The Keystone XL Pipeline: An Ongoing Controversy

by Sofia Essayan-Perez

pipeline

Credit:  Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Since the Transcanada Corporation first proposed the Keystone XL Pipeline in 2008, controversies about economic, environmental, and territorial issues have surrounded the project. Keystone XL will transport crude oil extracted from the tar sands in Alberta, Canada via a 36-inch diameter pipe passing through Midwestern and Central states, ending in Texas, United States. Bernard Simon wrote, in The Financial Times, that the Canadian tar sands are the world’s second biggest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia (Simon). Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, oil companies, and some American government officials support this $7 billion-dollar initiative. Tim Devaney, national reporter for The Washington Times, made it clear that proponents feel that the XL Pipeline project will have important benefits, given the current economic crisis, as it could create up to 20,000 job opportunities and significantly stimulate industrial production (Devaney).

On the other hand, as Elana Schor wrote in The New York Times, environmentalists and local residents, including First Nations and Native Americans, strongly oppose this project (Schor). Opponents contend that, not only will the XL Pipeline infringe on the land ownership rights of those on its 1661-mile route, but also many expect severe environmental damage from the extraction and transportation of the estimated 1.3 million barrels of petroleum that will travel through the pipeline each day (Sorensen and Savage).

In January 2012, the Obama Administration denied the Presidential Permit needed for the pipeline to cross the Canada-US border, reported Brian Montopoli for CBS News (Montopoli). Transcanada announced they would reapply for a permit to begin construction in 2013, leading to operation by 2015 (Transcanada “Keystone XL Pipeline Project”). This rejection has received much criticism from labor unions, pipeline proponents, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper (“US rejects Keystone XL Canada oil sands pipeline”). In response to the denial, Harper stated that Canadian petroleum would be shipped instead to China if the United States does not proceed with the project (Montopoli). In reaction, environmental groups active in Canada, such as the Sierra Club, 350.org, Greenpeace, Earthjustice, World Wildlife Fund Canada, and Oxfam Canada, have protested against Prime Minister Harper’s plans to continue with the project (Banerjee). In March 2012, the Obama Administration approved the southern extension of the project from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, Texas (“Obama calls for southern Keystone XL approval”). According to John Richardson of Esquire Magazine, approval of this 435-mile segment is an effort to appease proponents of the pipeline, while the denial of the Alberta-Nebraska segment intends to satisfy the project’s opponents (Richardson).

Promoting the Pipeline: Economic and Geopolitical Benefits

Arguments favoring the pipeline primarily center on the benefits of increased national petroleum security and accessibility, as well as potential economic stimulus. The Keystone XL project is a response to the issue of petroleum security and accessibility to meet the strong demand for oil. With Transcanada’s new pipeline, Canada’s oil exports to the United States would double, theoretically resulting in a national decline in gas prices, making petroleum products more accessible (Schor). Our current urban and rural infrastructure is organized to deliver oil to nearly all inhabitants. Keystone XL will double the supply to North Americans and would therefore prevent oil shortages like those experienced in 2008, as described by Brian Lane of Industry Market Trends (Lane). With this project, a secure oil supply would benefit the U.S. and Canada for many years. National Post’s Conrad Black and Petroleum Economist journal state that security of the oil supply is currently a critical issue in the U.S. due to its dependence on Middle Eastern and South American nations for oil (“Texas Governor […]”; Black). As Snow wrote in the Oil and Gas Journal, these countries experience frequent political and social unrest, and could abruptly cease being oil suppliers if they are destabilized (Snow). Prices might also rise unpredictably. This would affect the supply chain to the American population, creating a challenging ethical decision regarding the extraction of fossil fuels for energy security.

Proponents claim that, in view of the financial recession, the pipeline’s economic advantages outweigh its environmental risks. Building the pipeline, which would require additional infrastructure development, would stimulate employment in the American and Canadian economies, which would increase consumption. For instance, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner believes the pipeline construction would generate approximately 20,000 jobs (Devaney). This would be a tremendous boost to the construction industry, as there is currently 20 percent unemployment in this sector (Sorensen and Savage). Not only would workers be needed to assemble the pipeline over its trajectory, but North American industries could also benefit from the increase of an estimated 7,000 manufacturing jobs and the heightened demand for heavy machinery (Devaney). Moreover, maintenance and operation of the pipeline will create permanent jobs as well.

Advocates contend that the XL pipeline will contribute to the economic improvement of the economies of particular states and regions. For example, Domenic Ruccolo, Senior Vice-President of Worldwide Sales and Marketing of the Power and Communications Contractors Association, drew from a letter by the John Deere Corporation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which explained that since the pipeline will run through remote Midwestern farming areas, it will contribute to expand the infrastructure in these previously underserved regions. Since the pipeline will cover such an expansive terrain, the states affected will gain approximately $5.2 billion dollars in property taxes throughout the duration of its existence (Ruccolo). Transcanada estimates that, while the largest percentage of crude oil will be extracted from Alberta’s reserves, some will also be obtained from Montana, Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota (Transcanada “Key Facts”). Fossil fuels are the world’s principal energy source and Keystone XL will supply greater amounts of oil throughout the United States. The increase in accessibility to reliable oil supplies and pricing will create more consumers, and will increase the Canadian GDP by an estimated $270 billion by 2040 (Sorensen and Savage).

Pipeline advocates also view Keystone XL as having long-term technological benefits. They contend that Keystone XL will allow North America to test its new pipeline systems, which are designed to be less prone to leaking. Transcanada claims that pipelines are now being built with stronger steel and function at lower pressures, making them theoretically safer and less likely to leak (Transcanada “Key Facts”). David Brower described in Petroleum Economist that as the newest pipeline in North America, Keystone XL uses novel technology that could prevent problems such as the 2010 pipeline accident of Enbridge Corporation in Michigan (Brower).

Challenging the XL Pipeline: Environmental and Territorial Concerns

Opponents of the project, including environmentalist groups like World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Sierra Club, farmers, and some First Nations communities, have voiced concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline’s negative environmental consequences and the violation of their community and territorial rights. From their perspective, the right to petroleum consumption does not justify potential incursion on native lands and local communities and damage to ecosystems. Thousands of pipeline opponents, including those organized by activist Bill McKibben with his organization 350.org, have held “sit-ins” and demonstrations since August 2011 at the White House and Ottawa’s Parliament Hill, arguing that with the advanced levels of our scientific research, we should be seeking and developing cleaner energy sources (Black; Sorensen and Savage).

Mainly, opponents believe that this pipeline will not be environmentally sustainable, as there will be emissions associated with the petroleum extraction, refinement processes, and delivery systems. Fossil fuel emissions from bitumen, or tar sand oil, have a longer lifecycle than those from non-bituminous fuel, thus significantly increasing greenhouse gas presence in the atmosphere (Schor). The Royal Society of Canada has shown that refining oil from tar sands produces 10 to 20 percent higher quantities of greenhouse gases, compared to processing conventional oil (Bailey). In addition, the two methods of extracting petroleum from tar sands are in-situ or mining (“Tar Sands Basics”). Tar sands require more drilling sites and open mines than other petroleum sources (Bailey). Nowadays, in-situ is the preferred method, and involves injecting steam deep into the ground, thus using significant amounts of water and energy for the pumping system (“Tar Sands Basics”). The sand must be melted with 500 degree Fahrenheit steam to convert it into a semi-liquid state (Bailey). Hence, the amount of energy and water consumed to generate the steam is, overall, a heavily polluting extraction process, resulting in only one barrel of oil per two tons of tar sand (“Tar Sands Basics”).

While Keystone XL may employ more advanced technology and design, it will require a pipe with a 36-inch diameter to transport 1.3 million barrels of oil per day (Sorensen and Savage). Thus, the possibility of a sizeable spill is even greater, given the enormous volume of oil contained at all times. In addition, the recent leak in Montana has fueled more speculation that such an event could occur with the Keystone project. According to Ball and Welsch for The Wall Street Journal, Exxon Mobil’s pipeline spilled 1,000 barrels of oil into the Yellowstone River in July 2011 (Ball and Welsch). In addition, Canada experienced its largest oil spill in 36 years in April 2011, when 28,000 barrels of crude oil leaked in Alberta (Ball and Welsch). For XL Pipeline opponents, these recent spills make the future of oil pipelines seem highly problematic, as accidents are frequent despite vigilance and technological advances. Also, some argue that the chances for oil spills are even higher when pipelines transport bitumen, similar to asphalt, as it is more corrosive than other fossil fuels (“Texas Governor […]”). In the event of an oil leak or spill, multiple ecosystems and human populations could be at risk. Due to the trajectory of this pipeline, species in the Canadian boreal forests, American Midwestern plains, and natural reserves such as Yellowstone National Park would be threatened. Canada’s forests cover an area equal to 60 percent of the size of the US, and projects like Keystone XL could disrupt the vast biodiversity of this fragile zone in the event of an oil spill (Bailey).

Furthermore, territorial and community rights are a contentious issue concerning the Keystone XL pipeline. The main opponents have been local residents, fishermen, and over eighty First Nations communities, as well as Canadian leaders like environmental scientist David Suzuki (Sorensen and Savage). Since Keystone XL travels mainly through Midwestern states, farming activity and reserves will be disrupted, affecting the livelihoods of local inhabitants. The land of farmers and territories of Native communities will be confiscated for the creation of the pipeline project, and many of them are still firmly opposed (Transcanada “Key Facts”). For instance, John Hansen, president of Nebraska’s Farmers’ Union, said that many of his colleagues were discontent with the way they were treated by Transcanada when they were asked, or “bullied” as some claimed, to give up their land (Goldenberg). Nebraskan landowner Donna Roller, who testified at the state legislature, stated, “This thing shouldn’t be built. It’s wrong and it’s toxic.” (Goldenberg). Further, Native Americans in Oklahoma stated at a protest in Cushing, OK, that the Keystone XL pipeline currently threatens 71 archeological sites and 22 landmarks, according to the Oklahoma Archeological Survey (Bates and Crawford).

At the same time, human health could also be at risk with the implementation of the pipeline. U.S. State Department research anticipates that the Keystone XL pipeline could spill 2,100 gallons of oil or more, 1.18 to 1.83 times per year (Zornick). Locals near the Transcanada project site fear that this oil could seep into their aquifers, or underground drinking water supplies, causing permanent toxicity. In particular, the Ogallala aquifer, running from South Dakota to Texas providing irrigation and potable water, is at risk of becoming polluted with crude oil that might escape from the pipeline (“United States: An extra-large row”). The Nebraska Legislature revised the pipeline route to protect the aquifer in its territory, but it has not been rerouted in other states sharing this water supply. Thus, contamination could occur in those areas and adversely affect human health, as explained by Dan Frosch of The New York Times (Frosch).

Moreover, many critics feel that the Keystone XL project opposes sustainability goals. Repeated oil-related incidents and climate change seem like sufficient proof to stop the petroleum exploitation. Transcanada’s project, in particular, will be an emissions-heavy plan (Bailey). According to Transcanada, the crude oil extracted in Alberta, Canada will be transported through the Keystone XL pipeline to American refineries throughout the Midwest and Southern states (Transcanada “Key Facts”). In these areas of the U.S., refineries are strategically placed near their largest consumers and have seaport access to facilitate exporting (Transcanada “Key Facts”). This process will be costly, particularly since the distance over which the oil will be transported is extensive. Also, emissions occurring at the extraction level are magnified with the harmful greenhouse gases released in the refinement process (Schor). In view of this inefficient and dated system, many feel that the XL pipeline is neither a cost-effective nor an environmentally conscious approach to securing energy. Many environmentalists, including Mike Hudema of Greenpeace, feel that alternative energy should be explored, especially in view of the scientific advances in solar power and wind harnessing (Bernard).

Conclusion

The Keystone XL pipeline has opened a debate over our use of environmental resources in the context of global climate change and financial crisis. In the eyes of Keystone XL supporters, the project is a “complete no-brainer”, in the words of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (McCarthy). The projected number of new employment opportunities, the increased tax revenues for the states and provinces involved, and the expected surge in GDP for both Canada and the United States makes Transcanada’s initiative seem worthwhile. Yet petroleum extraction, transport, and refinement result in environmental damage that is enhanced by the growing use of oil as an energy source. Transcanada’s previous pipeline project leaked over a dozen times in its first year of operation, making Keystone XL’s engineering reliability doubtful (“United States: An extra-large row”). In such cases, the oil leaks would affect natural ecosystems, as the current trajectory of the pipeline crosses forests, plains, and reserves. While this Canadian company insists it will use the newest technology and strongest forms of steel for Keystone XL, there are inherent risks that could also affect human health. Both Canadian and American drinking water is endangered, as oil leaks can enter potable water aquifers. In addition, air quality is bound to decrease with the surge of refinery usage. However, the pressing problem of energy safety is a growing concern, particularly with the increasing political unrest in countries that are currently oil suppliers, like Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, many local inhabitants, farmers, and First Nations, oppose the project as their lives could change dramatically, since oil leaks would harm human health and destroy agriculture-based livelihoods.

In many ways, the XL pipeline is serving as a platform for a debate on the larger issue of climate change. John Parsons, Executive Director of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, commented, “There are a lot of different interests at hand here. […] People are looking for alternative avenues to take environmental action.” There is the interplay between corporate interests and society’s diverse opinions at stake with this project (Parsons). If the XL Pipeline project is approved, the greatest impact the initiative will have, according to Parsons, is the “economic integration of Canada and the United States”. He went on to explain that the placement of the petrochemical industries and the specific flow of oil would affect the economics behind the Canadian-American relationship (Parsons).

This raises the important issue of how to advance environmental protection amidst pressing economic concerns. As Parsons pointed out, reducing the cost of the pipeline endeavor and its emissions would allow us to allocate more funds to focus on carbon reduction, while maximizing profits. To cut emissions, he went on to compare the “Command and Control” market approach, which would cut carbon emissions in a particular sector of the industry, with the “Broad-based” market approach, where uniform carbon penalties would apply to all industry sectors. The Keystone XL would better fit with the “Broad-based” market plan, since this model is less expensive to implement compared to the “Command and Control” option and since it would provide disincentives to abusing petroleum consumption in all industrial areas (Parsons). The most important aspect, according to Parsons, is how to move forward on both the climate policy and economic development fronts in North America. “Can we do both at the same time? It’s an error to focus on resolving climate change without looking at the economic side. […] It is important for President Obama to focus on moving forward both economics and climate change, and the two are not necessarily incompatible.” (Parsons)

Finally, to address both economic and environmentalist concerns, perhaps the best plan would be to develop alternative energy sources such as the power of wind. The Midwestern plains of both Canada and the U.S. offer prime location for harnessing wind energy (WindSolarEnergy.ORG). Many skeptics argue that wind energy is non-sustainable due to the difficulties of storing the energy, but technology proposed by MIT’s Professor Alexander Slocum, the Neil and Jane Pappalardo Professor of Mechanical Engineering, could save the energy generated by offshore windmills in their mooring structures (Chandler). The State of Massachusetts, including former Department of Energy Resources Commissioner Philip Guidice, studied various renewable energy sources and projected that wind power would have the largest economic and availability benefits for the state (Guidice). Other areas of the United States are in similar positions, so it seems like our focus should be oriented towards this alternative resource. In addition, Ontario is the Canadian province with the most wind-production capacity, according to Samsung’s wind energy initiatives (Samsung). If North America exploited this energy, the manufacturing, assembly, and maintenance systems would boost employment and generate income, while minimizing long-term carbon emissions. Other leading economies, such as Germany, are proactively shifting to an economic growth strategy based on renewable energy, pursuing the vision that it is possible to combine both growth and sustainability goals. To address the impact of climate change, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and turning to renewable energy technology can ensure sustainable prosperity in the North American economy.

Bibliography

  • Bailey, R. “The Miracle of Oil From Sand.” Reason 1 Nov. 2011.
  • Ball, J., & Welsch, E. (2011, Jul 25). “U.S. news: Montana spill clouds pipeline plan”. Wall Street Journal, pp. A.4.
  • Banerjee, Neela. “Keystone XL’s foes plan online blackout to protest Canada bill.” L.A. Times, 4 June 2012. Web. 22 Aug 2012.
  • Bates, Fannie, and Rosemary Crawford. “Native American’s Protest Keystone XL From A Cage.” 22 March 2012. Web. 23 Aug 2012. <http://www.ienearth.org/news/native-americans-protest-keystone-xl-from-a-cage.html>.
  • Bernard, Renee. “Greenpeace hopes Keystone delay signals end of project.”  The Canadian Press, 10 Nov 2011. Web. 23 Aug 2012. <http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/298144–greenpeace-hopes-keystone-delay-signals-end-of-project>.
  • Black, C. “Let Canada’s Oil Flow”. The National Post 1 Oct. 2011.  <http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/01/conrad-black-let-canadas-oil-flow-through-keystone-xl/>. Web 15 Aug 2012
  • Brower, Derek (2010). “Enbridge oil leak seeps into debate about Canada’s exports to the US”. Petroleum Economist, 01 September 2010. Web 15 Aug 2012. <http://www.petroleum-economist.com/…Enbridge-oil-leak-seeps-into-debate-about-Canadas-exports-to-the-US.html>.
  • Chandler, David. “In Profile: Alex Slocum.” MIT News Office, 2 March 2010. Web. 15 Aug 2012. <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/profile-slocum-0302.html>.
  • Devaney, T. “White House Feels Pressure on Oil Pipeline”. The Washington Times 15 Aug 2012: Lexis Nexis. 7 Oct. 2011.
  • Frosch, Dan. “Keystone Pipeline Will Be Rerouted.” New York Times. 14 Nov 2011. Web. 15 Aug 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/science/earth/keystone-xl-pipeline-transcanada-reroute.html>.
  • Goldenberg, Suzanne. “Keystone XL: Nebraskans take pipeline issue all the way to the White House. “The Guardian, 10 Nov 2011. Web. 23 Aug 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/10/keystone-xl-nebraska-passion-land>.
  • Guidice, Philip. “Potential for Renewable Energy Development in Massachusetts” (2008) Web. 15 Aug 2012. <http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/doer/renewables/renew_potential_summary.pdf>.
  • Lane, Brian. “A Look at the Controversial Keystone XL Pipeline.” Industry Market Trends. 04 Jan 2012. Web. 15 Aug 2012. <http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2012/01/a-look-at-the-controversial-keystone-xl-pipeline.html>.
  • McCarthy, Shawn. “Keystone pipeline approval ‘complete no-brainer,’ Harper says.” The Globe and Mail, 26 Sep 2011. Web. 15 Aug 2012. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/keystone-pipeline-approval-complete-no-brainer-harper-says/article2174907/>.
  • Montopoli, Brian. “Obama denies Keystone XL pipeline permit.” . CBS News, 18 Jan 2012. Web. 15 Aug 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57361324-503544/obama-denies-keystone-xl-pipeline-permit/>.
  • “Obama calls for southern Keystone XL approval.” BBC, 22 March 2012. Web. 22 Aug 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17479300>.
  • Parsons, John. Personal Interview. Nov 7 2011.
  • Richardson, John. “Keystone XL Pipeline Project”. Esquire, 10 Aug 2012. Web. 22 Aug 2012. <http://www.esquire.com/features/keystone-0912>.
  • Ruccolo, Domenic. “Deere Backs Keystone XL Pipeline Project.” PCCA. 05 Jan. 2012. Web. 15 Aug 2012. <http://www.pccaweb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66:deere-backs-keystone-xl-pipeline-project&catid=1:latest-news >.
  • Samsung. “Wind FAQs.” Wind FAQs. Samsung Renewable Energy, n.d. Web. 21 Aug 2012. <http://www.samsungrenewableenergy.ca/wind>.
  • Schor, Elana. “Canada-U.S. Oil Pipeline Poses Few Environmental Risks – State Dept.” The New York Times, 26 Aug. 2011. Web. 15 Aug 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/08/26/26greenwire-canada-us-oil-pipeline-poses-few-environmental-63932.html?pagewanted=all>.
  • Simon, B. (2010, Jul 30). “Pipeline leak deals blow to Canada’s oil sands industry”. Financial Times, pp. 4.
  • Snow, N. (2010, Jul 05). “TransCanada cites benefits of proposed Keystone oil line”. Oil & Gas Journal, 108(24), 35-35-36.
  • Sorensen, C., and L. Savage. “Energy Industry: Choking the oil sands.” Maclean’s 5 Sep. 2011
  • “Tar Sands Basics.”  EIS, 2012. Web. 23 Aug 2012. <http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm>.
  • “Texas governor asks Clinton to back Keystone XL” (7 April 2011). Petroleum Economist.
  • Transcanada. “Keystone XL Pipeline Project.”  Transcanada, 26 July 2012. Web. 22 Aug 2012. <http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html>.
  • Transcanada. “TransCanada Applies for Keystone XL Presidential Permit.”  Transcanada, 4 May 2012. Web. 24 Aug 2012. <http://www.transcanada.com/6040.html>.
  • Transcanada. “U.S. Department of State Confirms Keystone XL Q1 2013 Decision.”  Transcanada, 15 June 2012. Web. 24 Aug 2012. <http://www.transcanada.com/6059.html>.
  • “United States: An extra-large row; debating the Keystone XL pipeline” (10 Oct. 2011). The Economist, 401(8753), 32-32.
  • “US rejects Keystone XL Canada oil sands pipeline.”  BBC, 18 Jan 2012. Web. 22 Aug 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16621398>.
  • WindSolarEnergy.ORG. “Map of Best Locations for Wind Power.” Web. 15 Aug 2012. <http://www.windsolarenergy.org/map-of-best-locations-for-wind-power.htm>.
  • Zornick, George. “State Department Issues Flawed Blessing of Keystone XL.”  The Nation, 26 Aug 2011. Web. 22 Aug 2012. <http://www.thenation.com/blog/163007/state-department-issues-flawed-blessing-keystone-xl>.

sofiaessayanperezauthor_photoDuring the 10 years Sofia Essayan-Perez has lived in Montreal, she has witnessed ongoing debates about Canada’s energy initiatives and their environmental consequences. The ethical controversy surrounding the Keystone XL project prompted her to write about the complex issues and decisions behind this project.

Drawing from her experiences living in Nicaragua, Chile, Canada, and the USA, Sofia is interested in how national proficiency in science and technology can advance economic growth in developing countries. Since 2006, she has conducted research to improve high school math and science education in rural Nicaragua, and is implementing programs that will encourage and support students to pursue science and math to help build national capability.

At MIT, Sofia is a sophomore majoring in Brain and Cognitive Sciences. She is researching complex conditions like autism and neurodegenerative diseases. Sofia is involved with the Public Service Center, a UROP, the Experimental Study Group (ESG), and the MISTI France program. In her free time, she enjoys playing the clarinet, attending operas, learning languages, and traveling the globe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *