Much of the 2016 Presidential cycle was focused on the flaws of the candidates and their background to entering the presidency. Much less focus was paid towards specifics of what the candidates would do while in office policy-wise. Only at the near end of the campaign cycle did this begin to change. One issue that continued to garner attention was a holdover issue from the 2012 Presidential- the issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Republicans in Congress have long been a proponent of the pipeline while most-though not all- Democrats have sided with former President Obama in striking down the Keystone XL Pipeline. However, considering that current President Trump has approved the pipeline by executive order the debate has shifted to whether the pipeline will be a benefit to and serve the ‘national interest’ of the United States of America. Essentially the framework of the argument between both schools of thought has stayed the same just the context of whether the pipeline should have been approved from should it be approved has changed. With that being said, this pipeline is a microcosm of the United States Energy battle. It represents a highly political battle with groups on both sides that have vested interests economically, morally, and politically in how the US moves our energy policy forward. Environmentalists, unions, construction workers, oil corporations, alternative energy companies, citizens of individual states, lobbyists, and politicians are just some of the groups that have continuously lined up to voice their opinion on energy policy decisions. A main issue amongst the groups is the process of the United States transitioning to clean energy. Though it is important to remember that as we transition to life after oil it is critical the United States maintains a state of the art oil infrastructure because the switch from fossil fuels to green energy will take time. In addition, due to the costs associated with starting up many new plants for various alternative energies being so expensive, most alternative energies are not even competitive on the marketplace. Thus, the United States should pursue construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline because it provides sensible connectivity/efficiency of the transportation of oil, provides safe measures against environmental damage, provides economic gains, and the construction of the Keystone XL does not take away from the United States’ ability to invest in renewable energy for the future. Consequently, the decision to approve the pipeline will result in a positive impact on the United States and benefit our ‘national interest’.

Before diving into arguments surrounding the pipeline one needs to understand the background of how the arguments came to be. This is done because it is important when determining the basis of whether a certain energy project serves the ‘national interest’ that each project be looked at individually. In regards to the Keystone XL Pipeline I have hinted that this pipeline’s history goes back to the days of the Obama administration. TransCanada the company involved in constructing the proposed pipeline split the Keystone Pipeline into two separate portions. This was done for a very strategic purpose as the Southern segment from Cushing, Oklahoma to refineries lining the Gulf Coast lays completely within the United States boundaries. As a result, there is no need for final State Department approval by the president, and former President Obama let the project proceed without much challenge (Kalen 5). In contrast, the Northern segment of the pipeline crossed the international Canada-United States border and required a Presidential authorization. This was something the Obama administration was hesitant on approving owing to environmental concerns. More specifically, many citizens of the State of Nebraska had concerns surrounding the pipeline’s route crossing through the Nebraska Sand Hills and the Ogallala Aquifer (Kalen 4). In short, the Ogallala Aquifer is vitally important to the people of Nebraska in an economic fashion and as a source of drinking water. Whereas, the Nebraska Sand Hills is a delicate prairie area that is vital to wildlife and have never had an oil pipeline cross through it before (Song 1). Possible spills raised concerns. Along with concern from spills, environmentalists generally pushed back against the Keystone XL Pipeline because of the type of oil it will be carrying in tar sands oil. Nevertheless, President Trump has ultimately fast tracked the approval of the pipeline by executive order- with need to renegotiate some of the terms- primarily based on the economic gains he foresees from this pipeline. While the economic gains are certainly an aspect of our ‘national interest’, the construction of the pipeline serves the national interest in more ways as well.

As with most construction projects having to do with oil, the first question in determining whether the project is of interest has transitioned from one based on the economic benefits from the proposed project to one focused on environmental dangers. This aspect is one that companies are far more scrutinized for in the 21st century than ever before. With the continued growth in scientific knowledge, project proposals are justifiably under increased testing for potential environmental dangers. The Keystone XL Pipeline has had many hurdles in front of it that it has had to clear and overall has calmed a good portion of environmental concerns. For instance, in the State of Nebraska two ecological sites that the pipeline was originally routed to cross through had many citizens worried. These two sites were the Nebraska Sand Hills Region and the Ogallala Aquifer (Song 1-2). Distinctiveness of the Nebraska Sand Hill’s environment makes it a prime destination for a multitude of plant species to grow, animal species to live, and many birds that migrate to come to (Song 1). Within the Sand Hills there are “grasslands, wetlands, sand dunes, and water-fed lakes,” all in harmony with the other (Song 1). Thus, concern arose of what the effects of an oil spill would do to the Sand Hills. To solve this issue, TransCanada resubmitted their proposed pipeline route to the Nebraska legislature and prevented the pipeline’s route from entering the Sand Hill’s region (TransCanada 8). In fact, the Governor of Nebraska soon after this action by TransCanada approved the route and recommended to the Secretary of State that he approve TransCanada’s new route (TransCanada 8). 

In regards to the Ogallala Aquifer, the concern of an oil spill is of even greater importance. To the United States nationally the Ogallala is vital as it provides nearly 30% of the nation’s groundwater for irrigation. In addition, for those that live in the area of the Ogallala most of their drinking water comes from it, and “the farmers there produce about a fifth of America’s agricultural output…” (Song 1). However, when one looks at the state of Nebraska individually one notices their ultimate dependence upon it. In total, the Ogallala contributes to Nebraska, “78% of the water used by residents and industry and 83% of the state’s irrigation water” (Song 1). In combination with this is the fact that the farming industry in Nebraska, heavily reliant upon the Ogallala, accounted for 18% of Nebraska’s GDP in the year 2009, so their livelihoods depend on the sustainability of the Ogallala Aquifer (Song 1). Therefore, if a major oil spill were to contaminate portions of the Ogallala citizens of the states in those regions would suffer economically and most likely need to find new resources for drinking water. Given these facts alone, many people have voiced the notion that the potential risk is too great to even contemplate an oil pipeline. However, Research Hydrologist, professor emeritus James Goeke at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has downplayed these worries. Mr. Goeke has researched the Aquifer and analyzed the volume and behavior of the water within the Aquifer (Goeke 1). Through his research he has come to the conclusion that the Keystone XL Pipeline poses minimal risk to the Ogallala. First, he emphasizes the fact that the “slope of the table water is from west to east…downhill eastward” (Goeke 1). Consequently, since around 80% of the Aquifer is slated to be west or uphill of the then spilled oil is not a major concern here because spilled oil does not go upward versus gravity (Goeke 1). Moreover, Goeke mentions how varied layers with the rock formation in the Ogallala offer an avenue to confine the effect of potential spills (Goeke 1). Goeke brings up the 25-year study of an oil spill near Bemidji, Minnesota that concluded that “fine-grained layers of deposits like silk and clay… have been shown to impede infiltration and redistribution of oil” (Goeke 1). Based on Goeke’s study, it is clear that TransCanada’s pipeline natural routing offers some protection against a possible spill. Besides natural routing, TransCanada has been complying with all government laws governing the regulation of oil pipelines including 59 special conditions imposed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (TransCanada 7). These are a part of the security features like safety checks, and specific mechanics of the system that will provide safe transportation of the oil (Riesselman 2). Lastly in order for TransCanada to be allowed to construct the pipeline the company must also receive permission from each state that it passes through not to mention Presidential approval. These individual states have the definitive say of how routing of the pipeline will be handled within their state lines (Slade 33). Hence, TransCanada has already settled this issue with the states and now the president (Jones et al. 1).

A main divider in the camps for and against the Keystone XL Pipeline is the issue surrounding use of tar sands oils. It is true that carbon pollution generated by Tar Sands Oil is around 17% larger than that generated using conventional oil (Davenport 1).  However, according to the Draft Supplement and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements of the Keystone XL Pipeline application in 2012 by the federal government both concluded that the project would not have significant adverse impacts to the environment (TransCanada 4). In addition, it is understood that the added emissions from the extraction process of tar sands oil “are not, in and of themselves, a major contributor to climate change” (Davenport 2). As a result, the denying of the Keystone XL Pipeline would not be the correct avenue to tackle climate change as it is not seen as a major contributor to it. Even if the Keystone XL Pipeline was denied, it’s likely that tar sands oil will end up being used because the demand for this Canadian oil is high- especially in emerging markets like Asia where consumption of oil is increasing rapidly (Slade 46). Due to this who is to say that that the United States should not be the ones to capitalize on this resource. 

The economic merits of this pipeline have been a hot button issue. Specifically, the lack of permanent jobs created from the pipeline causes many to overlook its benefits. One must dig deeper to realize the true value from an economic standpoint of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Permanent jobs after the construction are only 35, but construction jobs in the creation of the pipeline estimate to roughly 4000 jobs (Varinsky 1). Furthermore, contracts for goods and services could swell the number to 16,100 jobs (Varinsky 1). However, the major point of emphasis economically from this pipeline should not focus on the total job creation though this pipeline does that, instead it should focus on the tax revenue raised from the pipeline. Assessments evaluate the property tax revenues at $55.6 million for 27 counties in three states in which the pipeline crosses (TransCanada 11). Additionally, sales and use tax revenues from the building of the Keystone XL are expected to be around $66 million dollars (TransCanada 11). These are tax revenues that ease the burden of the individual tax payer and allow local governments to be more flexible in how they financially plan spending for various programs. Overall, approximately $3.4 billion is expected to be added to the US GDP from “earnings by workers… businesses engaged in the production of goods and services demanded by the project” (TransCanada 11). These investments through the form of tax revenue and spending in the local communities along the pipeline are the true investment of the Keystone XL Pipeline- not only jobs creation.

Even more of a factor to Keystone XL Pipeline is the aspect of bolstering national security that it provides the United States. Oil is the fuel that powers the modern economy. A prime example of this is in the transportation industry. The transportation industry is 94% fueled by oil (Slade 38). Such a high percentage demonstrates just how dependent the United States is on oil to keep its economy going smoothly. Such a percentage in the transportation industry indicates that transitioning the United States to clean energy in the framework of a modified free market economy can’t be done rapidly. Hence, a shock to the stability of where we get our oil from can harm our economy. But not only the economy, also the powering of military vehicles and technologies is predominantly through oil. Accordingly, energy security is crucial to our national defense also. 

Even though the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, has the lowest level of oil imports that it has had since 1970 and a good portion of the oil comes from Canada, it is still important to continue that trend. As of 2015, the United States had reduced its number of imports from OPEC oil countries to a point where we actually now import more oil from Non-OPEC oil countries (“Imports and Exports by Type” 1).  Projects such as the Keystone XL Pipeline maintain this trend of receiving oil from reliable countries and those that share our interests and values. Often we are at odds with OPEC nations we import oil from and it does not serve our national interest to do business with them. Events like the Persian Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the Libyan uprisings show the instability of the region as well as the United States complicated entanglement with OPEC oil countries (Slade 52). Thus, by reducing our vulnerability of oil shock through importing more oil from Canada the United States is able to approach the true cost of a barrel of oil by decreasing the vulnerability premium we factor into the cost of a barrel of oil (Slade 55). A combination of national security interests and current and near future economic needs are ultimately satisfied through the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

In line with oil cost is the need to transport the oil in an efficient and environmentally safe method. Pipelines are currently the safest method to transport oil (Simmons 18). More importantly, with the United States current and near future projected appetite for oil our pipeline infrastructure to transport oil needs expanding and renewal (Simmons 17-18, 22 ). The Keystone XL Pipeline addresses this need. Opponents will argue that the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline is a failure of Energy policy as we should focus on transitioning to clean energy. However, this marks a large philosophical difference in camps of what it means to transition to clean energy.

 Wendy Pal’s article “Consider the Global Impact of Pipelines” in the weekly published Journal Nature displays a general policy belief in which Americans should not tolerate any more projects that increase carbon emissions. In the article she states that “no new oil-sands projects should move forward unless developments are consistent with national and international commitments to reducing carbon pollution…” and later she goes onto say “Anything less demonstrates flawed policies and failed leadership” (Pal 2). Here is the time to agree to disagree. On basic logical thinking yes one should hope that projects that we implement do not harm the environment. Unfortunately, the state of the modern and near future economy are bound by our mixed free market system and its dependence on oil. So some harm in the form of carbon solution is inevitable. Therefore, the expectation should be altered to accept projects that serve the national interest, do not have a significant role in climate change, and serve to better the efficiency of our oil infrastructure. These objectives are met by the Keystone XL Pipeline and do not take away from the ability to invest in or provide subsidies for sustainable energy.

In the end, the technology associated with clean energies needs time to advance in order to be competitive within the constraints of a mixed free market system. As a result, arguments that we should not allow new oil projects- at least ones that serve the national interest- are misguided. Instead more should be funded in the way of research and development as well as subsidies to help narrow the gap of market competitiveness. Clean energies can then be combined with oil projects that enhance the national interest, thus both oil and green energy can coexist. The general direction of the US Energy policy should follow a free market guideline with a caveat that government assistance is needed in the form of research and development funds and subsidies to promote green energy techniques. This method then fairly allows for the modern and near future economy to flourish while also preparing for a future clean energy economy. Overall, the Keystone XL Pipeline would fit nicely into this policy aim. The fact that the Keystone XL Pipeline provides increased economic benefit, national security benefit, is not a major contributor to climate change, would not cause adverse effects on the environment, and enhances infrastructure outweigh the environmental concerns of using tar-sands oil.
