Keystone XL Pipeline: Alternate Routes In the Works
By Heather Rogers | 04/19/2012 | Energy and Water, Infrastructure, Legislation | 11 Comments
On Wednesday, TransCanada, the company planning the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, submitted alternate routes for the project after much criticism over its possibly harmful environmental effects. The original plan mapped the pipeline through the Sand Hills region of Nebraska which is considered one of the most intricate wetland ecosystems in the United States. The wetlands are sourced by an aquifer which provides water to 8 states.
News of the alternate plans comes at the same time House Republicans passed the pipeline as part of a 90-day extension of surface transportation law. The vote passed, 293 to 127, on Wednesday. This marks the fifth time that the House has voted on the proposed pipeline.
The White House has threatened to veto language supporting the oil pipeline, but House Republicans remain determined. Last December, the President personally lobbied Senate Democrats to vote against the Keystone XL pipeline, and while the amendment ended up 4 votes short of passing, 11 Democratic senators still voted in support of it.
The president, backed by prominent environmental groups, has opposed the pipeline since his rejection of TransCanada Corporation’s permit for it in January. Now that the creators of the oil pipeline have proposed alternate routes, it seems more likely that President Obama will falter in his opposition and cave to House Republicans. From here, the future of the pipeline is in the hands of a conference committee, requiring only majority support in the Senate, to pass without the possibility of being amended.
Republicans have long pointed to job creation as one of the major merits of the pipeline, but a recent Cornell University Study has reported that the economic impacts of the pipeline would be negative for the states through which it would pass. TransCanada has claimed that the pipeline would produce 20,000 jobs. This differs greatly from the number of jobs the State Department reports will be created, which is only 20 permanent operating jobs across the six states through which it would run.
According to Salon:
“The already existing Keystone I pipeline, which runs 2,100 miles from Alberta to Illinois, began operating in 2010; in the two years since, 35 spills have occurred.”
This spill rate is 100 times the original projections presented by TransCanada. Oil spills, aside from being harmful to the environment, kill jobs. The states proposed to house the oil pipeline employ 571,000 agricultural workers, whose jobs could be impacted by oil spills.
Despite the debated economic benefits and the certain environmental damages, many agree that the question is not whether or not the Keystone XL pipeline will be built, but when.





Leave Your Comment →
11 Comments
florianschach
04.19.2012
@florianschach
We had to know that this was going to happen at the last veto. The pipeline is not going away and we need to embrace this project. the number of jobs that this creates right off of the bat that can spiral into more and also reduce our energy dependence from hostile regions of the world is too good of a prospect to pass up(http://eng.am/xmoh86). Going back and forth on this issue has already come to bite us once let’s not have it happen again.
Bristol Bailey
04.19.2012
no more pipe lines, clean energy now !!!!
Ray Yager
04.19.2012
i say flood the american market with north american oil.
Chris Miller
04.19.2012
My big problem with the XL pipeline? Besides the pollution and stealing of land to build it? Is that it is not in the best interest of the U.S. to build it. What everybody seems to be failing to understand is; once the pipeline is finished, ALL that oil that is stuck in the midwest at the moment, driving *down* the cost of gas for residents of that area, will be loaded on tankers and sold overseas. Then what happens? The cost of oil in the U.S. goes up. But, if you don’t believe me just do a little search on Trans Canada and Valero’s pitches to their investors to build the pipeline.
Alice Gordon
04.19.2012
The benefits from what I hear will not lower the price of gas more than a few cents and these will not show up for a decade.
Bill Jurkovich
04.19.2012
ANY oil pumped ANYWHERE belongs to THE OIL COMPANIES! The oil is sold to the highest bidder.(China, India, Brazil.) Ths Democrats have asked for guarantees that the oil be refined and sold here ONLY. Nope, it’s going on the OPEN market! Supply and demand.
Joe Erwin
04.19.2012
Actually, the pipeline will make NO difference on domestic gas prices because the end product will not be marketed here, it all goes offshore….what a bite…
Lindsay Weills
04.19.2012
Definitely time for clean renewable energy already. I’m sick of the greed.
Stacy Alexander Dill
04.19.2012
The oil will go where there is demand. Any and all energy sources should be developed. Since some technologies may turn out to be merely supplements to aid in conservation ( solar), others may yet be developed. So drilling, refining, R&D, pipelines are a definite go. Increase worldwide supply to satisfy worldwide demand. The government should get out of the venture capital business with taxpayer’s money, however. Not only has it been wrong and cronyism at its best, but the Federal Government has demonstrated that they are completely incompetent at it.
Barbara Phillippi
04.21.2012
As the current proposal is written, oil transversing the proposed pipeline ends up at Port Arthur, TX, and other Gulf ports, for export, including to China. There is NO stipulation that one drop of that petroleum will be designated for US interests.
Ken Rogers
04.21.2012
Is it so bad that the oil from this pipeline be sold to the highest bidder? Is it so bad that America develop products for export? I agree that the way this pipeline has been sold to the american public is not exactly in line with the truth but international business isn’t a bad thing. The emerging economies of the world are emerging through exports. The U.S. should do the same. Or should we just export our dollars.