The initial capacity of Keystone Pipeline is 435,000 barrels per day (69,200 m³/d) which will be increased up to 590,000 barrels per day (94,000 m³/d).^[35] The diameter of the pipeline is 36 inches (910 mm).^[36] It will have a minimum ground cover of 4 feet (1.2 m).^[12] The Keystone XL will add 510,000 barrels per day (81,000 m³/d) increasing the total capacity up to 1.1 million barrels per day (170×10³ m³/d).^[35]^[36]

The original Keystone Pipeline cost US$5.2 billion with the Keystone XL expansion slated to cost approximately US$7 billion. The Keystone XL is expected to be completed by 2012–2013.^[36]

Partnership

The project was originally developed as a partnership between TransCanada and ConocoPhillips. Certain parties who have agreed to make volume commitments to the Keystone expansion have an option to acquire up to a combined 15% equity ownership.^[36] One of such companies is Valero Energy Corporation.^[37] On August 12, 2009, however, TransCanada received regulatory approval to purchase ConocoPhillips' interest in the project and is now the sole owner of the Keystone Pipeline System.^[9]

Lawsuits

In September 2009, independent refiner CVR sued TransCanada for Keystone Pipeline tolls seeking $250 million damage compensation or release from transportation agreements. CVR alleged that the final tolls for the Canadian segment of the pipeline were 146% higher than initially presented, while the tolls for the US segment were 92% higher.^[38] In April 2010, three smaller refineries sued TransCanada to break Keystone transportation contracts, saying the new pipeline has been beset with cost overruns.^[39]

In October 2009, a suit was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council that challenged the pipeline on the grounds that its permit was based on a deficient environmental impact statement. The suit was thrown out by a federal judge on procedural grounds, ruling that the NRDC lacked the authority to bring it.^[40]

Keystone XL controversies

Environmental issues

Some environmental groups, citizens, and politicians have raised concerns about the potential impacts of the Keystone XL extension.^[41]^[42]^[43] One concern is that the pipeline could pollute air and water supplies and harm migratory birds and other wildlife.^[16] Its original route crosses the Sandhills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world.^[44] The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture.^[45] A major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.^[46] After opposition for laying the pipeline in this area, TransCanada agreed to change the route and skip the Sand Hills.^[34]

Portions of the pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3 magnitude earthquake as recently as 2002.^[45] Opponents claim that TransCanada applied to the U.S. government to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than normal.^[46] 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." According to The New York Times, legal experts questioned whether the US government was "flouting the intent" of the Federal National Environmental Policy Act which "[was] meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects."^[47] The report prompted 14 senators and congressmen to ask the State Department inspector general on October 26, 2011 "to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process" for reviewing environmental impact.^[48]

TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has described the Keystone Pipeline as "routine," noting that TransCanada has been building similar pipelines in North America for half a century and that there are 200,000 miles (320,000 km) of similar oil pipelines in the United States today. He also stated that the Keystone Pipeline will include 57 improvements above standard requirements demanded by U.S. regulators so far, making it "the safest pipeline ever built."^[49] Rep. Ed Whitfield, a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce concurred, saying "this is the most technologically advanced and safest pipeline ever proposed."^[50] However, while TransCanada had asserted that a set of 57 conditions will ensure Keystone XL's safe operation, Anthony Swift of the Natural Resources Defense Council asserted that all but a few of these conditions simply restate current minimum standards.^[51]

Some environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), oppose the project due to usage of crude from oil sands and emissions of greenhouse gases.^[52] In its March 2010 report, the NRDC stated that "the Keystone XL Pipeline undermines the U.S. commitment to a clean energy economy," instead "delivering dirty fuel at high costs".^[53] On June 23, 2010, 50 Democrats in Congress in their letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that "building this pipeline has the potential to undermine America's clean energy future and international leadership on climate change."^[54]^[55] On July 6, 2010, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman urged the State Department to block Keystone XL, saying in a letter to the department that 'this pipeline is a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available'.^[56]^[57] In December, 2010, No Tar Sands Oil campaign, sponsored by action groups including Corporate Ethics International, NRDC, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Rainforest Action Network, was launched.^[58] These arguments were questioned by the National Post columnist Diane Francis who argues that opposition to the pipeline "makes no sense because emissions from the oil sands are a fraction of the emissions from coal and equivalent to California heavy crude oils or ethanol" and questioned why "None of these has been getting the same attention as the oil sands and this pipeline."^[59] In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto on September 23, 2011, Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, sharply criticized opponents of oil sands development and the pipeline, arguing that:

Oliver criticized opponents of the pipeline, stating that all of the above facts are ignored by "celebrity protestors."^[60]

Political issues

In February 2011, environmental journalist David Sassoon of Inside Climate News reported that Koch Industries were poised to be "big winners" from the pipeline.^[61] In May 2011, Congressmen Waxman and Rush wrote a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee which cited the Reuters story, and which urged the Committee to request documents from Koch Industries which relate to the Keystone XL pipeline.^[62]^[63]

Landowners in the path of the pipeline have complained about threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land and lawsuits to allow the "pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval."^[64] As of 17 October 2011, TransCanada had "34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas" and "22 in South Dakota." Some of those landowners gave testimony for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May 2011.^[64]

Commentator Bill Mann has linked the Keystone postponement to the Michigan Senate's rejection of Canadian funding for the proposed Detroit River International Crossing 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"^[65] about U.S./Canada relations after President Obama had "insulted Canada (yet again)" over the pipeline.^[66]

Geopolitical issues

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.^[67]^[68] An independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute reports that the crude oil routed to the Gulf Coast will end up being exported to Asia, and not contribute to energy independence or national security.^[2] 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."^[69] 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.^[49] 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 pro-oil sands television commercials.^[59]^[70]

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 the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines or the Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain line.^[71] The Cornell study says that the oil will be sold on Asian markets regardless of pipeline route.^[2]

Economic issues

In response to negative publicity, president and CEO of TransCanada Russ Girling touted the positive impact of the project by "putting 20,000 US workers to work and spending $7 billion stimulating the US economy."^[72] These numbers come from a 2010 report written by The Perryman Group, a financial analysis firm based in Texas that was hired by TransCanada to evaluate Keystone XL.^[73]^[74] The numbers in the Perryman Group report 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, this impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest which will likely reduce national employment.^[2] The US State Department estimates that the pipeline will create 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. jobs.^[75]

Glen Perry, a petroleum engineer for Adira Energy Ltd., has warned that including the Alberta Clipper pipeline owned by TransCanada's competitor Enbridge, there is an extensive overcapacity of oil pipelines from Canada.^[76] 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. 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.^[39]

Starting in spring, 2011, environmental and global warming activist Bill McKibben took the question of the pipeline to NASA scientist James Hansen, who told McKibben the pipeline would be "game over for the planet".^[77] McKibben and other activists moved toward a new oppositional approach which coalesced in August with over 1000 nonviolent arrests at the White House. They promised to continue to challenge President Obama to stand by his 2008 call to "be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil"^[78] as he entered the 2012 reelection campaign. A relatively broad coalition came together, including the Republican governor Dave Heineman and senators Ben Nelson (D) and Mike Johanns (R) from Nebraska, and some Democratic funders like Susie Tompkins Buell.^[78]

On November 7, 2011, several thousand environmentalist supporters, some shouldering a long black inflatable replica of a pipeline, formed a human chain around the White House to try to convince Barack Obama to block the controversial Keystone XL project. Organiser Bill McKibben said, "this has become not only the biggest environmental flash point in many, many years, but maybe the issue in recent times in the Obama administration when he's been most directly confronted by people in the street. In this case, people willing, hopeful, almost dying for him to be the Barack Obama of 2008."^[79]

On November 10, 2011, four days after twelve thousand people encircled the White House, the culmination of months of protests, President Obama announced "the decision on the pipeline permit would be delayed until at least 2013, pending further environmental review".^[78] TransCanada stated they have been in conversation with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and fourteen different routes were being studied, including eight impacting Nebraska. They included one potential alternative route in Nebraska that would have avoided the entire Sandhills region and Ogallala aquifer and six alternatives that would have reduced pipeline mileage crossing the Sandhills or the aquifer.^[20]

References

Obama caught between friends in fight over Keystone XL pipeline

February 14, 2013 | 8:00 pm

A brief moment on Wednesday showed why President Obama can't win when it comes to the Keystone XL pipeline. In front of the White House, protesters led by actress Daryl Hannah and the head of the Sierra Club demanded that Obama kill the project. Just a few blocks away, the head of the AFL-CIO's powerful Building and Construction Trades Department joined with the American Petroleum Institute to demand that Obama approve it.

Obama's friends in the environmental movement and Hollywood on one side. Obama's friends in Big Labor allied with his enemies in Big Oil on the other. What's a Democratic president to do?

Both sides were unhappy that Obama, who took the time to talk about wind power, solar power, fuel efficiency, global warming and all sorts of other related topics in his State of the Union speech, did not mention Keystone at all. Not a single word.

They know that last year the president put off deciding on the pipeline until after the election Now it appears he would rather do anything than make a choice that is going to make some of his most influential supporters very unhappy.

Environmentalists seem deeply afraid that Obama will rule against them. The Sierra Club called the situation so urgent that it decided to suspend a century-old policy against its officials taking part in civil disobedience. "Today is a one-time event to face arrest in order to elevate discussion about a critical issue," blogged club President Allison Chin, who, along with executive director Michael Brune, was arrested at the protest.

Their nervousness is no mystery. The Obama administration has already approved some parts of the pipeline, and the president's opposition to a crucial link in the line has been based on specific conditions and not on principle. "We've never heard him say that he's against it," Hannah told Fox Business Channel host Neil Cavuto on Wednesday. "And in fact, it seemed as if he was hoping to push it through."

At the same time Hannah and others were being arrested -- they used plastic zip-ties to attach themselves to the White House fence -- Sean McGarvey, president of the AFL-CIO building group, was taking part in a conference call with Jack Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute.

"For the skilled craft professionals that I represent, the past four years have not been a recession, they've been a depression," McGarvey said, arguing that the pipeline will produce tens of thousands of jobs in a construction industry beset by an unemployment rate of 16 percent. McGarvey noted that the Obama administration's decision to delay the pipeline was based on an assessment from the state of Nebraska that the line could endanger an environmentally critical aquifer. Now, however, the pipeline's builders have proposed rerouting the line, and the governor of Nebraska has approved it.

"There is no reason for any further delay," McGarvey said. "In fact, there is every reason in the world to approve this project."

McGarvey was not just speaking for himself. His AFL-CIO division represents members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Laborers International Union of North America, the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, and several other organizations. Together, they and the larger AFL-CIO have donated many millions of dollars to Democratic candidates and many millions of man-hours to Democratic campaigns -- more than the environmental movement and Hollywood combined.

The other problem for the protesters is public opinion. Polls have consistently shown that most Americans support building the pipeline. In a Rasmussen poll released in January, 59 percent of those surveyed were in favor. On Wednesday, the petroleum institute released its own poll putting the number at 69 percent.

In coming weeks, the Big Labor-Big Oil alliance will try to drive those numbers even higher. On the conference call, Gerard announced plans for a campaign of "advertising, making presentations at events around the country, and calling on allies and potential allies, including business and labor leaders, veterans, educators and others to write to the president and Congress urging approval of the project."

Given that pressure, and especially given the new fact of a safer route for the pipeline, it's hard to see Obama saying no. But so far, the president just can't face his environmental and Hollywood allies with the bad news. Even when they come to the White House to see him.

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com.

Keystone pipeline: Separating reality from rhetoric

The Obama administration supports extending the existing Keystone XL pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama stopped in Cushing, Okla., on Thursday to announce a fast-track approval process for a portion of the Keystone XL oil pipeline -- although it's not the part for which he's taken political heat for blocking.

The portion likely to start construction soon runs from Cushing, a key repository of U.S. oil, to the Gulf Coast.

The full proposed pipeline, which would cross the U.S. border in Montana, is designed to bring between 500,000 to 700,000 barrels a day from the Canadian oil sands region to refineries on the Gulf Coast. It would shortcut to an existing pipe that goes through much of Canada before cutting into the United States in North Dakota on the way to Cushing.

Republican presidential candidates have used the rejection of the shortcut pipeline as a hammer when attacking the Obama administration over high gas prices. They also say the Keystone will create much needed jobs.

Here are three facts about what the decision will and won't mean.

This is not a flip-flop by Obama: Even when Obama blocked the full Keystone project earlier this year, he said he was in favor of this Cushing-to-Gulf portion. And that is the only portion he is backing now.

Approval of this southern part of the pipeline is not really the Obama administration's call. The northern portion of the pipeline needs administration approval because it would cross the Canadian border.

Rising gas prices aren't as bad as you think

The Cushing-to-Gulf segment is much more of a local issue. So Thursday's announcement is more theater than substance.

"This is pretty routine, but the politics are clear here," said Bob Tippee, editor of Oil & Gas Journal, an industry trade publication.

Environmental groups oppose even this portion of the pipeline since they don't like anything that increases production of oil from oil sands.

But compared to the other portion of pipeline, which stirred concerns of Nebraskans worried about underground water supplies, the Cushing-to-Gulf pipeline is relatively non-controversial. More than 99% of property owners where the pipeline will run agree to it.

Gas prices might go up, not down: Right now, a lot of oil being produced in Canada and North Dakota has trouble reaching the refineries and terminals on the Gulf. Since that supply can't be sold abroad, it reduces the competition for it to Midwest refineries that can pay lower prices to get it.

Giving the Canadian oil access to the Gulf means the glut in the Midwest goes away, making it more expensive for the region

Cutting through the Keystone XL hysteria

"The price that refineries on the coasts have been paying is around $120 a barrel for months, while you had $75 to $80 a barrel crude available in the Rockies and Midwest," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service.

Much of the difference in gas prices between states is due to gas taxes, not cost. But Kloza said that the center of the country might have benefited by up to 25 cents a gallon in what they were paying for gas because of the glut of oil around Cushing.

The full pipeline would increase the capacity of oil flowing from Canada's oil sands into the broader global market by up to 700,000 barrels a day, according to advocates. But adding even the 700,000 barrels to more than 90 million barrels worldwide will have limited long-term impact on prices, especially amid worries about what might happen with Iran production.

"In the current market, people are so worried about the loss of 3.5 million barrels from Iran, that 500,000 to 700,000 barrels isn't enough to calm the markets," said Tippee.

The impact on jobs will be minimal: The Republican supporters of the pipeline have argued Keystone will create much needed jobs.

Speculators are driving up gas prices -- opinion

But even though this southern portion of the pipeline is relatively "shovel ready," the impact on unemployment will be minimal. Even TransCanada says it will create about 4,000 jobs, mostly temporary construction work. That comes to less than 2% of the nation's overall monthly job gain in recent months.

If the full pipeline got the green light, it would create 13,000 construction jobs and 7,000 jobs making equipment such as pump houses and the pipe itself, according to the company.

Pipeline critics dispute even those job estimates.

First Published: March 22, 2012: 5:07 AM ET

Obama orders agencies to fast-track Keystone XL's southern leg

By Sheldon Alberts, Postmedia NewsMarch 21, 2012

supporting Calgary-based TransCanada's decision to build the southern leg of the Keystone XL oilsands pipeline, President Barack Obama has managed a rare feat — angering both environmentalists and energy companies at the same time. Pictured, Obama arrives in Las Vegas, March 21, 2012.

Photograph by: Jason Reed , Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Wednesday ordered U.S. government agencies to fast track approval of the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, boosting Calgary-based TransCanada's plans for speedy construction of the $2.3-billion project.

Ahead of a speech Obama will give Thursday in Cushing, Okla., the White House said the president is issuing a memorandum to U.S. government departments to "expedite" permitting of the planned pipeline.

"The president has been very clear . . . about his support for the building of the pipeline, the so-called Cushing pipeline," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, "because of the glut of oil in Cushing and the need to move that product to the Gulf for refining."

Obama had already signalled his support for TransCanada's plan to build the southernmost portion of Keystone XL as a stand-alone pipeline that would not require more rigorous review and a special presidential permit.

According to the White House, Obama will issue an executive order — first announced in his State of the Union address — "to make faster permitting and review decisions for vital infrastructure projects" in the U.S.

The executive order will direct agencies by the end of April to identify "regionally and nationally significant infrastructure projects" — including pipelines — for better tracking and review. A separate steering committee will be set up to develop, by the end of May, clear timelines for speeding up approval.

A "specific memorandum" will be issued designating the TransCanada pipeline as the "top priority" because of the need to relieve a glut of oil at the Cushing hub, the White House said.

The president's speech on Thursday in Cushing is part of a four-state tour aimed at promoting his "all of the above" approach to increasing America's energy independence — a wide-ranging policy he says encourages responsible oil production alongside development of alternative energy sources.

TransCanada opted to move ahead with the southern leg of Keystone XL — now formally called the Gulf Coast project — after Obama's decision to reject the company's application for a permit to build the entire 2,700 kilometre pipeline from Hardisty, Alta., to the Gulf Coast. It has said the southern leg could be complete by mid-2013.

The Calgary-based company is preparing an alternate route for Keystone XL's northern portion that would avoid the ecologically fragile Sand Hills region of Nebraska. No decision is likely on that leg until early 2013, after this fall's presidential election.

By backing the southern leg of Keystone XL, Obama is trying to walk a fine political line. He wants to limit potential election-year damage from Republicans who say his opposition to the entire Keystone XL route has cost the U.S. thousands of construction jobs and could lead to higher gas prices.

At the same time, he is hoping environmentalists will continue to give him credit for denying Keystone XL even as he approves its southern portion.

So far, the plan isn't working — he's managed to anger both environmentalists and energy companies at the same time.

"We completely disagree with anything that would fast track or expedite federal permits for the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline," said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, international programs director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"People in America really don't like this project and they don't like it because it is a step too far toward getting more dirty energy."

Meantime a quartet of top oil industry executives said Obama's backing of the southern leg amounted to a half measure — arguing approval of the full Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta can't wait any longer.

In an editorial published Wednesday in The Oklahoman newspaper, the chief executives of four major oil companies said Obama's support of the southern Keystone XL portion wasn't nearly enough.

"Approval of the entire Keystone XL pipeline should happen now — not after the election," the oilmen wrote. The authors included Harold Hamm of Continental Resources, Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake Energy, Larry Nichols of Devon Energy and Tom Ward of SandRidge Energy.

The four executives said they were pleased with TransCanada's decision to build the "critical" southern section of the Keystone XL pipeline.

"However, America's greatest benefit will come when we can transport oil from our best energy partner, Canada, and oil-rich North Dakota and Montana."

The oilmen said they hoped Obama's visit to Oklahoma would help him "develop a better understanding of the oil and gas industry."

Many U.S. environmental groups are disappointed in what they view as Obama's fence straddling on the Keystone XL pipeline.

The National Wildlife Federation on Wednesday said Obama had "taken a dangerous wrong turn" by rushing to build the "Keystone Lite" pipeline, its term for the proposed southern leg.

Obama's appearance in Cushing "raises questions about his commitment to (an environmental) review process that is crucial to protect clean drinking water and the rights of families along the route," the NWF said.

By expediting permits for the southern leg of Keystone XL, Casey-Lefkowitz said the administration risks proper analysis of the impact of pipeline construction on wetlands, rivers and threatened or endangered species.

"We have sent the White House a very clear message that there should be no fast-tracking of federal permits for the Keystone XL pipeline."

Obama's relationship with environmentalists may be strained, but he's feuding openly with the U.S. oil industry.

The U.S. president, in his weekly address to Americans on March 17, targeted the oil industry for receiving "$4 billion of your tax dollars in subsidies every year" that he wants to end.

On Wednesday, the oil industry fired back.

Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, on Wednesday said Obama's statements were "not only misleading, but factually inaccurate."

In a letter to Obama, Gerard said tax deductions used by U.S. oil companies are the same as those available to other industries.

"Pitting one energy source against another is a false choice which ignores the fact that we will need it all," Gerard wrote.

salberts@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/sheldonalberts

keystone Pipeline Organization

Billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch are the head of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The pipeline would be one of the largest oil developments in American history. The pipeline would’ve destroyed American homes, farmlands and sensitive ecosystems along the nearly 2,000-mile path from Northwest Canada and through six U.S. states to the Gulf of Mexico.

The Koch brothers helped fund and start the Tea Party group, Americans for Prosperity. It’s Nebraska chapter has actively promoted and organized around the Keystone pipeline despite numerous concerns voiced by the Republican governor of Nebraska and thousands of Cornhusker residents. Many activists in our Koch Brothers Exposed network have said they’ve seen Americans for Prosperity commercials in their communities supporting the pipeline.

The Koch brothers have a profit and greed motive behind the pipeline too. The Kochs’ subsidiary company admits on its website that it is among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters. Throughout the public hearings and process behind the Keystone pipeline’s formation, the Koch brothers have smeared journalists writing about their Keystone agenda. The Kochs and their Congressional allies stonewalled lawmakers when they began asking too many questions.

What are the Kochs hiding? They won’t even answer questions from Joel Francis, a college student and military veteran who’s passionate about protecting the environment.

There have been many cases of legal misconduct behind the Keystone XL pipeline like cost miscalculations and conflicts of interests. For years, the state department had one person handling the entire $7 billion project who virtually outsourced oversight to an unaccountable consultant company.

Peer review and independent analysis of the pipeline’s claims have exposed deception and legally corrupt tactics used to justify the project. The Canadian company building it is inflating the project’s value. Gas prices in the Midwest will be higher, and the pipeline won’t create jobs as advertised. Media Matters has documented the full spin campaign.

The Koch brothers’ echo chamber has also had devastating effects on popular programs like Social Security. We’ve been producing videos and activism that illustrate how the Koch brothers use their wealth to write script and set the goals for politicians, activists and influentials to follow. The Kochs use their wealth to launch think tanks, family foundations and nonprofit organizations to foment policies that make the Koch brothers richer.

keystone oil pipeline map

TransCanada and its big oil allies significantly dwarfed the lobbyists of environmental groups. TransCanada alone nearly matched the combined lobbying expenditures of all Keystone XL opponents on all issues, over the periods in which they lobbied for and against the pipeline in 2011, a ThinkProgress Green analysis shows.

An analysis of lobbying disclosure records for the first, second, and third quarters of 2011 suggests that the lobbying expenses of the 20 or more business and labor interests who backed the project were much greater than those for the seven organizations that actively opposed the measure:

Thirty-eight different companies or organizations reported lobbying the federal government on the Keystone XL pipeline in general or on H.R.1938 (the North American-Made Energy Security Act, a bill which aimed to speed up the Obama administration’s consideration of the application). Thirty-one groups supported the pipeline, and seven groups opposed it.

– TransCanada’s lobbying efforts alone over the first three quarters of 2011 totaled at least $920,000.

– The seven groups in opposition to Keystone XL spent just over $1 million on all lobbying efforts. Corporate Ethics International, Defenders of Wildlife, EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Western Organization of Resource Councils reported spending just over $1 million on lobbying efforts for the periods when they were lobbying on Keystone XL — little more than TransCanada’s spending. Lobbying disclosure forms do not specify how much is spent on individual issues.

– The 31 groups supporting Keystone XL spent $59.8 million on all lobbying. Combined with the massive lobbying prowess of supporters like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ConocoPhillips, Shell Oil, Exxon Mobil Corporation, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers, as well as less expected players like the National Taxpayers Union and Deere & Company, supporters of the pipeline had lobbying operations over the periods in which they lobbied on application totaling at least $59.8 million.

– Oil and energy companies alone spent more than $37 million on total lobbying.

TransCanada has vowed to reapply. If these numbers are any indication, they will likely do so with some well-funded allies.

See the organizations who reported lobbying on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline in the first three quarters of 2011:

Lobbied For Keystone XL ($59.8 million)	Lobbied Against Keystone XL ($1 million)
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES	CORPORATE ETHICS INTERNATIONAL
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE	DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO	EARTHJUSTICE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE USA	LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS
CONOCOPHILLIPS	NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
CONSUMER ENERGY ALLIANCE	SIERRA CLUB
DEERE & COMPANY	WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS
DEVON ENERGY COMPANY
EXXON MOBIL CORP
IN SITU OIL SANDS ALLIANCE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION
NATL ASSN OF MANUFACTURERS
NEW ENGLAND FUEL INSTITUTE
SHELL OIL COMPANY
SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP COUNCIL
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES, LTD
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN & APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY

Note: this chart does not include entities whose official position on the bill could not be determined

Pipelines of the US

The Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL) promotes the safe, reliable, and efficient transportation of energy liquids by pipelines, educates the public about the vital role oil pipelines serve in the daily lives of Americans, and advocates the interests of its members.

Read More on how Pipelines Make Life Better »

Latest News

Apr 20122AOPL Commends PHMSA Damage Prevention Proposal
Mar 201230AOPL-API Comments before Nebraska Public Service Commission March 30, 2012
Mar 201222AOPL Statement on President Obama’s visit to oil storage hub in Cushing, Oklahoma
Mar 20128Press Release on Keystone XL Senate Vote

More Press Releases »

Trending Now

Tap into U.S.-made energy

In addition, we need to look at new ways to secure oil from our allies rather than relying so heavily on unstable and unfriendly countries. TransCanada estimates the Keystone Pipeline would have brought 700000 barrels of oil each day from Canada, ...
Heineman: time to move forward on Keystone XL oil pipeline (AUDIO)

The company agreed to move its proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline away from the Sand Hills and to avoid as much of the Ogallala Aquifer as possible. The company says the new route will go over the aquifer, but will not come into contact ...See all stories
Backing pipeline

The pipeline would run from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries along the Gulf Coast, creating up to 20000 jobs, supporters say. Now that the House has passed a transportation bill with the pipeline provision, it must be reconciled with the ...

More Trending News »

Calendar

6/24 – 6/26 2012 AOPL-API Summer Leadership MeetingColorado Springs, CO

View Full Calendar

Association of Oil Pipe Lines
1808 Eye Street NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20006
Phone: 202-408-7970
Fax: 202-280-1949

Created by Matrix Group International, Inc.

Keystone XL Pipeline

December 22, 2008 DEQ received an application from TransCanada and ConocoPhillips for a Certificate of Compliance under the Major Facility Siting Act to construct and operate a 36-inch crude oil pipeline in eastern Montana. Keystone is a limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and owned equally by affiliates of TransCanada Corporation, a Canadian public company organized under the laws of Canada, and ConocoPhillips Company, a Delaware corporation. The 280-mile portion of the pipeline in Montana would be part of a longer 1,980-mile project beginning in Hardisty, Alberta, and ending along the Texas Gulf Coast. On March 30, 2012 DEQ issued a certificate of Compliance for the project. It may be viewed at the Keystone Certificate page.

On September 2, 2011 the US Department of State released the Final EIS. Montana DEQ is a cooperating agency on the Final EIS. The DEIS, SDEIS, and the Final EIS can be found by following the link at the top of the DOS home page, or by clicking of the “State Dept. Documents” in the left-hand margin.

To be re-directed to the US Department of State Keystone XL Pipeline Project Home Page, click www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov

Questions regarding the Montana segment of the Final EIS may be directed to Greg Hallsten or Tom Ring with the contact information provided at the bottom of this page.

APPLICATION
MAPS - Updated April 22, 2011
LEGAL NOTICE - Application
LEGAL NOTICE - Public Scoping Meetings
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON DRAFT EIS
LEGAL NOTICE - Extended Comment Period on Draft EIS
LEGAL NOTICE - Draft Keystone XL Pipeline Rate Impact Study
COVER LETTER - Draft Keystone XL Pipeline Rate Impact Study
DRAFT RATE IMPACT STUDY
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT RATE IMPACT STUDY - No changes were made to the Draft Rate Impact Study.

Additional project information can be viewed at TransCanada Website:
http:www.transcanada.com/keystone/kxl.html.

For more information about the project contact Greg Hallsten at (406) 444-3276 or Tom Ring at (406) 444-6785.

Major Facility Siting Program

3-29-`12

President Barack Obama will not be bringing up the Keystone XL Pipeline in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, but Texas Republican Congressman Ted Poe is intent on keeping the controversial oil pipeline project in the news and circumventing the administration’s denial of a permit to build it.

Tuesday, the Texas congressman introduced the “Keystone For A Secure Tomorrow Act” (K-FAST) to allow the 112th Congress to “directly and immediately” approve the Keystone XL Pipeline permit for TransCanada Corporation.

According to Poe, the approval of the pipeline is within Congress’ authority. In 1973, Poe noted, Congress passed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act to allow construction of the 800-mile-long north–south pipeline from frozen Prudhoe Bay to the ice-free port of Valdez.

The Keystone XL project, if authorized, would start in Canada and end up in Port Arthur, TX — part of Poe’s district. Poe estimates that he represents more refineries than any other representative in Congress.

“My bill would authorize the construction of the pipeline — except for the new route that has not been determined yet, that small route in Nebraska, that would still have to go through the normal channels. The rest of it would be authorized immediately,” Poe told The Daily Caller, adding that since Keystone is in “the national interest” Congress has the authority to pass the legislation.

Poe’s bill adds to proposals from other Republicans attempting to get around the Obama administration’s permit denial.

Congress does have the legal authority to make this decision, and that is why I filed the bill,” he said. “There are no cases that say the President has exclusive jurisdiction over an issue such as this, and the Alaska Pipeline is one of those examples where Congress exerted the authority to approve a pipeline.”

Poe introduced the legislation with Oklahoma Democratic Rep. Dan Boren.

“Instead of saying yes and providing much needed relief to the people, the Administration turned its back on Americans and just said no to the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is the moral obligation and legal authority of Congress to say yes,” Poe added in a statement. “Congress cannot sit idly by and watch Americans suffer as a result of this reckless decision motivated by politics. It’s time to create jobs, bring energy to the United States and make Middle Eastern politics irrelevant to our national security.”

Despite the president’s denial, TransCanada last week said that it intends to reapply for a permit and hopes to be approved in time for a 2014 start date.

Follow Caroline on Twitter

Tags: Keystone XL Pipeline, Ted Poe

NOVEMBER 28, 2012 UPDATE

By OnEarth's Scott Dodd:
(Click here for original version.)

Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice’s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project.

Rice's financial holdings could raise questions about her status as a neutral decision maker. The current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America.

Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice’s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada’s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 -- the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.

Rice also has smaller stakes in several other big Canadian energy firms, as well as the country’s transportation companies and coal-fired utilities. Another 20 percent or so of her personal wealth is derived from investments in five Canadian banks. These are some of the institutions that provide loans and financial backing to TransCanada and its competitors for tar sands extraction and major infrastructure projects, such as Keystone XL and Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would stretch 700 miles from Alberta to the Canadian coast.

In 2010, for instance, when Rice and her husband held at least $1.5 million in Royal Bank of Canada, the institution was labeled Canada's most environmentally irresponsible company by the Rainforest Action Network for its support of tar sands development. Public pressure from environmentalists and Canada’s First Nations tribes convinced the bank to adopt new standards regarding socially conscious lending.

“It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for Secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies,” said Bill McKibben, a writer and founder of the activist groups 350.org and Tar Sands Action, which have organized protests against the Keystone XL project. “The State Department has been rife with collusion with the Canadian pipeline builders, and it’s really distressing to have any sense that that might continue to go on.” Emails obtained by an environmental group last year show what critics call a “cozy and complicitous relationship” between State Department officials and a lobbyist for TransCanada, who was also a former deputy campaign director for current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's failed 2008 presidential bid. The agency also assigned an environmental impact review of the Keystone project to a company with financial ties to TransCanada.

As ambassador to the United Nations, Rice has not been directly involved in the State Department’s Keystone XL review, which came to a head at the end of 2011. After initially indicating it would likely approve TransCanada’s application, the State Department ordered a review of alternate routes to avoid putting critical water sources in Nebraska at risk. The move, which officials said would likely push the approval process back to the first three months of 2013, was an attempt to spare the Obama administration a politically risky decision just before an election year.

Greenlighting the pipeline would have hurt the president with environmental advocates -- more than 1,200 people were arrested in anti-Keystone protests led by McKibben at the White House in Summer 2011. But denying it outright would have given Republicans an election year attack line, saying Obama had cost the nation much-needed jobs (although independent studies have shown that TransCanada’s job creation claims for the pipeline are greatly exaggerated). As it was, the president still received significant heat, and Mitt Romney pledged to approve the pipeline on Day 1 if he had won the election.

Were she to become Secretary of State, Rice would be in charge of the new environmental review process and would be in a position to decide whether to issue TransCanada a permit for sections of Keystone XL stretching from Oklahoma to the Canadian border. (The pipeline’s southernmost leg has already been approved and is under construction in Texas -- with protesters perching in trees and chaining themselves to construction equipment in an attempt to stop it.)

Rice is reportedly Obama’s favorite to take the helm at the State Department next year. Clinton has said repeatedly that she plans to step down shortly after Obama’s second inauguration in January. In addition to Rice, reportedly the president's lead candidate for the job, U.S. Senator John Kerry had also reportedly made it onto the president’s short list. Kerry, whose net worth of at least $232 million makes him far wealthier than Rice, does not own shares of TransCanada or Enbridge, the major tar sands pipeline companies, although he does have stock in some other Canadian energy interests.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Rice’s net worth sat somewhere between $23.5 million and $43.5 million in 2009, the latest year for which the center has done a full analysis of her finances. That makes her either the wealthiest person currently serving in the executive branch or a close second to Clinton. (The uncertainty surrounding these figures is due to the way officials are required to disclose their investments; instead of declaring the specific amount of stock they own, they are required by law only to declare a range.)

Other public officials have been criticized for pushing for the Keystone XL project while standing to benefit financially. The nonprofit Sunlight Foundation watchdog group reported in December 2011 that four members of Congress who own shares in TransCanada had pressed for the pipeline’s approval -- either by supporting bills that would have forced the State Department to issue a permit or by writing to Clinton or Obama, urging them to give the go-ahead. Rice’s ownership of TransCanada stock was noted by the Sunlight Foundation but not considered a conflict of interest at the time, because she had no direct role in the approval process.

Neither Rice’s office nor the White House returned OnEarth’s calls for comment about her financial holdings.

It’s unclear when Rice began investing in Canadian energy and banks, but the Stanford University graduate and Rhodes Scholar worked for the prestigious McKinsey & Company consulting firm’s Toronto office from 1990 to 1993, marrying Canadian-born TV producer Ian Cameron in 1992. She then joined the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. (Financial disclosure forms aren’t available for Rice’s security council tenure; by law, they’re destroyed after six years.) Rice later became President Clinton’s assistant secretary of state for African affairs, then joined the nonprofit Brookings Institution think tank during the George W. Bush administration. She advised both the Kerry and Obama presidential campaigns on foreign policy.

According to the reports she filed in May 2012, Rice and her husband have a wide-ranging portfolio that includes more than 100 securities, such as IBM, Monsanto, Apple, BP, and McDonald’s. Dan Auble, a researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics who studies the personal finances of public officials, said it’s not unusual to see energy investments play a significant role in their financial portfolios, as they do with Rice and her husband. (Auble said the holdings of a public official’s spouse are included in financial disclosure reports because they have the same potential to create a conflict of interest.) In their case, however, nine of the 14 holdings they claimed that top $500,000 are Canadian energy interests or banks.

If Rice does get the Secretary of State job, federal ethics officials could recommend that she sell her stock in TransCanada and related companies before deciding on Keystone XL, Auble said. But that’s not a sure thing.

Leading Keystone opponents say they wouldn’t necessarily oppose Rice’s nomination -- but they would want someone else in charge of deciding the pipeline’s fate. “It would be one of the first decisions she would make, and she’s not qualified to make an unbiased decision,” said Jane Kleeb, the executive director of Bold Nebraska, a group that has fought to block the Keystone XL pipeline.

“It’s one more clear sign that the State Department should not be handling this,” added McKibben (who is also an OnEarth contributing editor). Both advocates believe the Environmental Protection Agency or the White House Council on Environmental Quality would be more qualified to assess the environmental impacts of Keystone XL. But an executive order issued by President George W. Bush in April 2004 makes the Secretary of State responsible for approving pipelines that cross the U.S. border. Kleeb suggested that Obama could change that order to shift the decision-making responsibility elsewhere.

Environmental advocates (including the Natural Resources Defense Council, which publishes OnEarth) have sought to block the Keystone XL pipeline and further development of the Alberta tar sands fields due to their climate impact and potential for pollution and dangerous oil spills. Extracting bitumen -- a heavy, viscous black oil -- requires intensive open-pit mining in the heart of Canada’s boreal forest. More dirty and corrosive than conventional crude, bitumen requires extensive refining to become useable fuel. The entire process uses vast amounts of energy and water and creates three times the global warming pollution of conventional fuel, while shipping the bitumen through pipelines means an additional risk of corrosion and leaks.

Despite the environmental risks, tar sands development has become a major focus of the Canadian government and pillar of the country’s economy, championed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose administration has denounced environmental advocates and First Nations tribes opposed to pipeline construction as extremists. Alberta's tar sands contain the world's third largest proven oil reserve, but they’re landlocked and remote -- hence the desire for more pipelines to provide Canadian energy companies with access to ports and refineries.

According to her most recent financial disclosure reports, along with her TransCanada investments, Rice and her husband own at least $1.5 million worth of stock in Enbridge (Canada’s No. 3 oil producer, according to Forbes), Cenovus (No. 7), and Encana (No. 8), as well as at least $1.25 million in Imperial (No. 2), $50,000 to $100,000 in Suncor (No. 1), and $15,000 to $50,000 in Canadian Natural (No. 6). (TransCanada is ranked at No. 5 by Forbes.) The couple has at least $1.25 million invested in Transalta, Alberta's largest coal-fired electricity power producer, and at least $1.5 million in Canadian Pacific Railway, which transports coal, oil, and gas and has been a major financial beneficiary of the North American energy boom.

On the banking side, Rice has investments totaling at least $5 million and up to $11.25 million in Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, and Toronto Dominion. A report by the Dutch consulting firm Profundo Economic Research says several of these same banks are largely responsible for underwriting the expansion of Canada’s tar sands industry. “Investment in tar sands infrastructure now surpasses that of manufacturing across all of Canada,” according to the report.

Which means that regardless of Keystone XL’s fate, Canadian companies will continue to seek ways to pump bitumen from northern Canada to coastal refineries and ports, where it can be shipped to Europe, China, and other overseas markets. NRDC and other environmental groups have presented evidence that Enbridge is making plans to reverse a pipeline that currently carries regular crude from the New England coast to Montreal, and use it to ship tar sands oil in the other direction instead.

Since it crosses the U.S.-Canadian border, that plan would also require State Department approval.

OnEarth editor-at-large Ted Genoways contributed to this report.

INDEXES\

2011

JULY
THRU
DECEMBER

2012

JANUARY
THRU
APRIL

2012

MAY
THRU
AUGUST

Keystone Pipeline

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

[edit] Descript