Today, the Senate’s voting results defeated Bill 2280: the construction of a 1,179-mile-long pipeline meant to deliver crude oil from Canadian tar sands to oil refineries and existing pipelines in the U.S., ultimately distributing over 800,000 barrels a day to the Texas Gulf Coast. The pipeline has been a hugely controversial topic for six years, ever since TransCanada Corporation put in the request for a cross-border permit to build.

Environmental leaders and many Democrats are definitely applauding this victory, but it was much too close for comfort: as of 5:55 PM on Tuesday, November 18th, the pipeline failed to pass by only one vote.

TransCanada’s CEO Russ Girling declared that two-thirds of Americans are actually in favor of the Keystone Pipeline XL, as revealed by numerous polls over the course of the last three years. But while it was never made totally absolute, there’s a high likelihood that Obama would have vetoed the bill had it passed and landed on his desk. House Speaker John Boehner strongly opposed this, saying: “A Keystone pipeline veto would send the signal that this president has no interest in listening to the American people.”

By now it’s very clear that Obama is a climate change believer, telling Republicans to “look squarely at the science“. It’s even said that he has planned to devote much of his remaining time in office addressing climate change issues. As late as 2013, even under pressure and advice from all sides, Obama refused to take a stance on the debate until he felt there was more real certainty about the pros and cons of building it. “I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States, or is somehow lowering gas prices,” Obama said. “It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else.”

Obama’s qualms about the bill are also influenced largely by the pipeline’s proposed route. Necessarily, it passes a number of U.S. refineries along the way where the crude oil can be processed. But among other many other types of areas, it runs through Nebraska’s Sandhills (a very delicate ecosystem with a combination of wetlands, shallow groundwater, mixed-grass prairie and sand dunes) and the Ogallala Aquifer (one of the world’s largest aquifers and a main source of freshwater in the United States).

But let’s take our own look at some of the pros and cons that have been discussed over the years.

————————————————–

One of the most pervasive arguments presented by Keystone XL Pipeline supporters is in regards to the economy, specifically, the 42,000 jobs the project is estimated to provide in addition to a significant boost to energy security. An article published in Forbes declares: “Economists, meanwhile, have found that the pipeline would create 20,000 manufacturing and construction jobs and an additional 118,000 spin-off jobs.”

But according to an analysis by The Washington Post: “The State Department report uses the notion of “job years.” So the project, which is expected to take two years to build, requires 3,900 job years for the construction workforce, or 1,950 jobs that last over a two-year period. Another 26,000 jobs (or 13,000 over two years) would go to suppliers of goods and services. Once the project is completed, operations would require 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors.” Indeed, it would seem that there are not enough jobs created to offset the risks of the pipeline.

Remaining on the topic of the economy, page ES-12 of the preceding report mentions: “Updated model results indicated that cross-border pipeline constraints have a limited impact on crude flows and prices. Varying pipeline availability has little impact on the prices that U.S. consumers pay for refined products such as gasoline or for heavy crude demand in the Gulf Coast.”

If it doesn’t really matter, why build it?

To address the concern over its threat to the environment, TransCanada outlined 57 Special Conditions for Keystone XL Pipeline such as: puncture resistant carbon steel, fusion-bonded epoxy coatings for protection against corrosion, an installation procedure that buries the pipeline 48 inches into the ground (12 more than the standard 36 inches), and increased monitoring of the sites. But research by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) makes the case that the new conditions aren’t actually all that groundbreaking. In fact, only 12 of them depart from the basic safety measures all pipelines adhere to in the United States.

In addition, there have been a concerning number of TransCanada pipeline leaks and explosions, even including one as recent as early 2014.  Keystone I (which was introduced with its own set of special conditions) leaked 24,000 gallons of oil in one incident and has spilled twelve times since completion in 2010.

All of that data aside, we also know that the Keystone XL Pipeline will be delivering the unconventional “oil/tar sands” or bitumen. The Tar Sands Pipelines Safety Risks report abstract states, in part, that it is “a highly corrosive, acidic, and potentially unstable blend of thick raw bitumen and volatile natural gas liquid condensate.” While we cannot predict the future, what we do know is that the extraction and transport of oil sands is a new process, one whose risks have not been examined to their fullest potential. This type of oil was lately made available due to recent developments in technology.

The Keystone XL website calls every single accusation against it a “myth”. It calls upon certain studies, such as one conducted by The National Research Council, stating that diluted bitumen is not more corrosive and likely to leak than other crude oils. Or in other words, it is just as likely to leak as other crude oils – which has occurred many times before!

Of course I encourage everyone to draw their own conclusions. Here are some of mine as I address more of the Keystone’s myths “debunked”.

1. “We can demonstrate down to the single job, how many employees we require to build our pipelines.”
   But not how many employees required to maintain them going forward.
2. “Keystone is an environmentally responsible project.”
   The website names all of 5 scientists who don’t believe the pipeline is the end of the world, a number which happens to be considerably less than the scientists who oppose it.
3. “It will be the safest pipeline ever constructed in the United States.”
   That was exactly what was announced when Keystone I was built.
4. “Not a drop of crude oil will be exported.”
   Admittedly, this is a good argument in favor of the pipeline. But why must the bitumen go all the way to refineries in the Gulf Coast, where oil is typically exported, when there are refineries closer along the way? Willing to defer if a sufficient answer is provided.
5. “TransCanada is 100 per cent responsible for responding, cleaning and restoring the site in the unlikely event of a pipeline leak.”
   Naturally! But just how unlikely is that event? We can always look to the past for guidance, and history tells us that TransCanada is not able to contain the leaks, spills and explosions of its conventional oil transports – let alone the unconventionally extracted black viscous bitumen, which it hopes to deliver through 1,179 miles of various ecosystems within the United States.

To drive this long-winded point home, we turn to page ES-15 of the aforementioned Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL, which was prepared by the United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

• “The proposed Project would emit approximately 0.24million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents (MMTCO2e) per year during the construction period. These emissions would be emitted directly through fuel use in construction vehicles and equipment, as well as, land clearing activities including open burning, and indirectly from electricity usage.”
• “WCSB crudes are generally more GHG intensive than other heavy crudes they would replace or displace in U.S. refineries, and emit an estimated 17 percent more GHGs on a lifecycle basis than the average barrel of crude oil refined in the United States.”
  (WCSB: Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin | GSG: greenhouse gases)

These two statements lend themselves directly to the grim topic I covered in my previous blog post, about climate change and the 350 parts-per-million revelation.

But although the bill has been defeated, the debate isn’t over: Republicans, who have majority control after the recent midterm elections, say they will revisit this controversial bill next year. It’s also worthy to note that the Obama administration has not restricted TransCanada from reapplying in the future.

Finally, while many would dispute that the rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline project is not in our nation’s interest, I cannot help but believe that the quality of the environment our future generations have to face is absolutely in our personal, national and global interest.

After all:

“We did not inherit our future from our ancestors, we have borrowed it from our children.” – Wendell Berry

Featured Photo: © Tom Pennington/Getty Images