An increased supply of oil from Canada would mean a decreased dependency on Middle Eastern supplies. According to market principles, increased availability of oil means lower prices for consumers. Mr Trump said the project would create 28, construction jobs. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had also supported the pipeline and said "we are disappointed but acknowledge the president's decision" to cancel the permit to build it.
Donald Trump issued the permits within days of taking office, stipulating only that American steel be used in the work. Even back in , the US state department appeared confused about the issue. After first saying XL would not have significant adverse effects on the environment, it advised TransCanada to explore alternative routes in Nebraska because the Sandhills region was a fragile ecosystem.
Beyond the risks of spillage, the pipeline means a commitment to develop Alberta's oil sands. Despite the recent push to find renewable sources of energy and move away from fossil fuels, the amount of oil produced in northern Alberta is projected to double by It's argued by some that by developing the oil sands, fossil fuels will be readily available and the trend toward warming of the atmosphere won't be curbed.
The fate of the pipeline is therefore held up as symbolic of America's energy future. In the here and now, more energy is required to extract oil from the Alberta oil sands than in traditional drilling, and Environment Canada says it has found industry chemicals seeping into ground water and the Athabasca River. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error.
Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. Have you subscribed yet? Categories : Pages with broken file links Federal issues, Obama administration Federal issues, Trump administration Federal issues, United States Federal issues, economy Federal issues, energy and the environment Past administration federal policy pages One-off pages, evergreen.
Voter information What's on my ballot? Where do I vote? How do I register to vote? How do I request a ballot? When do I vote? When are polls open?
Who Represents Me? Congress special elections Governors State executives State legislatures Ballot measures State judges Municipal officials School boards. How do I update a page? Election results. Privacy policy About Ballotpedia Disclaimers Login. Federal Issues. Foreign affairs Iran nuclear agreement: U. Natural resources Keystone XL Pipeline political timeline.
Abortion Republican effort to defund Planned Parenthood, Michael Bennet D-Colo. Tom Carper D-Del. Unfortunately, this issue — more than any other — has kept Congress from doing long-overdue work on comprehensive energy legislation.
Last November, I voted to approve the pipeline in part because I felt that six years of deliberation on this project was enough, and it was time to move on to other matters that will have a greater impact on our environment, our economy, and our energy security.
I hoped that my vote would be a signal to my Republican colleagues that I was serious about working together to find common ground on this and other challenging policies. Today, I voted to allow the pipeline to proceed for those same reasons. Bob Casey, Jr. Heidi Heitkamp D-N. Since I took office, I have addressed this issue using both common sense, and my private sector experience working for Dakota Gasification for twelve years.
Joe Manchin D-W. Keystone XL is expected to create 20, direct jobs during construction and , indirect and spinoff jobs. With well over 1, American businesses already supplying goods and services to pipeline companies, the ripple effects of these projects would continue to boost economic prosperity and create more employment opportunities in other industries.
Every state - including West Virginia - would benefit economically from this activity. Claire McCaskill D-Mo. Pipelines are better than barges or trains. Jon Tester D-Mont. The pipeline would run through Montana and include an on-ramp in Baker for oil from the Bakken. The on-ramp will deliver up to , barrels of oil per day to market. Today, Bakken oil is getting less than market value because of shipping constraints — Keystone XL will help fix that.
I am disappointed that Congress and the president cannot work together to support this common sense project. Built with respect for private property rights and to the highest safety standards, the pipeline will safeguard our most treasured places and increase our energy independence.
Keystone XL would have crossed agriculturally important and environmentally sensitive areas, including hundreds of rivers, streams, aquifers, and water bodies. A spill would have been devastating to the farms, ranches, and communities that depend on these crucial ecosystems.
All facets of the tar sands industry pose a threat to the environment. The mining depletes and pollutes freshwater resources, creates massive ponds of toxic waste, and threatens the health and livelihood of the First Nations people who live near them. Refining the sticky black gunk produces piles of petroleum coke , a hazardous, coal-like by-product. The U. Finally, massive fossil fuel infrastructure investments like KXL undermine efforts to minimize global warming and prioritize clean energy like wind and solar.
Opposition to Keystone XL centered on the devastating environmental consequences of the project. The pipeline faced more than a decade of sustained protests from environmental activists and organizations; Indigenous communities ; religious leaders; and the farmers, ranchers, and business owners along its proposed route.
One such protest, a historic act of civil disobedience outside the White House in August , resulted in the arrest of more than 1, demonstrators. In , more than two million comments urging a rejection of the pipeline were submitted to the U.
Department of State during a day public comment period. But the groundswell of public protest was up against a formidable opponent—hundreds of millions spent on lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. When industry-friendly politicians took charge of both congressional houses in January , their first order of business was to pass a bill to speed up approval of Keystone XL. That effort failed.
One of the central arguments made by pipeline pushers was that tar sands expansion will move forward with or without Keystone XL.
This has proved to be untrue. Dealing in tar sands oil is an expensive endeavor. Indeed, moving crude by rail to the Gulf costs substantially more than moving it by pipe. For companies considering whether to invest in a long-lived tar sands project which could last for 50 years , access to cheap pipeline capacity plays a major role in the decision to move forward or not. The oil industry lobbied hard to get KXL built by using false claims, political arm-twisting, and big bucks.
When TC Energy said the pipeline would create nearly , jobs, a State Department report instead concluded the project would require fewer than 2, two-year construction jobs and that the number of full-time, permanent jobs would hover around 35 after construction. Furthermore, we know that ambitious action on climate change—including investments in green energy alternatives—carries huge potential for job creation.
Dirty energy lobbyists claimed developing tar sands would protect our national energy security and bring U. But NRDC and its partners found the majority of Keystone XL oil would have been sent to markets overseas aided by a reversal of a ban on crude oil exports —and could have even led to higher prices at U.
0コメント