analysis which provides more detail on the potential risks for the Ogallala Aquifer.[209] Stansbury concludes that safety assessments provided by TransCanada are misleading: "We can expect no fewer than 2 major spills per state during the 50-year projected lifetime of the pipeline. These spills could release as much as 180,000 barrels (29,000 m³) of oil each."[210]

Other items of note in Stansbury's analysis:

• "While TransCanada estimates that the Keystone XL will have 11 significant spills, defined as more than 50 barrels (8 m³) of crude oil, over 50 years, a more realistic assessment is 91 significant spills over the pipeline's operational lifetime. TransCanada arbitrarily and improperly adjusted spill factors to produce an estimate of one major spill on the 1,673 mi (2,692 km) of pipeline about every five years, but federal data on the actual incidence of spills on comparable pipelines indicate a more likely average of almost two major spills per year. (The existing Keystone I pipeline has had one major spill and 11 smaller spills in its first year of operation.)"
• "Analysis of the time needed to shut down the pipeline shows that response to a leak at a river crossing could conservatively take more than ten times longer than the 11 minutes and 30 seconds that TransCanada assumes. (After the June 2010 spill of more than 800,000 US gallons (3,000 m³) of crude oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River, an Enbridge tar sands pipeline—a 30-inch (760 mm) pipe compared to the 36-inch (910 mm) Keystone XL—was not completely shut down for 12 hours.)"
• "Realistic calculations yield worst-case spill estimates of more than 180,000 barrels (29,000 m³) in the Nebraska Sandhills above the Ogallala Aquifer, more than 160,000 barrels (25,000 m³) of crude oil at the Yellowstone River crossings, more than 140,000 barrels (22,000 m³) at the Platte River crossing and more than 120,000 barrels (19,000 m³) at the Missouri River crossing."
• "Contaminants from a release at the Missouri or Yellowstone River crossing would enter Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota where they would adversely affect drinking water intakes, aquatic wildlife, and recreation. Contaminants from a spill at the Platte River crossing would travel downstream unabated into the Missouri River for several hundred miles affecting drinking water intakes for hundreds of thousands of people (e.g., Lincoln, Nebraska; Omaha, Nebraska; Nebraska City, Nebraska; St. Joseph, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri) as well as aquatic habitats and recreational activities. In addition, other constituents from the spill would pose serious risks to humans and to aquatic species in the river."
• "The worst-case site for such a spill is in the Sandhills region of Nebraska. The Sandhills are ancient sand dunes that have been stabilized by grasses. Because of their very permeable geology, nearly 100 percent of the annual rainfall infiltrates to a very shallow aquifer, often less than 20 feet (6 m) below the surface. This aquifer is the well-known Ogallala Aquifer that is one of the most productive and important aquifers in the world."[209]

Portions of the pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3-magnitude earthquake as recently as 2002.[188] Opponents claim that TransCanada applied to the U.S. government to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than normal.[189]

TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has described the Keystone Pipeline as "routine", noting that TransCanada has been building similar pipelines in North America for half a century and that there were 200,000 miles (320,000 km) of similar oil pipelines in the United States in 2011. He also stated that the Keystone Pipeline was planned to include 57 improvements above standard requirements demanded by U.S. regulators, making it "the safest pipeline ever built".[146] Rep. Ed Whitfield, a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce concurred, saying "this is the most technologically advanced and safest pipeline ever proposed".[211] However, while TransCanada had asserted that a set of 57 conditions will ensure Keystone XL's safe operation, Anthony Swift of the Natural Resources Defense Council asserted that all but a few of these conditions simply restate current minimum standards.[212]

TransCanada claims that they will take 100% responsibility for any potential environmental problems. According to their website, "It's our responsibility—as a good company and under law. If anything happens on the Keystone XL Pipeline, rapid response is key. That's why our Emergency Response plans are approved by state and federal agencies, and why we practice them regularly. We conduct regular emergency exercises, and aerial surveys every two weeks. We're ready to respond with a highly-trained response team standing by."[213]

Alberta oil sands

The Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada, are a very large source of bitumen, which can be upgraded to synthetic crude oil.

Different environmental groups, citizens, and politicians have raised concerns about the potential negative impacts of the Keystone XL project.[214]

The main issues are the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and 17% higher greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction of oil sands compared to extraction of conventional oil.[215][216]

Leaks and spills

In 2016, about 400 barrels (64 m³) were released from the original Keystone pipe network via leaks, which federal investigators said resulted from a "weld anomaly".[217]

On November 17, 2017, the pipeline leaked around 9,600 barrels (1,530 m³) [218] onto farmland near Amherst, South Dakota. The oil leak is the largest seen from the Keystone pipeline in the state. The leak lasted for several minutes, with no initial reports of damage to water sources or wildlife. Although the spill did not happen on Sioux property, it was in close enough proximity to potentially contaminate the aquifer used for water.[219][220] The pipeline was immediately shut down,[221] and TransCanada began using the pipe again 12 days after the leak.[218] For much of late 2017, the Keystone pipeline operated at reduced pressure during remediation efforts. The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said that the failure "may have been caused by mechanical damage to the pipeline and coating associated with a weight installed on the pipeline in 2008". Later, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that a metal tracked vehicle had run over the area, damaging the pipeline.[217][222] In April 2018, a federal investigation found that 408,000 US gallons (1,540 m³) of crude had spilled at the site, almost twice what TransCanada had reported. That number made it the seventh-largest onshore oil spill since 2002.[223][224]

In April 2018, Reuters reviewed documents that showed that Keystone had "leaked substantially more oil, and more often, in the United States than the company indicated to regulators in risk assessments before operations began in 2010."[221]

On October 31, 2019, a rupture occurred near Edinburg, North Dakota, spilling an estimated 9,120 barrels (1,450 m³)[225] where the 45,000 US gallons (170 m³) that were not recovered from the 0.5 acre containment have spread contaminating 5 acres.[226] This occurred while the South Dakota Water Management Board was in the middle of hearings on whether or not to allow TC Energy to use millions of gallons of water to build camps to house temporary construction workers for Keystone XL construction.[227]

Water supplies

Pipeline construction will affect water supplies upstream of several Native American reservations, even though the pipeline does not lead through any tribal land. TC Energy is applying for permits to tap the Cheyenne River, White River (South Dakota), and Bad River (South Dakota) for use during construction primarily for drilling to install pipe, to build pump stations and to control dust.[227]

Increased carbon emissions

Environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also oppose the project due to its transportation of oil from oil sands.[215] In its March 2010 report, the NRDC stated that "the Keystone XL Pipeline undermines the U.S. commitment to a clean energy economy", instead "delivering dirty fuel at high costs".[228] On June 23, 2010, 50 Democrats in Congress in their letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that "building this pipeline has the potential to undermine America's clean energy future and international leadership on climate change", referencing the higher input quantity of fossil fuels necessary to take the tar and turn it into a usable fuel product in comparison to other conventionally derived fossil fuels.[229][230] The House Energy and Commerce Committee's chairman at the time, Representative Henry Waxman, had also urged the State Department to block Keystone XL for greenhouse gas emission reasons.[231][232]

In December 2010, the No Tar Sands Oil campaign, sponsored by action groups including Corporate Ethics International, NRDC, Sierra Club, 350.org, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Rainforest Action Network, was launched.[233]

In September 2011, Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, sharply criticized opponents of oil sands development in a speech to the Canadian Club of Toronto, arguing that oil sands account for about 0.1% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, coal power plants powered in the U.S. generate almost 40 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than Canada's oil sands and California bitumen is more GHG-intensive than the oil sands.[234]

As of 2013, however, producing and processing tar sands oil results in roughly 14 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average oil used in the U.S.[235] The State Department's 2012 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) estimated that producing and transporting oil to the pipeline's capacity would increase greenhouse-gas emissions compared to alternative sources of oil, if the denial of the pipeline project meant that the oil would stay in the ground. "However, ... such a change is not likely to occur. [A]pproval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil."[236] To the extent that the oil would be extracted in any case, the relevant comparison would be to alternative means of transporting it; the Final SEIS considered three alternative scenarios and found that "total GHG emissions associated with construction and operation (direct and indirect) combined would be higher for each of the three scenarios than for the entire route encompassing the proposed Project".[237] The Final SEIS made no estimate of the net effect of the project on greenhouse-gas emissions, considering both the amount of oil that would likely replace other sources (increasing emissions) and the amount of oil for which the pipeline would merely replace alternate means of transportation (decreasing emissions).

In a February 2015, the US EPA responded to the U.S. Department of State's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project,[238] that the pipeline will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions because it will lead to the expansion of Alberta's carbon intensive oilsands.[239] and that over the proposed 50-year timeline of the pipeline, this could mean releasing as much as "1.37 billion more tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere".[240] EPA concluded that due to the current relatively cheap cost of oil, companies might be less likely to set up their own developments in the oil sands. It would be too expensive for the companies to ship by rail. However, "the presence of the pipeline, which offers an inexpensive way to move the oil to market, could increase the likelihood that companies would extract from the oil sands even when prices are low".[241] The EPA suggested that the State Department should "revisit" its prior conclusions in light of the drop in oil prices.[242]

TransCanada Corporation responded with a letter by President and CEO Russel K. Girling stating that TransCanada "rejects the EPA inference that at lower oil prices the [Keystone XL Pipeline] Project will increase the rate of oil sands production growth and accompanying greenhouse gas emissions".[243] Girling maintained that the EPA's conclusions "are not supported by the facts outlined in the Final SEIS or actual observations of the marketplace".[243]

Public opinion polls

United States

Protest near construction work for the Keystone XL pipeline in Winnsboro, Texas

Public opinion polls taken by independent national polling organizations toward the beginning of the dispute showed majority support for the proposed pipeline in the US. A September 2013 poll by the Pew Center found 65% favored the project and 30% opposed. The same poll found the pipeline favored by majorities of men (69%), women (61%), Democrats (51%), Republicans (82%), independents (64%), as well as by those in every division of age, education, economic status, and geographic region. The only group identified by the Pew poll with less than majority support for the pipeline was among those Democrats who identified themselves as liberal (41% in favor versus 54% opposed).[244]

The overall results of polls on the Keystone XL pipeline taken by independent national polling organizations from 2012 to 2014 were as follows:

• Gallup (March 2012): 57% government should approve, 29% government should not approve[245]
• Pew Center (September 2013): 65% favor, 30% oppose[244]
• Rasmussen (January 2014): 57% favor, 28% oppose (of likely voters)[246]
• USA Today (January 2014): 56% favor, 41% oppose[247]
• Washington Post–ABC News (April 2014): 65% government should approve, 22% government should not approve[248]
• CBS News – Roper (May 2014): 56% favor, 28% oppose[249]

In contrast, Pew's February 2017 poll showed that support for the pipeline had fallen to only 42%, with 48% of polled respondents opposing the pipeline, a 17 percentage point drop in support since 2014, with the majority of the shift due to a sharp decline in support among Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents. At the time of the poll, only 17% of Democrats favored the pipeline. Support among Republicans had also fallen (to 76%) but not as steeply as among Democrats.[250]

Canada

An Angus Reid Institute poll, published on March 9, 2017, showed that 48% of respondents across Canada supported the Keystone XL revival, while 33% opposed it, and 20% were uncertain. In Alberta, support was at 77%, and in Quebec at 36%.[65]

Alternative projects

On November 16, 2011, Enbridge announced it was buying ConocoPhillips's 50% interest in the Seaway pipeline that flowed from the Gulf of Mexico to the Cushing hub. In cooperation with Enterprise Products Partners LP it is reversing the Seaway pipeline so that an oversupply of oil at Cushing can reach the Gulf.[251] This project replaced the earlier proposed alternative Wrangler pipeline project from Cushing to the Gulf Coast.[252] It began reversed operations on May 17, 2012.[253] However, according to industries, the Seaway line alone is not enough for oil transportation to the Gulf Coast.[254]

On January 19, 2012, TransCanada announced it may shorten the initial path to remove the need for federal approval.[255] TransCanada said that work on that section of the pipeline could start in June 2012[256] and be on-line by the middle to late 2013.[257]

In April 2013, it was learned that the government of Alberta was investigating, as an alternative to the pipeline south through the United States, a shorter all-Canadian pipeline north to the Arctic coast, from where the oil would be taken by tanker ships through the Arctic Ocean to markets in Asia and Europe[258] and in August, TransCanada announced a new proposal to create a longer all-Canada pipeline, called Energy East, that would extend as far east as the port city of Saint John, New Brunswick, at the same time providing feedstock to refineries in Montreal, Quebec City, and Saint John.[259]

The Enbridge "Alberta Clipper" expansion of the existing cross-border Line 67 pipeline has been continuing since late 2013. When completed it will add 350,000 barrels (56,000 m³) per day new capacity to the existing pipeline for cumulative total of 800,000 barrels (130,000 m³) per day.[260] In late 2014 Enbridge announced it is awaiting final approval from the US State Department and expects to proceed with the last phase in mid-2015.[261]

Lawsuits

In September 2009, independent refiner CVR sued TransCanada for Keystone Pipeline tolls seeking $250 million damage compensation or release from transportation agreements. CVR alleged that the final tolls for the Canadian segment of the pipeline were 146% higher than initially presented, while the tolls for the U.S. segment were 92% higher.[262] In April 2010, three smaller refineries sued TransCanada to break Keystone transportation contracts, saying the new pipeline has been beset with cost overruns.[159]

In October 2009, a suit was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council that challenged the pipeline on the grounds that its permit was based on a deficient environmental impact statement. The suit was thrown out by a federal judge on procedural grounds, ruling that the NRDC lacked the authority to bring it.[263]

In June 2012, Sierra Club, Clean Energy Future Oklahoma, and the East Texas Sub Regional Planning Commission filed a joint complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking injunctive relief and petitioning for a review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' action in issuing Nationwide Permit 12 permits for the Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf Coast portion of the pipeline. The suit alleges that, contrary to the federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et. seq., the Corps' issuance of the permits was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.[264]

In early January 2016, TransCanada announced it would initiate an ISDS claim under NAFTA against the United States, seeking $15 billion in damages and calling the denial of a permit for Keystone XL "arbitrary and unjustified".[265]

See also

• List of oil pipelines
• List of oil refineries
• List of articles about Canadian oil sands
• List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century

Notes

1. It was presented to the United States State Department as an independent economic utility in February 2012, sidestepping the requirement for a Presidential Permit because it does not cross an international border (United States Department of State SEIS March 1, 2013 p. ES1).
2. The Alberta government placed a $30,000 ad entitled "Keystone XL: The Choice of Reason" in The New York Times to counter the editorial (CBC March 17, 2013).

References

1. "Keystone Pipeline Starts Deliveries to U.S. Midwest". TransCanada. June 30, 2010. Archived from the original on November 24, 2014.
2. "Keystone Pipeline System". TransCanada. Archived from the original on May 9, 2015. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
3. "Keystone's Cushing Extension Begins Deliveries to Oklahoma". TransCanada. February 8, 2011. Archived from the original on November 18, 2014.
4. "TransCanada Receives Final Key Gulf Coast Project Permit Construction Set to Begin this Summer". TransCanada. July 27, 2012. Archived from the original on January 29, 2017.
5. "Gulf Coast Project Begins Delivering Crude Oil to Nederland, Texas". TransCanada. January 22, 2014. Archived from the original on November 29, 2014.
6. "operations". transcanada.
7. Koring, Paul (November 6, 2015). "Obama rejects TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on January 20, 2016. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
8. "TC Energy – Keystone XL Pipeline". www.tcenergy.com. Retrieved August 23, 2019.
9. "Alberta announces investment in Keystone".
10. "Premier Kenney announces Keystone XL pipeline investment". Province of Alberta. March 31, 2020.
11. "TC Energy to Build Keystone XL Pipeline". NK Research Corp. Canadian Insider. March 31, 2020.
12. United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (March 1, 2013). Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project Applicant for Presidential Permit: TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (SEIS) (PDF) (Report). United States Department of State. Retrieved March 17, 2013.
13. "The link between Keystone XL and Canadian oilsands production" (PDF). Pembina Institute. April 2011.
14. "C10418 CER - Letter and Order OPMO-005-2020 – TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. – Keystone XL Pipeline Project – Partial Leave to Open at the Keystone Hardisty Complex". Canadian Energy Regulator. December 15, 2020.
15. "Keystone Pipeline". Calgary, Alberta, Canada: TransCanada Corporation. Archived from the original on January 16, 2013. Retrieved March 17, 2013.
16. "US leg of controversial Canadian oil pipeline opens". Space Daily. January 22, 2014. Retrieved January 24, 2014.
17. "Short-Term Energy and Winter Fuels Outlook". US Energy Information Administration. Retrieved November 8, 2015.
18. Rapier, Robert (November 19, 2013). "There's No Stopping the Oil Sands Train". Retrieved January 24, 2017.
19. "Keystone XL Pipeline » Keystone XL 101". www.keystone-xl.com. Retrieved August 23, 2019.
20. "Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis". Federal Register. 86: 7037. January 20, 2021. Retrieved January 24, 2021.
21. "Authorizing TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., To Construct, Connect, Operate, and Maintain Pipeline Facilities at the International Boundary Between the United States and Canada". Federal Register. 84: 13,101. March 29, 2019. Retrieved January 24, 2021.
22. "Gulf Coast Pipeline Project". TransCanada Corporation. Archived from the original on January 21, 2013. Retrieved March 17, 2013.
23. Broder, John M.; Krauss, Clifford (February 28, 2012). "Keystone XL Pipeline". The New York Times. Retrieved March 26, 2012.
24. Broder, John M.; Krauss, Clifford (February 28, 2012). "Keystone XL Pipeline". The New York Times.
25. "Keystone Pipeline". A Barrel Full. March 2, 2012. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
26. Hovey, Art (June 12, 2008). "TransCanada Proposes Second Oil Pipeline". Lincoln Journal-Star. Downstream Today. Retrieved July 18, 2008.
27. "TransCanada, ConocoPhillips To Expand Keystone To Gulf Coast". TransCanada. Downstream Today. July 16, 2008. Retrieved July 18, 2008.
28. Annual Report 2019 (PDF) (Report). 2019. p. 190. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 31, 2020. Retrieved March 31, 2020.
29. transcanada.com (February 9, 2005). "TransCanada Proposes Keystone Oil Pipeline Project". TransCanada Corporation. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved July 8, 2013.
30. "TransCanada: Keystone Construction to Start Early Next Year". TransCanada Corporation. Downstream Today. September 21, 2007. Retrieved July 18, 2008.
31. "Union calls on Ottawa to block Keystone". Upstream Online. NHST Media Group. October 24, 2007. Retrieved July 22, 2010.
32. "ConocoPhillips Acquires 50% Stake in Keystone". ConocoPhillips. Downstream Today. January 22, 2008. Retrieved July 18, 2008.
33. Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs (March 14, 2008), Keystone Pipeline Presidential Permit, retrieved April 1, 2020
34. "Keystone Pipeline System". TransCanada Corporation. Archived from the original on May 1, 2009. Retrieved September 8, 2009.
35. O'Connor, Phillip (June 8, 2010). "TransCanada's Keystone pipeline ready for flow, but is the market there?". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved February 23, 2011.
36. Newton, Ken (June 9, 2010). "Oil Flows Through Keystone". St. Joseph News-Press. Downstream Today. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
37. "NEB Sets Keystone XL Hearing". National Energy Board. Downstream Today. May 13, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
38. "Keystone XL Clears Hurdle In South Dakota". South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. Downstream Today. February 19, 2010. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
39. "NEB Okays Keystone XL". National Energy Board. Downstream Today. March 11, 2010. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
40. Pipe dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL (PDF) (Report). ILR School Global Labor Institute. September 2011. Retrieved October 12, 2011.
41. Sudekum Fisher, Maria (July 21, 2010). "EPA: Keystone XL impact statement needs revising". Associated Press. Retrieved April 27, 2011.
42. Welsch, Edward (July 21, 2010). "EPA Calls for Further Study of Keystone XL". Downstream Today. Dow Jones Newswires. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
43. Amended Corrective Action Order June 28, 2011 (PDF), June 28, 2011, retrieved March 31, 2020 Primary source
44. Amended Corrective Action Order (PDF), April 2, 2016, retrieved March 31, 2020 Primary source
45. Amended Corrective Action Order April 9, 2016 (PDF), April 9, 2016, retrieved March 31, 2020 Primary source
46. De Souza, Mike. (April 10, 2016). "TransCanada restarts Keystone pipeline after repairing leak". National Observer website Retrieved November 18, 2017.
47. Katz, Brigit (April 9, 2018). "Keystone Pipeline Leak Was Twice as Big as Previously Thought". Smithsonian.
48. Mufson, Steven; Mooney, Chris (November 17, 2017). "Keystone pipeline spills 210,000 gallons of oil on eve of permitting decision for TransCanada". The Washington Post.
49. Tracy, Tennille; Welsch, Edward (August 26, 2011). "Keystone Poses 'No Significant Impacts' to Most Resources Along Path – US". Downstream Today. Dow Jones Newswires. Retrieved August 27, 2011.
50. "Pipe dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL" (PDF). ILR School Global Labor Institute. September 2011: 3, 27. Retrieved October 12, 2011. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
51. Kemp, John (September 6, 2012). "Keystone modifications call Obama's bluff". Reuters. Retrieved October 6, 2012.
52. "TransCanada to Work with Department of State on New Keystone XL Route Options" (Press release). TransCanada. November 10, 2011. Archived from the original on January 30, 2017. Retrieved November 26, 2011.
53. "Media Advisory – State of Nebraska to Play Major Role in Defining New Keystone XL Route Away From the Sandhills" (Press release). TransCanada. November 14, 2011. Archived from the original on January 29, 2017. Retrieved November 26, 2011.
54. "Remarks of the President" (Press release). The White House. March 22, 2012. Retrieved March 4, 2013.
55. "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) Ch. 2.2.3 No Action Alternative", Department of State, January 2014, retrieved February 2, 2014
56. Davenport, Coral; Smith, Mitch (January 9, 2015). "Obama Facing Rising Pressure on Keystone Oil Pipeline". The New York Times. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
57. "Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill". NBC News.
58. Senate Passes Keystone XL Measure, , accessed Jan. 2015
59. "Congress clears Keystone XL pipeline bill, setting up veto". Yahoo News. February 10, 2015.
60. Keystone veto override fails. March 4, 2015.
61. "Keystone XL developer drops lawsuits". Associated Press. September 29, 2015. Retrieved October 1, 2015.
62. Kerry, John. "Department of State: Record of Decision and National Interest Determination" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 21, 2015. Retrieved January 8, 2018.
63. Whitehouse, Obama (November 6, 2015). "Obama rejects TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline". Whitehouse. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
64. "Obama administration rejects Keystone pipeline".
65. "Half of Canadians in favour of Keystone XL revival while U.S. support declines: Poll". BNN Bloomberg. March 9, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2020.
66. Gross, Daniel (November 6, 2015). "Obama Didn't Kill Keystone XL". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
67. Note, Recent Case: Montana District Court Holds State Department’s National Interest Determination for Keystone XL Pipeline Violated APA by Disregarding Prior Factual Findings, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 2368 (2019).
68. "Memorandum on Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline". Federal Register. 82: 8663. January 30, 2017.
69. Jamieson, Amber; Vaughan, Adam (March 24, 2017). "Keystone XL: Trump issues permit to begin construction of pipeline". The Guardian. Retrieved March 24, 2017.
70. "Presidential Permit: Authorizing TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., To Construct, Connect, Operate, and Maintain Pipeline Facilities at the International Boundary Between the United States and Canada". Federal Register. 84: 13,101. April 3, 2019.
71. Deanna Hackney; Holly Yan. "Nebraska approves path for controversial Keystone XL pipeline". CNN. Retrieved December 2, 2017.
72. "TransCanada Asks Nebraska to Reconsider Keystone XL Ruling". Bloomberg.com. November 27, 2017. Retrieved December 2, 2017.
73. Monga, Vipal (December 1, 2017). "South Dakota Regulator Raises Prospect of Revoking Keystone Permit". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved December 2, 2017.
74. Thompson, Jonathan (November 15, 2018). "A judge just dealt a potentially fatal blow to Keystone XL". High Country News. Retrieved November 2, 2019.
75. Indigenous Environmental Network v. Department of State, 347 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mont. 2018).
76. "Judge keeps most Keystone XL pipeline work on hold". The Billings Gazette. Associated Press. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
77. "TransCanada Corp to overhaul its business in US$13B acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group". Financial Post. March 18, 2016. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
78. Williams, Nia (May 3, 2019). "Pipeline company TransCanada changes name to TC Energy". Reuters. Retrieved May 5, 2019.
79. Queally, Jon (May 4, 2019). "TransCanada Can Change Its Name, Say Opponents, But Keystone XL Will Never See 'The Light of Day'". Common Dreams. Retrieved May 5, 2019.
80. Volz, Matt (June 7, 2019). "Court lifts injunction blocking Keystone XL oil pipeline". Associated Press. Retrieved June 9, 2019.
81. Smith, Mitch (August 23, 2019). "Keystone XL Pipeline Plan Is Approved by Nebraska Supreme Court". The New York Times. Retrieved November 2, 2019.
82. In re Application No. OP-0003 (TransCanada), 303 Neb. 872 (Neb. 2019).
83. Reingold, Olivia (October 31, 2019). "State Department Solicits Comments On Keystone XL Pipeline". Yellowstone Public Radio. NPR. Retrieved November 2, 2019.
84. "Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline; Public Meeting Announcement". Federal Register. 84: 53,215. October 4, 2019.
85. Alberta, Government of. "Canadian Energy Centre: Minister Savage Statement" (Press release). Retrieved November 1, 2019.
86. "Alberta's energy war room now called Canadian Energy Centre". CBC News. October 9, 2019. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
87. "Bill Status Report for the 30th Legislature - 1st Session (2019)" (PDF), Legislative Assembly of Alberta, p. 2, June 20, 2019, retrieved June 20, 2019
88. "Alberta makes it official: Bill passed and proclaimed to kill carbon tax". June 5, 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2019.
89. Varcoe, Chris (April 1, 2020). "Keystone XL to proceed with $7B provincial commitment". Calgary Herald. Retrieved April 1, 2020.
90. "Investing US$8.0 billion in the North American economy". TransCanada PipeLines (TC Energy). Retrieved March 31, 2020.
91. Liptak, Adam (July 6, 2020). "Supreme Court Won't Block Ruling to Halt Work on Keystone XL Pipeline". The New York Times. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
92. Northern Plains Resource Council v. US Army Corps of Engineers, No. 19-cv-44 (D. Mont., Apr 15, 2020)
93. Northern Plains Res. Council v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Nos. 20-35412, 20-35414, and 20-35415 (9th. Cir., May 28, 2020)
94. Stohr, Greg (July 6, 2020). "Keystone XL Pipeline Stays Blocked in U.S. Supreme Court Order". Bloomberg. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
95. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/070620zr_2d83.pdf
96. Frazin, Rachel (January 20, 2021). "Biden nixes Keystone XL permit, halts Arctic refuge leasing". TheHill. Retrieved January 20, 2021.
97. "Valero: Prospective Keystone Shipper". Valero Energy. Downstream Today. July 16, 2008. Retrieved July 18, 2008.
98. "Canada-US link gets green light". Upstream Online. NHST Media Group. March 14, 2008. (subscription required). Retrieved March 14, 2008.
99. "TransCanada: Keystone Construction to Begin in Spring". TransCanada Corporation. Downstream Today. October 30, 2007. Retrieved July 18, 2008.
100. "TransCanada begins Keystone pipeline in Texas". Fox News. January 22, 2014.
101. VanderKlippe, Nathan (December 24, 2011). "The politics of pipe: Keystone's troubled route". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Retrieved December 9, 2012.
102. Media Notes on Keystone XL Pipeline Project Review Process: Decision to Seek Additional Information (Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S.State Department. November 10, 2011. Retrieved March 22, 2012.
103. Level IV Ecoregions of Kansas and Nebraska (PDF) (Report). 2001. Retrieved March 26, 2012.
104. Keller, James (February 4, 2021). "Alberta to pursue compensation through NAFTA for U.S. decision on Keystone XL, Kenney says". The Globe and Mail Inc.
105. Monga, Vipal. "Keystone XL Pipeline Obtains Enough Shipper Commitments to Proceed". Wall Street Journal. News Corp. Retrieved January 19, 2018.
106. "Premier Jason Kenney to respond after Keystone XL permit revoked by executive action". www.cbc.ca. January 20, 2021. Retrieved January 20, 2021.
107. Sassoon, David (February 10, 2011). "Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved". Reuters. Retrieved March 31, 2020.
108. Feldman, Stacy (October 5, 2011). "Koch company declared 'substantial interest' in Keystone XL pipeline". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved March 31, 2020.
109. Waxman, Henry A.; Rush, Bobby L. (May 20, 2011). "Reps. Waxman and Rush Urge Committee to Request Documents from Koch Industries Regarding Keystone XL Pipeline". Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats. Archived from the original on May 21, 2018. Retrieved August 25, 2011.
110. Sheppard, Kate (May 23, 2011). "Waxman Targets the Koch Brothers". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 25, 2011.
111. Office of the Press Secretary (November 5, 2015). "Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline" (Press release). The White House. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
112. Mathiesen, Karl (November 7, 2015). "Keystone XL pipeline rejection signals US taking lead on climate change fight". The Guardian. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
113. Eric Bradner; Dan Merica; Brianna Keilar. "Hillary Clinton opposes Keystone XL pipeline". CNN.
114. Mufson, Steven (January 24, 2017). "Trump seeks to revive Dakota Access, Keystone XL oil pipelines". The Washington Post. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 24, 2017.
115. "Keystone XL Pipeline and Indigenous Peoples". Indigenous Peoples Issues and Resources. Retrieved May 31, 2013.
116. "First Nations and Native American Leaders Arrested In Front Of White House To Protest Keystone XL Pipeline". Bioterrorism Week. (Sept. 19, 2011): p11. Academic OneFile. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
117. Women’s Earth Alliance and Native Youth Sexual Health Network. "Violence on the Land, Violence on our Bodies: Building an Indigenous Response to Environmental Violence". 2016, p. 30, http://landbodydefense.org/
118. "Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline Under the Energy Conversion and Transmission Facility Act" (PDF). puc.sd.gov. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
119. Swift, Anthony; Casey-Lefkowitz, Susan; Shope, Elizabeth (February 2011). "Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks" (PDF). National Resources Defense Council. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
120. Timoney, Kevin P. "A Study of Water and Sediment Quality as Related to Public Health Issues" (PDF). Treeline Ecological Research. www.tothetarsands.ca. Retrieved March 23, 2015.
121. "Earl Hatley: Portrait of an Oklahoma activist". The Current. www.currentland.com. Archived from the original on November 5, 2013. Retrieved April 26, 2012.
122. "New Appointments in Aboriginal Health". International Journal of Circumpolar Health. 63 (3): 294. September 1, 2004. doi:10.3402/ijch.v63i3.17741. S2CID 218986137.
123. TransCanada. "Community, Aboriginal and Native American Relations". TransCanada.com. Archived from the original on May 4, 2012. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
124. Kaufman, Leslie; Frosch, Dan (October 17, 2011). "Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian Twist". The New York Times. Retrieved October 31, 2011.
125. Avery, Samuel (2013). The Pipeline and the Paradigm. Ruka Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-0-9855748-2-6.
126. "Daryl Hannah freed following arrest in pipeline protest". Chicago Sun-Times. October 6, 2012.
127. News (October 7, 2011). "Pipeline Review Is Faced With Question of Conflict". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 31, 2011.
128. United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of Inspector General Office of Audits. February 2012. Special Review of the Keystone XL Pipeline Permit Process. Report Number AUD/SI-12-28.
129. Tar Sands Pipeline Probe Urged Sen. Bernie Sanders October 26, 2011
130. Associated Press. "Study: Keystone pollution higher". www.politico.com. Politico. Retrieved August 11, 2014.
131. "keystonepipelinexl".
132. "Keystone XL: State Department cleared of conflict, not ineptness". Los Angeles Times. February 9, 2012. Retrieved November 27, 2012.
133. Harris, Paul (March 2, 2013). "Keystone XL pipeline report slammed by activists and scientists". The Guardian. London. ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878. Retrieved March 9, 2013.
134. Kroll, Andy (March 21, 2013). "EXCLUSIVE: State Dept. Hid Contractor's Ties to Keystone XL Pipeline Company". Mother Jones. San Francisco: Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress. Retrieved April 24, 2013.
135. Johnson, Brad (2013). "'State Department' Keystone XL Report Actually Written By TransCanada Contractor". grist.org. Archived from the original on March 11, 2013. Retrieved March 9, 2013.
136. Mann, Bill, "Americans should be thankful for Canada", MarketWatch, November 24, 2011. Retrieved November 24, 2011.
137. Savage, Luiza Ch., "The U.S. and Canada: we used to be friends" , Maclean's, November 21, 2011 8:00 am. Retrieved November 24, 2011.
138. "'Trains or pipelines,' Doer warns U.S. over Keystone". The Globe & Mail. Toronto. July 28, 2013.
139. "Canada's US ambassador pushes for Keystone XL decision". energyglobal.com. July 24, 2014. Archived from the original on August 8, 2014. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
140. "Rosebud Sioux Tribe Calls House Keystone XL Passage an 'Act of War,' Vows Legal Action". Indian Country Today Media Network. November 17, 2014. Archived from the original on January 3, 2016. Retrieved December 16, 2014.
141. "U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce: The Keystone XL Pipeline". U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. Archived from the original on January 13, 2012. Retrieved January 10, 2012.
142. Editorial (October 26, 2011). "Say Yes To Building The Keystone Oil Pipeline". USA Today. Retrieved January 10, 2012.
143. Hussein, Yadullah (September 23, 2011). "Keystone 'exaggerated rhetoric' untrue". Financial Post. Archived from the original on January 1, 2012. Retrieved January 25, 2012.
144. US Energy Information Administration, Venezuela, June 20, 2014.
145. Jorge R. Pinon, The possible loss of Venezuelan heavy crude oil imports underscores the strategic importance of the Keystone XL pipeline, Energy Issue Brief, Jackson School of Geosciences, Univ. of Texas, Aug. 2014.
146. Cattaneo, Claudia (September 9, 2011). "TransCanada in eye of the storm". Financial Post.
147. Francis, Diane (September 23, 2011). "Foreign interests attack oil sands". Financial Post. Archived from the original on February 5, 2013. Retrieved November 29, 2012.
148. Welsch, Edward (June 30, 2010). "TransCanada: Oil Sands Exports Will Go To Asia If Blocked In US". Downstream Today. Dow Jones Newswires. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
149. TransCanada CEO on Proposed Pipeline. Fox News Channel. August 31, 2011. Retrieved October 12, 2011.
150. The Impact of Developing the Keystone XL Pipeline Project on Business Activity in the US: An Analysis Including State-by-State Construction Effects and an Assessment of the Potential Benefits of a More Stable Source of Domestic Supply (PDF) (Report). Perryman Group. June 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 25, 2012. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
151. Brainard, Curtis (January 12, 2012). "Keystone XL Jobs Bewilder Media. Reporters still fumbling numbers in wake of pipeline's rejection". The Observatory. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
152. Sherter, Alain (January 19, 2012). "Keystone pipeline: How many jobs really at stake?". CBS News. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
153. Hargreaves, Steve (December 14, 2011). "Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create". CNN. Retrieved December 1, 2012.
154. Radford, Phil (January 26, 2012). "Greenpeace Letter to Securities and Exchange Commission". Retrieved March 4, 2014.
155. "Obama Questions Keystone XL Pipeline Job Projections". Huffington Post. July 27, 2013. Retrieved August 11, 2013.
156. "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)". state.gov.
157. Associated Press, AP: Obama Understates Keystone XL Pipeline Jobs By Thousands, August 1, 2013
158. Vanderklippe, Nathan (April 23, 2010). "Oil sands awash in excess pipeline capacity". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Retrieved February 22, 2012.
159. Vanderklippe, Nathan (April 29, 2010). "Pipeline fees revolt widens". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
160. Goldstein, David (February 13, 2011). "Oil pipeline from Canada stirring anger in U.S. Great Plains". McClatchy Newspapers. McClatchy Washington Bureau. Archived from the original on February 15, 2011. Retrieved February 15, 2011.
161. Goodman, Lee-Anne (May 22, 2013). "Republicans aim to take Keystone XL decision out of Obama's hands". The Canadian Press.
162. "Senate rejects effort to ban Keystone pipeline exports and use U.S. steel". The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City. January 20, 2015. Retrieved November 17, 2015.
163. Berry, Connor (January 20, 2015). "Senate Republicans block amendment by Sen. Ed Markey to keep Keystone XL Pipeline oil in US for American consumers exclusively". Retrieved November 17, 2015.
164. Hussain, Yadullah (April 25, 2013). "Alberta exploring at least two oil pipeline projects to North". Financial Post.
165. Vanderklippe, Nathan (January 22, 2013). "Oil differential darkens Alberta's budget". The Globe and Mail. Calgary, Alberta.
166. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Impact-of-Tar-Sands-Pipeline-Spills.pdf
167. "Enbridge damage: Utility, road fixes could hit $1 million". Detroit Free Press.
168. "Lac-Mégantic: How to get rid of a town's oil stain". thestar.com.
169. Editorial, Canada train disaster bolsters pipeline case: Our view, USA Today, July 11, 2013.
170. U.S. EIA, Williston Basin crude oil production and takeaway capacity are increasing
171. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Quebec tragedy reminds us pipelines are safest way to transport oil, The Globe and Mail, July 8, 2013.
172. Sider, Alison. "In Dakota Oil Patch, Trains Trump Pipelines". online.wsj.com. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 19, 2014.
173. "ENERGY | Keystone Pipeline's Uncertain Future by David Konisky". www.indrastra.com. Retrieved November 15, 2015. "IndraStra Global : Analysis, On The Dot"
174. Davenport, Coral (November 6, 2015). "Citing Climate Change, Obama Rejects Construction of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 1, 2020.
175. Mayer, Jane (November 28, 2011). "Taking It to the Streets". The New Yorker. Retrieved December 1, 2011.
176. Radford, Philip; Hannah, Daryl (August 29, 2011). "Shining Light on Obama's Tar Sands Pipeline Decision". The Huffington Post.
177. "Protesters in Texas climb trees to block pipeline work". Houston Chronicle. September 25, 2012.
178. Goodman, Amy (November 9, 2011). "Keystone: pipeline to Obama's re-election". The Guardian. London.
179. Wilder, Forrest (August 16, 2012). "Activists Launch Keystone XL Blockade in East Texas". Texas Observer. Retrieved November 12, 2012.
180. James B. Kelleher (October 31, 2012). "Green Party presidential hopeful arrested in pipeline protest". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
181. Mufson, Steven (October 31, 2012). "Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein charged with trespassing in Keystone XL protest". Washington Post. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
182. Goldenberg, Suzanne (February 17, 2013). "Keystone XL protesters pressure Obama on climate change promise". The Guardian. London.
183. Talia Buford. "Thousands rally in Washington to protest Keystone pipeline". POLITICO.
184. Graybeal, Susan (February 18, 2013). "40,000 People Reported at Climate Change Rally". Yahoo News. Retrieved July 26, 2014.
185. "Biggest Environmental Rally in Decades Attracts Nationwide Media Attention". InsideClimate News. February 18, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
186. Rafferty, Andrew. "Thousands rally in D.C. against Keystone Pipeline". NBC News. Retrieved February 21, 2013.
187. "World's Largest Aquifer Going Dry". U.S. Water News Online. February 2006. Archived from the original on September 13, 2006. Retrieved December 30, 2010.
188. Anderson, Mitchell (July 7, 2010). "Ed Stelmach's Clumsy American Romance". The Tyee. Retrieved July 22, 2010.
189. Dembicki, Geoff (June 21, 2010). "Gulf Disaster Raises Alarms about Alberta to Texas Pipeline". The Tyee. Retrieved July 22, 2010.
190. Avok, Michael (November 22, 2011). "Nebraska governor signs bills to reroute Keystone pipeline". Reuters. Retrieved November 30, 2011.
191. Daly, Matthew (November 30, 2011). "GOP bill would force action on Canada oil pipeline". Deseret News. Associated Press. Retrieved January 19, 2012.
192. Montopoli, Brian (January 18, 2012). "Obama denies Keystone XL pipeline permit". CBS News. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
193. Larry Lakely, Map of Pipelines and the Ogallala Aquifer, 2012, January 20, 2012.
     • Andrew Black and David Holt, Guest View: We need crude oil pipelines Lincoln Journal Star, July 12, 2011
     • Allegro Energy Group, How Pipelines Make the Oil Market Work – Their Networks, Operation and Regulation Archived December 28, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, December 2001, Association of Oil Pipe Lines and American Petroleum Institute, pp. 8–9.
     • Pipeline 101, Refined products pipelines, accessed October 8, 2013.
     • Oil Sands fact Check, Myth vs. Fact: KXL will Threaten the Ogallala Aquifer Archived February 25, 2014, at the Wayback Machine May 20, 2012.
194. Paul Hammel, Smaller oil pipeline to cross Ogallala Aquifer, Omaha.com, August 23, 2012.
195. "TransCanada Wins as Obama Keystone Permit Seen". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. October 8, 2012. Archived from the original on November 11, 2012. Retrieved November 10, 2012.
196. Goldenberg, Suzanne (January 18, 2012). "Keystone XL pipeline: Obama rejects controversial project". The Guardian. London. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
197. "TransCanada proposes new Keystone XL route in Nebraska". Reuters. September 5, 2012. Retrieved October 6, 2012.
198. Bachand, Thomas. "Final Response to FOIA: "No GIS Data"". Keystone Mapping Project. Retrieved February 26, 2014.
199. Editorial (March 10, 2013). "When to Say No". The New York Times.
200. "Exclusive: State Dept. Hid Contractor's Ties to Keystone XL Pipeline Company". Mother Jones.
201. Cynthia Giles (April 22, 2013), Letter from C. Giles (EPA) to J. Fernandez & K.-A. Jones (SD) (PDF), .S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 1–7, retrieved September 14, 2013
202. "Oil, money and politics; EPA snags Keystone XL pipeline". CNN. April 23, 2013. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
203. Cynthia Jones (U.S. EPA), letter to U.S. Dept. of State concerning Keystone XL pipeline, April 22, 2013.
204. "Keystone XL Pipeline: About the project". TransCanada. Archived from the original on April 26, 2013.
205. "Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill". NPR. February 24, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2015.
206. Davenport, Coral (March 4, 2015). "Senate Fails to Override Obama's Keystone Pipeline Veto". The New York Times.
207. "GOP Threatens to Subpoena State Department". The Hill.
208. "TransCanada Requests Suspension of U.S. Permit for Keystone XL Pipeline". The Wall Street Journal. November 2, 2015. Retrieved November 2, 2015.
209. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 17, 2015. Retrieved February 19, 2015.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
210. "Expert Warns That TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline Assessments Are Misleading". DeSmogBlog.
211. "Keystone XL the 'safest pipeline ever'", Sun News Network, December 2, 2011.
212. McGowan, Elizabeth (September 19, 2011). "Keystone XL Pipeline Safety Standards Not as Rigorous as They Seem". InsideClimate News. Retrieved December 1, 2011.
213. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 15, 2015. Retrieved April 16, 2015.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
214. "Tar Sands and Safety Risk". Natural Resource Defense Council. Retrieved November 22, 2011."XL Pipeline". Sierra Club Nebraska. Archived from the original on December 2, 2011. Retrieved November 22, 2011."Gov. Heineman: Pipeline Re-Routing is Nebraska Common Sense" (Press release). Office of Governor of Nebraska. November 15, 2011. Archived from the original on November 27, 2011. Retrieved November 22, 2011.
215. "Editorial: Tar Sands and the Carbon Numbers". The New York Times. August 21, 2011. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
216. "Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)". U.S. State Department. Archived from the original on March 4, 2013. Retrieved March 12, 2013.
217. "November spill from Keystone pipeline larger than first estimated", Daniel J. Graeber, UPI, April 9, 2018
218. "Keystone Pipeline spill in South Dakota twice as big as first thought", Associated Press, April 7, 2018
219. Mufson, Steven; Mooney, Chris (November 16, 2017). "Keystone pipeline spills 210,000 gallons of oil on eve of permitting decision for TransCanada". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 18, 2017.
220. Mayra Cuevas; Steve Almasy. "Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota". CNN. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
221. "Keystone pipeline leak in South Dakota about double previous estimate: paper", Reuters, April 7, 2018
222. "National Transportation Safety Board Pipeline Accident Brief" (PDF), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), July 5, 2018, retrieved March 31, 2020
223. "The Keystone Pipeline oil spill was nearly twice as big as TransCanada said", Vice News, Sarah Sax, April 10, 2018
224. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on July 6, 2018. Retrieved July 6, 2018.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
225. Kumar, Devika Krishna (October 31, 2019). "Keystone pipeline shut after spilling 9,000 barrels of oil in N. Dakota". Thomson Reuters Foundation News. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
226. Wolfe, Elizabeth (November 20, 2019). "Keystone Pipeline Leak 10 Times Worse than Expected". CNN. Retrieved December 21, 2019.
227. STEPHEN GROVES (November 1, 2019). "South Dakota Keystone XL opponents point to N. Dakota spill". The Associated Press. Retrieved November 9, 2019.
228. "Say No to Tar Sands Pipeline" (PDF). NRDC. March 10, 2010. Retrieved July 22, 2010.
229. Casey-Lefkowitz, Susan (June 23, 2010). "House members say tar sands pipeline will undermine clean energy future". NRDC. Archived from the original on July 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
230. Sullivan, Bartholomew (June 24, 2010). "Enviro Groups, 50 Congressmen Mobilize Against Keystone XL". The Commercial Appeal. Downstream Today. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
231. Rascoe, Ayesha; Haggett, Scott (July 6, 2010). "Key US lawmaker opposes Canadian oil sands pipeline". Reuters. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
232. Dvorak, Phred; Welsch, Edward (July 8, 2010). "Oil Sands Push Tests US-Canada Ties". The Wall Street Journal. Downstream Today. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
233. O'Meara, Dina (December 8, 2010). "Pressure in U.S. mounts against oilsands pipeline". The Calgary Herald. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved January 20, 2012.
234. "NOTA Bene". National Post. September 24, 2011. Archived from the original on September 24, 2011. Retrieved August 10, 2013.
235. Biello, Davied (January 23, 2013). "How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?". Scientific American. Retrieved April 24, 2013.
236. "4.14: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change" (PDF). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Keystone XL Project. State Department. 2012.
237. "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Keystone XL Project, 5.3: Comparison of Alternatives" (PDF).
238. "Keystone XL Pipeline Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement". Retrieved November 9, 2019.
239. "EPA slams Keystone for 'significant' emissions and climate change impact". www.canada.com. Archived from the original on February 9, 2015. Retrieved February 11, 2015.
240. Alan Neuhauser. "EPA: Keystone XL Pipeline Will Impact Global Warming – US News". US News & World Report.
241. "House Passes Keystone Bill Despite Obama's Opposition". The New York Times. February 12, 2015.
242. Amy Harder and Lee Roberts (February 11, 2015). "TransCanada Rebuts EPA Comments on Keystone XL Pipeline". WSJ.
243. http://keystone-xl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/response-to-epa-letter.pdf
244. Pew Center, Continued Support for Keystone XL Pipeline, September 26, 2013.
245. "Americans favor Keystone XL pipeline, 2011-03-22", Gallup Report, Rasmussen
246. Rasmussen Reports, 56% See Keystone XL Pipeline As Good for the Economy, January 6, 2014.
247. USA Today, Slight majority backs Keystone pipeline, January 28, 2014.
248. Washington Post-ABC Poll, Public approves of Keystone pipeline project, April 17, 2014.
249. CBS News, CBS News poll database, May 2014.
250. Pew Center, February 21, 2017.
251. Lee, Mike; Klump, Edward (November 16, 2011). "Enbridge Plans to Reverse Pipe Between Cushing and Houston". Bloomberg. Retrieved November 26, 2011.
252. Lee, Mike; Olson, Bradley (May 19, 2012). "Enterprise, Enbridge Propose Keystone Pipeline Alternative". Bloomberg Businessweek. Bloomberg. Archived from the original on December 31, 2011. Retrieved November 26, 2011.
253. Nichols, Bruce (September 29, 2011). "Seaway pipeline sends oil to Texas in historic reversal". Reuters. Rueters. Retrieved July 27, 2012.
254. Lefebvre, Ben (November 18, 2011). "More Pipelines Needed to Follow Seaway's Path". The Wall Street Journal. (subscription required). Retrieved November 26, 2011.
255. "Keystone pipeline: TransCanada to Shorten Route and Bypass Federal Review". Bloomberg. January 19, 2012.
256. Olson, Bradley; Lee, Mike (March 22, 2012). "Obama's Speedy Keystone Review Won't Accelerate Cushing Pipe". Bloomberg.
257. "Gulf Coast Pipeline Project". Archived from the original on January 21, 2013.
258. Jill Burke, Alaska watches Canadians consider shipping tar sands oil across Arctic Ocean, Alaska Dispatch, April 30, 2013
259. TransCanada, Energy East News Release Archived December 13, 2014, at the Wayback Machine, August 1, 2013
260. "Enbridge website". Archived from the original on February 25, 2014.
261. Dawson, Chester (September 30, 2014). "Enbridge Sees One-Year Delay in U.S. Approval for Cross-Border Oil Pipeline". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 19, 2014.
262. Shook, Barbara (September 18, 2009). "Independent refiner CVR sues TransCanada's Keystone Pipeline". The Oil Daily. AllBusiness.com, Inc. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
263. "NRDC's Suit to Block Canada-US Oil Pipeline Thrown Out". Associated Press. October 2, 2009. Archived from the original on April 18, 2010. Retrieved July 22, 2010.
264. "Enviros Sue to Stop Keystone Pipeline Project". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved July 18, 2012.
265. TransCanada to launch NAFTA claim over Keystone rejection, The Globe and Mail, January 6, 2016

Further reading

• Congressional Research Service, R41668. "Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues" (PDF) (December 2, 2013).
• Congressional Research Service, R42611. "Oil Sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline: Background and Selected Environmental Issues" (PDF) (April 14, 2014).
• Congressional Research Service, R43415. "Keystone XL: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessments in the Final Environmental Impact Statement" (April 5, 2017).
• Congressional Research Service, R43261. "Presidential Permits for Border Crossing Energy Facilities" (August 1, 2017).
• Congressional Research Service, IN10825. "Keystone XL Pipeline: Recent Developments" (November 21, 2017).
• Grossman, Zoltán (2017). Unlikely Alliances: Native Nations and White Communities Join to Defend Rural Lands (Indigenous Confluences). Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0295741512.

External links

• 2012 Presidential Permit application documents from the United States Department of State
• 2017 Presidential Permit application documents from the United States Department of State
• Keystone Pipeline Project, TC Energy
• Interactive maps of Keystone XL route from Canadian border to Texas Gulf Coast, Keystone Mapping Project