Is the Keystone XL Pipeline in the “National Interest?”

A public hearing will take place in Pierre, SD on Thursday, September 29 to determine if TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline is in the “National Interest” before President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton make their final decision to approve the federal permit later this year.

The Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest. The Keystone XL is proposed to carry Canadian tar sands oil to the gulf coast for the purpose of generating profit for a foreign private company. SD landowners have proven and earned their right to private property rights over multiple generations through their responsible stewardship. Why would it be given away to a foreign company that has not proven they can care the land, its resources, and water? This project will not generate any benefit for the public for the following reasons:

Lacking Safety Measures

●         An expert safety review by the US Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazard Materials Safety Administration is needed.

○         The Keystone I pipeline has had 14 spills since it began operations in June 2010, the Enbridge pipeline carrying tar sands in Michigan spilled 843,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River, the Exxon pipeline, which at times carried tar sands crude, ruptured thousands of gallons into the Yellowstone River, and TransCanada’s six month old natural gas pipeline exploded near Bison, WY.

○         Even the State Department acknowledges in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that additional studies are needed to study the impacts of diluted bitumen on pipeline safety.

●         No Emergency Response Plan has been released for this project.

○         The emergency personnel (largely volunteers) and the potentially affected property owners and others who live near the pipeline deserve an opportunity to comment on TransCanada’s Emergency Response Plan prior to permit approval.

Deficient Economic Benefits & National Security

●         Oil in the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is destined for export.

○         Being the country in between the oil producer and the oil purchaser does not somehow make us energy secure.

○         TransCanada already has a pipeline in place to carry tar sands oil to a US refinery inland (Keystone I goes to Illinois).

○         Valero, the top beneficiary of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, can accomplish their export strategy tax-free because it is located within a Foreign Trade Zone. (Source: Oil Change International)

●         Job numbers are over inflated and misrepresented – Unions and TransCanada have reported KXL creating between 20,000 and over 100,000 jobs

○         The State Dept reported KXL will bring no more than 6,000 jobs over three years. Most of these are non-local and temporary

■ These are not all new jobs – they include existing Keystone and contractor employees.

■ Few local jobs will be created – only 10-15% of the total workforce would be hired locally. During Keystone 1 construction only 11% of the construction and inspection workforce in South Dakota was hired locally.

○         These numbers also do not reflect the potential job losses from the pipeline

■ Fuel prices are expected to rise in 15 Midwestern states as a result of the pipeline

■ If/When a spill occurs contamination of rivers, drinking water sources and the Ogallala Aquifer threaten the jobs and livelihoods of farmers, ranchers and those working in tourism.

Questionable Ethics

●         TransCanada has bullied landowners from the very beginning by using eminent domain as a threat and taking landowners to court before they have necessary permits.

○         Dakota Rural Action member and SD landowner, John Harter, is currently being forced down this road.

●         The State Department’s fairness on the issue has come into question.

○         TransCanada’s lobbyist, Paul Elliot, was Hilary Clinton’s 2008 national deputy campaign manager.

○         Emails between Elliot and officials in the State Dept show inappropriate collusion. At times officials in the Dept have acted as TransCanada’s PR department. ‘Coaching’ TransCanada spokespeople how to respond to arguments questioning the pipeline. (Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2011)

○         The EPA is the agency best equipped to make a fair and accurate assessment of this project.

Unanswered Questions

●         Who ultimately must deal with the costs associated with a spill or damage?

○         Experience from the Endbridge tarsands spill suggest that clean up is incomplete, at times the contaminated oil is just buried, and it can take years for landowners to regain access. Can farmers and ranchers wait that long before ruining their livelihoods?

●         Where is the plan to identify and protect hydrologic sensitive and culturally significant areas

○         The current path of the proposed Keystone XL travels through the Ogalala Aquifer.

○         Keystone XL’s path is also proposed to cross the Hell Creek Formation, an intensely studied area and trove of dinosaur fossils.

○         Inadequate consultation has been done to address Tribal Government leaders concerns over the pipelines construction and potential impact on sacred sites and ancestral burial grounds, and treaty throughout traditional territories.

●         What happens to the pipeline once it is deemed no longer needed or useful?

○         The issue of pipe abandonment has not been addressed on who is ultimately responsible for the rotting pipe left in the ground.

Misaligned Priorities

●         Oil or Water

○         Everyone needs clean and healthy sources of drinking water, and safe sources of water for the crops and livestock we eat.

○         Experience tells us that pipelines leak. No question of if, but when. Is it worth the risk of thousands of peoples’ livelihoods and the health of millions of people who’s drinking water is threatened by this pipeline?

●         Energy Independence

○         The FEIS fails to analyze alternatives such as the U.S. adoption of more aggressive fuel economy standards and other oil reduction policy.

For more information, contact Luke Temple at luket@dakotarural.org or 605.697.5204