In recent weeks, there has been heated debate over TransCanada’s proposed pipeline project called Keystone XL. The proposed 1,179 mile pipeline would stretch from the lower part Canada to Nebraska. After the initial pipeline is built, the company hopes to extend the pipeline all the way down Texas through the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. According to them, Keystone XL would not only crude oil out of Canada, but would also help to strengthen the American economy. However, not everybody is convinced. While the pipeline would help oil reach larger refining markets out west and decrease our dependency on foreign oil reserves, it also poses environmental risks. Oil spills, exposure to toxic chemicals, pollution, and the destruction of ecosystems weigh heavy in the back of the minds of the American people. Is the Keystone XL something that would be good for our country? Or is it environmentally and morally irresponsible?

The Keystone XL pipeline would transport an enormous 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil into the United States per day (tar sands being a mixture of clay, water, sand and a heavy oil called bitumen). The tar sands are mined through open-pit mining techniques that involve digging deep pits and extracting the tar sands with hydraulic shovels. The tar sands would then be put through a series of extraction and distillation processes that would separate the oil from the clay and sand. According to the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS Information Center, about two tons of tar sands are required to make one 42 gallon barrel of oil. This means that the pipeline would produce about 20 barrels of oil per day. Not quite the output that Americans were expecting. Compared to the cost of building the pipeline, refining processes, and man power associated with operating and maintenance; the pipeline project may not live up to it’s proposed economic gain.

That being taken into consideration, it’s worth examining in depth some of the potential risks associated with the development of Keystone XL. As mentioned, the pipeline has the ability to cause massive environmental disasters. Oil spills specifically are the biggest concern of the general public given TransCanada’s turbulent past involving spills. In just one year, the company had 12 oil spills, the biggest one spilling over 20,000 gallons. It’s easy to see why people have their doubts. Randy Thompson is a chair-member of the All Risk No Reward Coalition to Stop Keystone XL: a coalition that hope to stop Keystone in it’s tracks. “There is no reward of energy independence with this pipeline. Only risks to our land and water" he says. "The jobs will soon disappear, the energy independence will be on a ship to some unknown destination, but the scar on America’s landscape will be with us forever.”

Since Keystone XL crosses international borders, it requires approval by the United States government. In the past, the bill has been vetoed by President Obama because there was insufficient data regarding the environmental impact of the project. The House, however thought otherwise and approved the bill 252 to 161. This sent the bill back to the desk of the President last week. President Obama once again vetoed the bill stating that the Keystone project "conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest.” Obama still has the option to approve Keystone XL if he determines that the bill has met the standards and considerations of the executive branch's bill passing processes. It seems as if all we can do at the moment is sit back and wait.