The words "Keystone Pipeline" have been thrown around quite a few times these past couple of years and more recently in the GOP debates. Here is what it is and why it has caused so much controversy over the last few years.
What is Keystone?
In lieu of high oil prices in the early 2000s, oil companies searched for the most efficient and cost-effective to transport oil to refineries in the Gulf Coast. The Keystone XL pipeline became the best, cheapest, and fastest option to transport oil. TransCanada was given permission in 2008 during the Bush administration to begin phase one, which consisted of installing a 1,179 mile pipe that runs from Hardisty, Alberta in Canada to Steele City in Nevada. Its purpose is to transport approximately 830,000 barrels of oil to refineries in Texas. TransCanada, the Calgary based energy infrastructure company, promised that the pipeline would provided a safe method for transporting oil via tar sands (a concoction of clay, water, sand and bitumen), and that the construction of this pipeline would provided thousands of jobs. The project itself has been divided into 4 phases, the last being the longest and most precarious of them all and has caused dispute in our government. Currently, the pipeline runs from Alberta to refineries in Wood River and Peoria, Illinois and has been in service since June 2010. The 298 section that extends from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma has been in service since Feb. 2011.
What is so bad about it?
The current pipeline has the capacity to transport approximately 590,000 barrels of a day and with the additional piece, which would finish the project, it is estimated that 830,000 barrels would be transported; therefore solving most of our oil issues. However, this pipeline has become more of a problem than a solution. There are many arguments against it on specifically on the economic and environmental fronts.
Although the pipeline promised low production costs of $8 million dollars, increase in jobs (444,000 new jobs) and an increase of $521 billion revenue for the U.S. within the span of two decades, it has proven otherwise. Recent estimates show that this pipeline would only create 43,000 permeant jobs. These jobs typically involve overseeing and maintaining the pipeline.
Furthermore, the cost of extracting and processing crude from oil sands has become more costly. From separating the clay and sand from the bitumen to upgrading the viscous oil to synthetic crude oil or heavy crude, the costs add up and this is just part of phase one. The current cost of production is $44 per barrel, so imagine having 130,000 barrels of oil sands to process into synthetic and heavy crude.
However, the majority of concerns come from the environmental front. Despite having permission from the previous administration, its original permit was denied in 2012 because of environmental concerns. An environmental issue concerning the pipeline is climate change and greenhouse emissions. The process of extracting oil from tar sands releases about 8% of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. But that is not the only concern regarding Keystone Pipeline.
The pipeline's planned trajectory would pass through environmentally sensitive areas— Sand Hills and the Ogallala Aquifer (an underground pool that stretches from South Dakota to Texas). Sand Hills is located in Nebraska. This area has extremely porous soil and shallow ground water. Both areas provide water for millions of Americans living in the heartland. If a spill should occur in these areas, the result would be disastrous.
In early January, 30,000 gallons of crude oil from Montana's Pipeline spilled into Montana's Yellowstone River. It temporarily damaged the city's water supply. Many are pointing to this, as a possibility with the Keystone Pipeline. Aside from possible spills, there is also the issue of waste and drudge caused by the pipeline and what to do with it.
What are the political issues?
Eighty-four percent of republicans support the construction of the pipeline whereas 49 percent of democrats favor it. In January, the Senate approved a bill which authorized the finalization of the pipeline. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska praised the bill stating, "for jobs in this country, for energy security, for good trade relationships with our neighbor in Canada", but the president has vetoed the bill. The future of Keystone has polarized the American people, yet some are willing to show this project support because it promises lower gas prices and hopefully high revenue, but is it really worth it?
