The State Department is responsible for issuing “presidential permits” for cross-border pipelines. In the past, such as the case with Enbridge’s Alberta Clipper pipeline, permits have been granted with little or no controversy. National oil sands opponents, however, are pressuring the State Department to oppose the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, and are leveraging local and regional residents along its intended route to oppose the project based on unrelated issues such as eminent domain and potential impact to aquifers.
Potential Impact of Regulation
The Keystone XL pipeline would ensure a safe and reliable supply of Canadian crude to U.S. refineries in the Gulf region – critical for ensuring U.S. energy security. Currently, only refineries in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions rely heavily on Canadian crude. The United States should resist policies that arbitrarily limit any economic supply sources (particularly secure North American sources) to the detriment of our energy supply and security, and our global economic competitiveness. Measures restricting the use of oil sands products would not likely limit oil sands production (and corresponding emissions), but simply cause such output to be diverted to more distant markets, with potentially even greater overall emissions.
The State Department should expeditiously approve the presidential permit to allow the Keystone XL pipeline project to move forward.
Please note: This document is current only as of the date listed above.