CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN THE NEWS

THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

®

Should the government allow construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline?

THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

CLOSE UP IN CLASS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN THE NEWS

CENTRAL QUESTION

In late October 2019, a portion of the Keystone Pipeline leaked approximately 9,120 barrels (383,000 gallons) of crude oil into a wetland near Edinburg, North Dakota. The spill did not appear to pose an immediate threat to public health, but it did reignite a nationwide debate about whether or not the government should allow an extension of that pipeline—the Keystone XL Pipeline—to be built.1 In this Close Up in Class Controversial Issue in the News, we will examine the Keystone XL project, explore the controversy that it brings, and challenge you to weigh the pros and cons of one of the paths forward.

What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline? The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed 1,184-mile pipeline that would transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska. Upon completion, it would connect to a series of existing pipelines, making it the fourth and final leg of the Keystone Pipeline System that delivers Canadian and U.S. crude oil to markets around North America.2

At 36 inches in diameter, Keystone XL would have the capacity to transport up to 830,000 barrels (34.9 million gallons) of crude oil per day from the oil fields of western Canada to the oil refineries of the U.S. Gulf Coast. The route of the pipeline would pass through the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and through the U.S. states of Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska.3

Keystone XL is the private project of TC Energy, a Calgary-based company that builds and operates crude oil pipelines, natu-ral gas pipelines, and other energy infrastructure in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Because the pipeline would cross an international border into the United States, TC Energy was required to obtain a presidential permit for the project, which President Donald Trump signed on March 29, 2019. TC Energy plans to begin construction on Keystone XL in 2020.4

What Are the Implications of Building the Keystone XL Pipeline? Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would enhance the oil trans-portation infrastructure between the United States and its top foreign supplier of oil, Canada. Oil is the primary source of energy in the United States, supplying 36 percent of the energy consumed by Americans in 2018 (followed by natural gas at 31 percent, coal at 13 percent, renewables at 11 percent, and nuclear power at eight percent).5 The United States imported

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

11 percent of the oil it used that year, with 43 percent of imports coming from Canada and 27 percent coming from Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Iraq.6 Keystone XL would boost the ability of energy producers to send crude oil from Canada to U.S. refineries to be turned into gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, heating oil, and other products.

According to State Department estimates, construction of Keystone XL would employ 10,400 construction workers for a four- to eight-month period (the equivalent of 3,900 annual jobs). Direct spending on the project would create another 12,000 annual jobs, while indirect and induced spending (such as contractors purchasing goods and ser-vices) would create an additional 26,000 jobs.7

Yet ever since TC Energy (then known as TransCanada) filed the first paperwork to build Keystone XL back in 2008, the proposal has been the source of controversy.8 Critics have claimed that the pipeline would create too few long-term jobs, and environmentalists have argued that the project would increase Americans’ dependence on oil, distract from efforts to develop renewable sources of energy, and encourage the use of oil from the Canadian oil sands (the extraction and production of which releases more green-house gases than conventional oil).9 And like any method of transporting oil (truck, train, pipeline, or boat), pipelines can leak and spill. A train is 4.5 times more likely to have a spill or an accident than a pipeline, but pipeline spills are on average larger than rail spills.10

Should the government allow construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline?

Ever since its inception in 2008, the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline has been the source of intense political debate. In 2014, the State Department issued a final environmental assessment of the project, concluding that it would not likely affect global greenhouse gas emissions. However, President Barack Obama still decided in 2015 to reject the presidential permit for Key-stone XL, arguing that construction of the pipeline would not be in the national interest.11

President Trump reversed that decision upon taking office in January 2017, when he signed an executive action to advance construction of the pipeline. President Trump signed a presidential permit two months later, but U.S. District Judge Brian Morris issued an injunction the following year to block construction until the administration completed a supplemental environmental review. President Trump signed a new permit in January 2019, and an appeals court lifted the injunction in June.12

Still, with TC Energy planning to begin construction in 2020, several uncertainties remain. As of November 2019, a federal lawsuit in Montana is seeking to block construction, and some presidential candidates—including Senators Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.—have vowed to revoke TC Energy’s permit if elected.13 Furthermore, the oil spill of late October 2019 has reignited the debate over whether or not the project would be safe.14

As critics continue to insist that Keystone XL would harm the environment, create too few long-term jobs, and increase Americans’ dependence on nonrenewable, pollution-causing fossil fuels, supporters see the project quite differently. They argue that Keystone XL, through all private funds, would be a valuable job creator, a much-needed upgrade to the nation’s energy infrastructure, a vital new link with the nation’s largest and most trusted supplier of foreign oil, and a commonsense method of transporting oil that is safer and less volatile than rail. Proponents also note that the project is unlikely to signifi-cantly affect greenhouse gas emissions, since the oil will be extracted whether or not Keystone XL is built.

THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY

SASKATCHEWAN

MANITOBA

ONTARIO

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

IOWANEBRASKA

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MISSOURI

ARKANSAS

TEXAS

LOUISIANA

ILLINOIS INDIANA

KENTUCKY

ALBERTA

MONTANA

WYOMING

COLORADO

NORTH DAKOTA

SOUTH DAKOTA

TENNESSEE

Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline

Keystone Pipeline System

Terminals

Edmonton

Calgary

Regina

Winnipeg

Bismarck

Helena

Oklahoma City

Pierre

Lincoln

Topeka

Jefferson City

Springfield

Austin

Cushing

Houston

Wood RiverPatoka

Steele City

Baker

Hardisty

Nederland

THE ROUTE OF THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

Source: TC Energy, 2019

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE?

YES: This pipeline is a safe, job-creating project that would not affect greenhouse gas emissions.

NO: This pipeline is dangerous and encourages the continued use of fossil fuels.

DEBATE

Americans should be outraged that for over ten years, misguided government officials have tried to stop construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline—a safe, privately funded, job-creating, environmentally sound, commonsense project. The delays must stop now.

Building Keystone XL would provide enormous economic benefits for the United States. It would directly and indirectly employ tens of thousands of Americans, and it would contribute to U.S. economic security by transporting up to 34.9 million gallons of oil per day from Canada (a trusted ally with the world’s third-largest proven crude oil reserves) to U.S. refineries.15 “Canadian oil reduces our dependence on the volatile Middle East, shifting petroleum power from OPEC and the killing zones of the Middle East to North Ameri-ca,” wrote the late columnist Charles Krauthammer.16

In addition, construction of Keystone XL would not significantly im-pact greenhouse gas emissions—a conclusion that the State Depart-ment reached in three reviews (during both the Obama and Trump administrations). Canada will extract its oil no matter what. The economies and energy needs of North America depend on it. Build-ing Keystone XL would simply ensure that the oil is transported to U.S. refineries and the U.S. market as safely and efficiently as possi-ble, rather than being piped across the ocean to China, for example.

And although all methods of energy transport experience the oc-casional accident, pipelines are much less volatile and risky than the alternative—trains. In fact, trains are 4.5 times more likely than pipelines to spill. When pipelines have had accidents, more than 70 percent of them have resulted in spills of one cubic meter or less.17 “To oppose the pipeline is to favor more oil being transported by trains, which have significant carbon footprints, and accidents,” wrote columnist George Will. “To do this in the name of environ-mental fastidiousness is hilarious. The United States has more than two million miles of natural gas pipelines carrying hazardous liquids, yet we are exhorted to be frightened about 1,179 miles of Keystone?”18

“Rail can be exceedingly dangerous,” added Krauthammer. “[In 2013] a tanker derailed and exploded en route through Quebec. The fireball destroyed half of downtown Lac-Megantic, killing 47, many incinerated beyond recognition. … This is not a decrease in the snail darter population. This is 47 dead human beings.”19

“Pipelines enable the safe movement of extraordinary quantities of energy products to industry and consumers, literally fueling our economy and way of life,” noted the Pipeline and Hazardous Materi-als Safety Administration, an agency of the Department of Transpor-tation. “One of the safest and least costly ways to transport energy products, our oil and gas pipelines provide the resources needed for national defense, [to] heat and cool our homes, [to] generate power for business, and [to] fuel an unparalleled transportation system.”20

If the government allows construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline to proceed, it would only be encouraging continued damage to the envi-ronment and furthering Americans’ dangerous dependence on oil and other nonrenewable, pollution-causing fossil fuels. The United States must get serious about fighting climate change now, and revoking the permit for Keystone XL is a vital first step.When President Obama chose to reject the project back in 2015, he rightly argued that approving Keystone XL would have undercut the nation’s global leadership in the fight against climate change. “Ulti-mately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becom-ing not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re go-ing to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky,” said Presi-dent Obama.21

There are several important reasons to oppose construction of Key-stone XL. First, the job-creating benefits of the project have been gross-ly overstated. “What should be done about Keystone XL?” asked col-umnist and economist Paul Krugman. “If you believe that it would be environmentally damaging—which I do—then you should be against it, and you should ignore the claims about job creation. The numbers being thrown around are tiny compared with the country’s overall workforce.”22

Second, it is entirely possible for pipelines to experience leaks and spills that contaminate their surroundings—which the existing Key-stone Pipeline System has already done. In 2017, the pipeline leaked more than 400,000 gallons of crude oil onto agricultural land in South Dakota. And in late October 2019, another portion leaked ap-proximately 383,000 gallons of crude oil into a wetland near Edinburg, North Dakota. “With each one of these major spills that happens on the Keystone Pipeline System, it becomes clearer and clearer that this is not safe,” said Doug Hayes, an attorney for the Sierra Club.23

Third, the pipeline would encourage the extraction of crude oil from the Canadian oil sands—crude oil that is heavier and requires more energy to extract and process. According to the Congressional Re-search Service, crude oil derived from the oil sands produces between 14 percent and 20 percent more greenhouse gases in its life cycle than crude oil obtained through conventional drilling.24

Finally, enhancing the nation’s oil infrastructure in this way would in-crease Americans’ dependence on fossil fuels and distract from efforts to develop renewable sources of energy for the future. “The future of energy in this country is not more oil, it is not more pipelines, it is not more carbon emissions,” said Senator Sanders. “It is the transforma-tion of our energy system away from oil, away from pipelines, and away from carbon.”25

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Do you believe the Trump administration should allow construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline to go forward? Why or why not?

2. What do you believe to be the most compelling argument of the opposition? Explain your answer.

3. Which do you believe is more important: utilizing sources of readily available energy or protecting the environment? Explain your reasoning.

ENDNOTES

© 2019 Close Up Foundation. All Rights Reserved. www.closeupinclass.org

1 Knowles, Hannah. “Keystone Pipeline Leaks 383,000 Gallons of Oil in Second Big Spill in Two Years.” Washington Post. 1 Nov. 2019. Web. 8 Nov. 2019. Cohen, Max. “Portion of Keystone Pipeline Shut Down After 380,000-Gallon Oil Leak in North Dakota.” USA Today. 1 Nov. 2019. Web. 8 Nov. 2019.

2 TC Energy. “Keystone XL Pipeline.” Web. 7 Nov. 2019. TC Energy. “Keystone Pipeline System.” Web. 7 Nov. 2019.3 TC Energy. “Keystone XL Pipeline.” Web. 7 Nov. 2019.4 TC Energy. “Keystone XL Pipeline.” Web. 7 Nov. 2019. TC Energy. “About.” Web. 7 Nov. 2019.5 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “U.S. Energy Facts, Explained.” 28 Aug. 2019. Web. 7 Nov. 2019.6 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “How Much Oil Consumed by the United States Comes from Foreign Countries?” 4 Sep. 2019. Web.

7 Nov. 2019. U.S. Energy Information Administration. “How Much Petroleum Does the United States Import and Export?” 4 Oct. 2019. Web. 7 Nov. 2019.

7 Kessler, Glenn. “President Trump’s Inflated Estimate for Keystone XL Construction Jobs.” Washington Post. 25 Jan. 2017. Web. 7 Nov. 2019.8 Associated Press. “A Timeline of the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline.” 24 Jan. 2017. Web. 8 Nov. 2019.9 Clark, Grant, and Andrew Harris. “Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Is So Controversial.” Bloomberg. 8 Nov. 2018. Web. 8 Nov. 2019.10 Green, Kenneth, and Taylor Jackson. “Safety in the Transportation of Oil and Gas: Pipelines or Rail?” Fraser Institute. 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 10

Nov. 2019. Ingraham, Christopher. “It’s a Lot Riskier to Move Oil by Train Instead of Pipeline.” Washington Post. 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.

11 Eilperin, Juliet, and Steven Mufson. “State Department Releases Keystone XL Final Environmental Impact Statement.” Washington Post. 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2019. Associated Press. “A Timeline of the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline.” 24 Jan. 2017. Web. 8 Nov. 2019. Ballotpedia. “Keystone XL Pipeline Political Timeline.” Web. 8 Nov. 2019.

12 Dennis, Brady, and Steven Mufson. “As Trump Administration Grants Approval for Keystone XL Pipeline, An Old Fight is Reignited.” Washing-ton Post. 24 Mar. 2017. Web. 8 Nov. 2019. Ballotpedia. “Keystone XL Pipeline Political Timeline.” Web. 8 Nov. 2019. Dennis, Brady, and Juliet Eilperin. “Trump Signs Permit for Construction of Controversial Keystone XL Pipeline.” Washington Post. 29 Mar. 2019. Web. 8 Nov. 2019. Volz, Matt. “Court Lifts Injunction that Blocked Keystone XL Pipeline Construction.” Associated Press. 7 Jun. 2019. Web. 8 Nov. 2019.

13 Smith, Mitch. “Keystone XL Pipeline Plan is Approved by Nebraska Supreme Court.” New York Times. 23 Aug. 2019. Web. 8 Nov. 2019. 14 Knowles, Hannah. “Keystone Pipeline Leaks 383,000 Gallons of Oil in Second Big Spill in Two Years.” Washington Post. 1 Nov. 2019. Web. 8

Nov. 2019. Cohen, Max. “Portion of Keystone Pipeline Shut Down After 380,000-Gallon Oil Leak in North Dakota.” USA Today. 1 Nov. 2019. Web. 8 Nov. 2019.

15 BP. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019. 2019. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.16 Krauthammer, Charles. “Charles Krauthammer: Stop Kicking Canada Around.” Washington Post. 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.17 Green, Kenneth, and Taylor Jackson. “Safety in the Transportation of Oil and Gas: Pipelines or Rail?” Fraser Institute. 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 10

Nov. 2019. Ingraham, Christopher. “It’s a Lot Riskier to Move Oil by Train Instead of Pipeline.” Washington Post. 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.

18 Will, George. “The Keystone Catechism.” National Review. 15 Jan. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.19 Krauthammer, Charles. “Charles Krauthammer: Stop Kicking Canada Around.” Washington Post. 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.

20 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. “General Pipeline FAQs.” 26 Feb. 2019. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.21 Obama, Barack. “Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline.” Obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. 6 Nov. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.22 Krugman, Paul. “For the Love of Carbon.” New York Times. 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.23 Knowles, Hannah. “Keystone Pipeline Leaks 383,000 Gallons of Oil in Second Big Spill in Two Years.” Washington Post. 1 Nov. 2019. Web. 8

Nov. 2019. Cohen, Max. “Portion of Keystone Pipeline Shut Down After 380,000-Gallon Oil Leak in North Dakota.” USA Today. 1 Nov. 2019. Web. 8 Nov. 2019.

24 Lattanzio, Richard. Canadian Oil Sands: Life-Cycle Assessments of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Congressional Research Service. 15 May 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.

25 Weigel, David. “Bernie Sanders Pledges ‘End of the Exploitation of Native American People’ in Fight Against Dakota Pipeline.” Washington Post. 14 Sep. 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2019.

Each year, the Close Up Foundation helps more than 20,000 students and teachers, in 1,200 schools nationwide, develop the skills they need to begin a lifetime of active citizenship. We accomplish this through our classroom publications, professional development, and Washington, DC-based programs.

CLOSE UP IN CLASS: Enhance your classroom curriculum with resources from our three resource libraries that help students investigate current events and understand the critical issues facing our democracy.

• Controversial Issues in the News: Help students develop a greater understanding of current issues in the news. Receive a new chapter each month!

• Public Policy In-Depth: Delve into public policy issues with these long-form policy units that offer background, analysis, and informed debate.

• Historical Perspectives: Explore key moments in U.S. history through primary source records, literature, video, and virtual reality experiences.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Our professional development and training provide teachers with the strategies and resources to facilitate meaningful discussion and debate of current issues.

CLOSE UP WASHINGTON, DC PROGRAMS: Choose from a variety of programs offered year-round to experience government in action and bring history to life—or customize your own journey for a one-of-a-kind experience!

For more information about the resources or professional development for your school or district, please visit us online at www.currentissues.org or contact us at 703-706-3665 or classroom@closeup.org.

EXPERIENCE CLOSE UP