Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Q. and A.

Keystone Pipeline Pros, Cons and Steps to a Final Decision

Anti-pipeline demonstrators at the Capitol on Tuesday.Credit...Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Q. What is the Keystone XL pipeline?

A. The Keystone oil pipeline system is designed to carry up to 830,000 barrels of petroleum per day from the oil sands of boreal forests in western Canada to oil refineries and ports on the Gulf Coast. About half of the system is already built, including a pipeline that runs east from Alberta and south through North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. The State Department is now reviewing a proposed 1,179-mile addition to the pipeline, the Keystone XL, a shortcut that would start in Hardisty, Alberta, and diagonally bisect Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. From Steele City, Neb., the addition would connect to existing pipelines to the Gulf Coast.

Q. Who wants to build it?

A. The Canadian company TransCanada initially proposed the pipeline in 2005 and applied to the State Department for a construction permit in 2008.

Q. Why is it the subject of political debate?

A. The United States and Canada are crisscrossed by thousands of miles of oil and gas pipelines, but none have drawn the attention and political controversy of Keystone XL. Environmentalists oppose the project because it would create a conduit to market for petroleum extracted from the Alberta oil sands, an unconventional energy source requiring far more fuel, water and carbon emissions to extract than conventional oil and gas.

In their natural state, the thick, tarlike oil sands, also known as bitumen, are combined with sand, clay and water in a dense, gooey mix. There are two ways producers get the sands out of the ground, both damaging to the immediate environment. In one method, large amounts of water and natural gas are used to pump steam into the sands to extract the oil, which creates toxic environmental runoff.

Alternatively, energy companies strip-mine the sands and then heat them to release the oil, a practice that has already destroyed many acres of Alberta forest. An environmental review by the State Department concluded that production of oil-sands petroleum creates about 17 percent more carbon pollution than production of conventional oil.

Environmentalists also fear that a leak from a pipeline carrying the heavy oil-sands petroleum could cause more environmental damage than a leak from a standard oil pipeline.

Q. What are the arguments in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline?

A. The pipeline would be a job creator, although most of those jobs would be temporary. The State Department environmental review estimated that Keystone would support 42,000 temporary jobs over its two-year construction period — about 3,900 of them in construction, the rest in indirect support jobs, such as food service. It estimated that it would create about 35 permanent jobs.

The report estimated that building the pipeline would contribute about $3.4 billion to the American economy.

The State Department review concluded that even if the pipeline were not built, global oil demand is such that companies would continue to develop the Alberta oil sands and bring the petroleum to market in other ways. The oil could come by rail or by building other pipelines. But moving oil by rail has its own hazards. As transport has increased in recent years, so have explosions of rail cars carrying oil.

Building the pipeline would also help provide a conduit for oil from a friendly ally, Canada, and cement trade relations for the United States and Canada.

Q. Would blocking Keystone XL help stop climate change?

A. Most experts say no. The additional emissions produced by extracting the oil are not, in and of themselves, a major contributor to climate change.

In 2011, the most recent year for which comprehensive international data is available, the global economy emitted 32.6 billion metric tons of carbon pollution. The United States was responsible for 5.5 billion tons of that (coming in second to China, which emitted 8.7 billion tons). Within the United States, electric power plants produced 2.8 billion tons of those greenhouse gases, while vehicle tailpipe emissions from burning gasoline produced 1.9 billion tons.

By comparison, the oil that would move through the Keystone pipeline would add 18.7 million more metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere annually than would be produced by conventional oil, according to estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency. In other words, those added carbon emissions would amount to less than 1 percent of United States greenhouse gas emissions and an infinitesimal slice of the global total.

Q. Where do things stand in the Keystone approval process?

A. The State Department has the permitting authority for the project because it crosses an international border, and the secretary of state must determine whether the project is “in the national interest” — a determination that includes economic, environmental, national security and foreign policy implications.

In January, the State Department released an 11-volume environmental impact statement concluding that the pipeline was unlikely to significantly increase the rate of carbon pollution in the atmosphere. That analysis kicked off a 90-day review process in which Secretary of State John Kerry sought comment from eight other agencies, including the E.P.A. and the Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security departments. Mr. Obama will make the final decision. But the State Department halted the review in April after a Nebraska district court blocked the governor’s decision to allow the pipeline to pass through the state.

If the Nebraska court concludes that the governor does not have the authority to allow the pipeline to pass through the state, TransCanada may have to resubmit an application, a process that could take months or even years.

Mr. Obama has said that he will delay his own decision until the Nebraska court weighs in.

However, Congress could send a bill to the president’s desk demanding that he approve the pipeline. Although Mr. Obama would be likely to veto the bill on the grounds that the process is incomplete, the new Republican Congress that convenes in January may be able to muster a nearly veto-proof majority for such a vote, opening the door for a Keystone deal between Mr. Obama and Republicans.

Q. What is President Obama’s position on the pipeline?

A. People close to Mr. Obama say that although he is committed to building a climate legacy, he does not see the pipeline as a central part of that effort. Instead, the president is moving forward with a set of E.P.A. regulations on coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

But some of Mr. Obama’s advisers strongly oppose the pipeline and are urging him to reject it.

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 14 of the New York edition with the headline: Pipeline Pros, Cons and Steps to a Final Decision. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT