Political issues According to a February 10, 2011
Reuters article,
Koch Industries were in a position to increase their profits substantially if the Keystone XL Pipeline were approved. By 2011, Koch Industries refined 25% of all crude oil imported into the United States. 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." He went on to state that "approving this project would have undercut [the United States'] global leadership" on
climate change. 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. 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.
Indigenous lands and peoples Many American and Canadian indigenous groups have opposed the Keystone XL project for various reasons, including possible damage to sacred sites, pollution, and water contamination, which could lead to health risks among their communities. 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". Indigenous communities are also concerned with health risks posed by the extension of the Keystone pipeline. 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. Earl Hatley, an environmental activist who has worked with Native American tribes 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". 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". Despite TransCanada's actions, many Indigenous nations oppose the Keystone Pipeline. Cindy S. Wood's, “The Great Sioux Nation V. The ‘Black Snake’: Native American Rights and the Keystone XL Pipeline.” In this article Wood refers to the pipeline as a black snake that poses a major threat to the Sioux Nation. The black snake is a reference to something that is sneaky, dangerous and sinister, which is the way the Sioux Nation views the Keystone Pipeline. With relation to the Este’s article, there is concern by indigenous people that the Keystone Pipeline can lead to a similar type of destruction. Dallas Goldtooth’s article, “Keystone XL would destroy our native lands. This is why we fight” further explains the relationship with the Oceti Sakowin Tribe by referring to the environment as “Mother Earth” when resisting the Keystone Pipeline. In this article he speaks on the dangers that could inevitably occur via the pipeline. He states, “Our resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline and other tar sand infrastructure is grounded in our inherent right to self-determination as indigenous peoples. As the original caretakers, we know what it will take to ensure these lands are available for generations to come. This pipeline has a strong chance of leaking, and if so, it could contaminate the water. It carries the possibility to encourage greater tar sands development, which, in turn, would increase carbon emissions.” 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. 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 east of Dallas. 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.
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". 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. 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". 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. 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, to be extremely inadequate. Project opponents panned the study on its release, calling it a "deeply flawed analysis". 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. 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".
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" about U.S./Canada relations after President Obama had "insulted Canada (yet again)" over the pipeline. 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". 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. 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.
Geopolitical issues 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. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
Economic issues Temporary construction jobs The number of temporary jobs created during the two-year construction of the KXL pipeline has been estimated by proponents to be as high as 20,000, and by independent groups to be as low as 2,000. In 2011,
Russ Girling, president and CEO of
TransCanada, touted the positive impact of the project as "putting 20,000 US workers to work and spending $7 billion stimulating the US economy", according to a report they commissioned. These 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. 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. In July 2013, Obama said "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. According to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the pipeline will only create 35 permanent jobs.
Effects on oil industry and consumers 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. 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.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.
Effects on tax revenue 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. 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". By May 2012, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had spent $9 million and $16.5 million by May 2013 to promote Keystone XL. 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". and point to damage to water mains and sewage lines sustained during construction of an Enbridge crude oil pipeline in Michigan. 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." 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. 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. 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." 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. ==Protests and opposition==