Obama Is Losing the Keystone Pipeline Battle

The president finds himself between an environmentalist rock and a labor union hard place

The Keystone XL pipeline is roiling U.S. electoral politics again. TransCanada refiled its application for a permit to build the pipeline with the State Department last week. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has vowed, “I will build that pipeline if I have to do it myself.” In April, the House of Representatives passed a transportation bill that mandates the construction of the Keystone pipeline. The vote was 293 to 127, the majority vote was minus 14 Republicans, but included 69 Democrats. President Barack Obama threatened to veto the bill if it includes the pipeline construction mandate. Today, the House and Senate are conferring on the transportation bill that would spend more than $100 billion on highway, rail, air, and mass transit projects over the next two years. It is not known if the Keystone pipeline provision will emerge in the final version.

Reviewing the state of play: The crude oil pipeline would be built by TransCanada at a cost $7 billion and stretch nearly 1,700-miles from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast of the United States. The 36-inch pipeline would bring as much as 830,000 barrels of synthetic oil per day produced from Canadian oilsands to U.S. refineries. However, since it crosses an international border, President Barack Obama has the authority to refuse permission for construction to begin if he determines that the pipeline is not in the national interest. In August 2011, the Department of State issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement [PDF], which concluded that the pipeline could be built and operated safely. Once the State Department report was issued, Obama had 90 days to make his national interest determination.

The Keystone pipeline became a defining issue for political environmentalists who dramatized their opposition during protests outside the White House by getting themselves arrested. The activists claimed that pipeline leaks could threaten the Ogallala aquifer in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska and would exacerbate man-made global warming by enabling consumers to burn fuel produced from Canada’s oilsands.

Meanwhile the labor union wing of the Democratic Party was eagerly lobbying the Obama administration on behalf of the jobs that constructing and operating the pipeline would create. In November, Obama bravely announced that he was putting off any decision on allowing the construction of the pipeline until after the 2012 presidential election. That's real leadership! Clearly in his electoral calculations, the Green faction won out over the union vote.

After the president’s decision to delay approval, Nebraska legislators, spooked by environmentalist scaremongering, voted to require that the pipeline be re-routed around the Sand Hills.

Vexed Republicans on Capitol Hill tried to force the president’s hand in December by attaching a provision setting a February deadline for a decision on the pipeline to the bill that extended the payroll tax cut. In January, Obama called the Republicans’ bluff by denouncing the Republican deadline as “rushed and arbitrary” and had the State Department issue a determination that the pipeline was not in the national interest.

Meanwhile TransCanada announced in late February that it would seek to begin construction of the 485-mile southern leg of the Keystone pipeline from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. Since this portion of the pipeline does not cross any international borders it does not require presidential approval. Nevertheless, the Obama administration hastened to issue a White House statement declaring that it was committed to taking “every step possible to expedite the necessary Federal permits.”

In April, the Nebraska legislature shifted toward backing pipeline construction by passing a bill that authorizes the governor to approve a new route that avoids the Sand Hills region. On May 4, TransCanada submitted a new application [PDF] for a presidential permit for pipeline construction to the State Department.

The new application was widely denounced [PDF] by environmental lobbyists. For example, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director Natural Resources Defense Council’s international program declared, “The company's ‘new’ application is nothing but a rehash, riddled with the same environmental risks that raise the same unanswered questions while providing no new rationale for why it should be built.”

So let’s take up Casey-Lefkowitz’s invitation to rehash the chief arguments deployed by the environmentalist lobby against building the pipeline. Opponents highlight the environmental risks of increased global warming and the possibility of damage to the Ogallala aquifer. The concern over global warming is that producing fuel from oilsands boosts greenhouse gas emissions, adding further damage to the climate. It is true that producing crude from oilsands emits more greenhouse gases than conventional petroleum production. How much more? Estimates vary from 6 percent more [PDF] calculated by the oil consultancy IHS CERA to an estimate of 20 percent higher [PDF] in a 2010 Royal Society of Canada report. Keep in mind that oilsands emissions currently account for 0.15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, so even if production triples as projected, they would amount to less than one half of a percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Worries that oil leaks from the pipeline might severely damage the Ogallala aquifer have been greatly exaggerated by activists. Decades of research on an oil spill in Bemidji Minnesota finds [PDF] that hydrocarbons from the spill migrated in groundwater a bit more than 600 feet downhill and then stabilized. U.S. Geological Survey researcher Geoffrey Delin told InsideClimateNews that he thinks any dissolved hydrocarbons from a Keystone XL pipeline break that percolates into groundwater would probably remain within 1,000 feet of the spill point. Oil spills on land are nasty but not apocalyptic events. In any case, TransCanada has agreed to change the route of the pipeline so that it no longer goes through the area that most concerns the activists.

Opponents also assert, “Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.” To prevent this from happening Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wants “it written in stone that Keystone oil will stay here in the United States and give American consumers some of the benefits, not just all of the costs.” He has proposed legislation that would block the export of any products refined from Canadian crude transported by the pipeline.

As analyst Marlo Lewis from the free-market think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute points out such a ban on exports would violate World Trade Organization rules requiring that imported and locally-produced goods to be treated the same once foreign goods have entered the market. In this case, one way to get around this rule would be to also ban the export of refined products made using domestically produced crude oil. Let’s hope that Rep. Markey doesn’t decide that this is a good idea. In addition, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Analysis at the Department of Energy (DOE) Carmine Difiglio noted [PDF] in a June 2011 memorandum that since crude oil imports from Venezuela and Mexico are declining Canadian crude would help make Gulf Coast refiners less dependent on imports from countries with less savory regimes.

Another argument made by opponents and reprised by Markey is that building the Keystone pipeline “would increase gasoline prices for Midwest U.S. consumers.” Not so says DOE’s Difiglio who points out that while it is true that Midwest refineries pay less for crude oil because of a current pipeline transportation bottleneck that prevents supplies from flowing to competing East and Gulf Coast refiners, the wholesale price of gasoline is actually set in the national market. Difiglio argues that on balance relieving the oil transportation bottleneck means that “gasoline prices in all markets ... would decrease, including the Midwest.”

Opponents argue that building the pipeline won’t create all that many jobs anyway. Estimates range from 6,000 direct jobs up to an implausible 250,000 direct and indirect jobs touted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. While some opponents downplay [PDF] the thousands of jobs created by building the pipeline as being “temporary,” they fail to apply the same job creation logic to green energy projects, e.g., the Ivanpah Solar Power Complex that will “create 950 union construction jobs, [and] 90 union permanent positions upon completion.” With an unemployment rate over 8 percent, it’s hard to argue against even “temporary” jobs.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    oooo! Enviros or Union pukes - who do I hate more!

    The delicious , delicious scent of Team infighting. Always good, no matter which Team it is...

  • PapayaSF||

    Environmentalists either don't know, or don't want anyone to know, that there are already about 50,000 miles of petroleum pipelines crisscrossing the country, some of which are over the Ogallala aquifer. And if the oil doesn't come here, the Canadians will build a pipeline to British Columbia and load the oil onto tankers headed for China. No environmental risks there!

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    This is why we must convert to wind/solar/unicorn energy as soon as possible! It's not too late!! But we're running out of TIME!!!!

    LEAVE MOTHER GAIA ALOOONE!

  • Aresen||

    Unicorn farts are a trivial energy source. We must genetically engineer the revival of sauropods so that we can power the world on brontofarts. (See Ron's post yesterday.)

  • wareagle||

    oh, they know. They just believe that most others don't know, counting - as liberals always do - on a massively uninformed populace.

  • ||

    And if the oil doesn't come here, the Canadians will build a pipeline to British Columbia and load the oil onto tankers headed for China.

    That is Plan B (or in parallel with Keystone XL), but Canada has environmentalists, too, plus First Nations who are relatively influential in the provincial politics of BC. The building of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines isn't a foregone conclusion yet as far as I know.

  • Sevo||

    CP Rail is more than pleased about that.
    That oil is going someplace, regardless.

  • Mike M.||

    Excellent. Keep on shoving the pipeline right down this scumbag's throat, republicans. He can't possibly win this one; there's way too few anti-pipeline psychopaths in the country.

  • scareduck||

    Why the words "eminent domain" do not appear in this article I cannot say, but given that there have been multiple accounts of abuse of that state power in this pipeline (which see), it somewhat surprises me to see this reduced to a simple tale of enviro-vs-union porn.

  • scareduck||

    Okay, NVRMIND. Missed page 2.

  • TheAtomicOption||

    I don't think they should use Eminent Domain for this, if the oil company wants to build a pipeline through someone's backyard they can negotiate with the property owners for it.

    Also, environmentalists really need to learn to pick their battles better. The climate change people have an interesting message generally, but their opposition to this is pretty silly.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I wonder sometimes whether Obama became president on a dare. Dare you you can't piss off your constituents and the Republicans at the same time! Double-dog dare you!

  • Paul.||

    He already won by becoming president. Everything that follows is just gravy.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    And that's the problem with playing to the environmentalist vote; the environmentalists are seldom prepared to examine the actual pros and cons of any project. If men want to do it, they're against it. Never mind poor people going without heat or transport. Environmentalism is as much about feeling morally superior as the worst in-your-face Bab-tist ever whelped.

  • Aresen||

    By far the biggest environmentsl threat to the Ogallala Aquifer is the high drawdown rate. The water is being taken out many times faster than it is naturally replaced.

    If the 'environmentalists' were sincerely trying to protect the aquifer, they would be demanding that farmers and communities be prohibited from drawing water at a rate greater than the natural replacement rate.

    But it is much easier to go up against an evil pipeline than the farm lobby.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    If the 'environmentalists' were sincerely trying to protect the aquifer, they would be demanding that farmers and communities be prohibited from drawing water at a rate greater than the natural replacement rate.

    Its because of water-intensive (and nitrate-intensive run-off making) corn growing to turn it into ethanol that will obviate the need for oil so no need for Keystone hence save the Ogallala aquifer!

    Pause and think about that, for there is the circuit of logic that short-circuits the leftard brain.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Maybe somebody here can answer a question I've had for a while; Why don't we pump treated (clean) water back down into aquifers that are being drawn down? Does anybody know? Is this a stupid question, and I'm missing something obvious?

  • Aresen||

    If the water were still available in liquid form, that would be feasible. It would be even better to simply use the same water multiple times rather than expend the energy to pump it back into the aquifer.

    The problem with the Ogallala aquifer is that most of the water is used in agriculture. Which means it is lost to evaporation or transpiration when applied to irrigate fields. It is simply not available to recycle.

  • JoshSN||

    You are talking about billions of gallons of water. We don't have that much fresh water, lying around, to put back into the aquifer.

    Seeing as this one aquifer is used across many states, and is the reason America has a plains states "breadbasket," the idea of losing it to an oil spill is ne plus ultra serious.

  • Josh Stegmaier||

    If we had that much fresh water, we wouldn't need the aquifer.

  • Cool Story, Bro||

    I've never met an environmentalist with anything more than a shitty liberal arts degree. Even the environmental engineers that I work with aren't environmentalists. If these twats want to change things, I'd suggest that they start with getting a sound education in something other than Mayan Literature and pitch some solutions. Bitching incessantly and offering no solutions does nothing to advance your cause.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    ...something other than Mayan Literature

    RACIST!

  • shamalam||

    December 21st is coming soon. We'll see who has the last laugh. /OxyCoxyQuotl

  • Aresen||

    And, if we make it past that, we still have to make it past April 13, 2036.

  • Aresen||

    I have met environmentalists with hard science degrees. They are either very pragmatic individuals who look at environmental problems and say "this is what is feasible to do about the problem" or technocrats who itch to set up a system of their own design that meets their idea of fairness and efficiency.

    As for liberal arts majors, I am one. Although I would be considered a heretic by most Greenies, I think of myself as an environmentalist, just not in the sense that most capital-E "Environmentalists" do.

    Put simply, I would say that poor environmental management is usually the result of bad economics or allowing polluters to place the burden of their externalities on others. (EG: Allowing someone to dump untreated sewage/chemicals in a river so that downstream users' interests in the river is damaged.)

  • JoshSN||

    And I've never met anyone who actually was dumb enough to vote for Bush twice, but there were 10s of millions of them.

    Anecdote != Data

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    That might have something to do with the quality of options they were given. I mean; Gore? Kerry? Really, Democrats? It that the best you can do?

  • Sevo||

    "Put simply, I would say that poor environmental management is usually the result of bad economics or allowing polluters to place the burden of their externalities on others. (EG: Allowing someone to dump untreated sewage/chemicals in a river so that downstream users' interests in the river is damaged.)"

    I would suggest that is a temporary condition, given tort law and 'public opinion'.
    Assuming a 7% profit margin (that's absent BB's attempt to make interest = 0%) it doesn't take a lot of negative publicity before any business 'cleans up its act'.
    Yeah, "Declaration of Independents" has been flogged here a lot, but a point that isn't strongly enough made (IMO) is that political solutions are trailing indicators; the issues at hand are already being demanded and the politicos jump at the chance to prove they are wonderful by coercing them.

  • Aresen||

    Sevo. I agree that tort law has changed that situation, at least to some extent.

    But there were many precedents in the past where 'the greater good' was used to justify damage to some people's real, tangible interests in order that another party could benefit without the first party being compensated.

    A prime example of environmental degradation brought on by a bad economic decision was the destruction of the Aral Sea in the old Soviet Union. Not only did the Aral Sea fishery get destroyed and the whole local ecosystem wrecked, but the cotton fields that the water diversion project was supposed to support were never viable.

  • joy||

    Oil spills on land are nasty but not apocalyptic events. In any case, http://www.nikewinkel.com/trai.....-c-58.html TransCanada has agreed to change the route of the pipeline so that it no longer goes through the area that most concerns the activists.

  • jason||

    This decision is really costing the obama government.

  • دردشه عراقية||

    Thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement