Jump to content

Keystone Pipeline: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Amirobot (talk | contribs)
56,602 edits
m r2.7.1) (robot Adding: eo:Naftodukto Keystone
Nytewing07 (talk | contribs)
136 edits
m →‎Impacts: word order and spelling
Line 499: Line 499:
While TransCanada has asserted that a set of 57 conditions will ensure Keystone XL's safe operation, investigative journalists have determined that all but a few of these conditions simply restate current minimum standards. <ref>http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110919/keystone-xl-pipeline-safety-regulations-phmsa-transcanada-oil-sands-bitumen</ref>
While TransCanada has asserted that a set of 57 conditions will ensure Keystone XL's safe operation, investigative journalists have determined that all but a few of these conditions simply restate current minimum standards. <ref>http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110919/keystone-xl-pipeline-safety-regulations-phmsa-transcanada-oil-sands-bitumen</ref>


In October 2011, the [[New York Times]] questioned the impartiality of the environmental analysis of the pipeline done by [[Cardno Entrix]], an environmental contractor based in Houston. The study found that the pipeline would have `limited adverse environmental impacts,` but was authored by a firm that had "previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a `major client` in its marketing materials." According to The Times, legal experts questioned whether the US government was "flouting the intent" of the Federal [[National Environmental Policy Act]] which "meant [was] to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects." <ref name = "Question of Conflict">
In October 2011, the [[New York Times]] questioned the impartiality of the environmental analysis of the pipeline done by [[Cardno Entrix]], an environmental contractor based in Houston. The study found that the pipeline would have `limited adverse environmental impacts,` but was authored by a firm that had "previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a `major client` in its marketing materials." According to The Times, legal experts questioned whether the US government was "flouting the intent" of the Federal [[National Environmental Policy Act]] which "[was] meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects." <ref name = "Question of Conflict">
{{cite news
{{cite news
|url= http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/science/earth/08pipeline.html?_r=1
|url= http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/science/earth/08pipeline.html?_r=1
Line 508: Line 508:
|publisher=New York Times Company
|publisher=New York Times Company
|issn=0362-4331
|issn=0362-4331
|accessdate=2011-10-31}}</ref> The report promoted 14 senators and congressmen to ask the State Department inspector general on October 26 "to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process" for reviewing environmental impact. <ref>[http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=BD202829-66E3-4088-A108-289E6E445CE9 Tar Sands Pipeline Probe Urged] Sen. Bernie Sanders October 26, 2011</ref>
|accessdate=2011-10-31}}</ref> The report prompted 14 senators and congressmen to ask the State Department inspector general on October 26 "to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process" for reviewing environmental impact. <ref>[http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=BD202829-66E3-4088-A108-289E6E445CE9 Tar Sands Pipeline Probe Urged] Sen. Bernie Sanders October 26, 2011</ref>


==Support==
==Support==

Revision as of 02:36, 7 November 2011

Keystone Pipeline
(Phase 1) [1]
Location
CountryCanada
United States
General directionnorth–south–east
FromHardisty, Alberta
Passes throughRegina, Saskatchewan
Steele City, Nebraska
ToPatoka, Illinois
General information
TypeCrude oil
OwnerTransCanada
Construction started2008
CommissionedJune 2010
Technical information
Length3,456 km (2,147 mi)
Maximum discharge0.59 million barrels per day (~2.9×10^7 t/a)
Diameter30 in (762 mm)
No. of pumping stations39
Cushing Extension
(Phase 2) [1]
Location
CountryUnited States
General directionnorth–south
FromSteele City, Nebraska
ToCushing, Oklahoma
General information
Typecrude oil
CommissionedFebruary 2011
Technical information
Length480 km (300 mi)
Diameter36 in (914 mm)
No. of pumping stations4
Gulf Coast Expansion (XL)
(Phase 3) [1]
Location
CountryUnited States
FromCushing, Oklahoma
ToPort Arthur, Texas
Houston, Texas
General information
Typecrude oil
Expected2013
Technical information
Length700 km (430 mi)
Diameter36 in (914 mm)
Gulf Coast Expansion (XL)
(Phase 4) [1]
Location
CountryCanada
United States
General directionnorth–south
FromHardisty, Alberta
Passes throughMorgan, Montana
ToSteele City, Nebraska
General information
Typecrude oil
Expected2013
Technical information
Length526 km (327 mi)
Diameter36 in (914 mm)

The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma, and further to the U.S. Gulf Coast. It consists of the operational "Keystone Pipeline" and proposed Keystone XL (Keystone Expansion) pipeline. Keystone XL has faced lawsuits from oil refineries, criticism from environmentalists and some members of the United States Congress. The U.S. Department of State in 2010 extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest.

History

Keystone Pipeline

TransCanada Corporation proposed the project on February 9, 2005. In October 2007, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada asked the Canadian federal government to block regulatory approvals for the pipeline, with union president Dave Coles stating that "the Keystone pipeline will exclusively serve US markets, create permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce our energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector".[2] However, the National Energy Board of Canada approved the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline, including converting a portion of TransCanada's Canadian Mainline gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline, on September 21, 2007.[3] On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.[4]

On January 22, 2008, ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project.[5] However, on June 17, 2009, TransCanada agreed that they would buy out ConocoPhillips' share in the project and revert to being the sole owner.[6] It took TransCanada more than two years to acquire all the necessary state and federal permits for the pipeline. Construction took another two years.[7] The pipeline became operational in June 2010.[8]

Keystone XL

The Keystone XL extension was proposed in 2008.[9] The application was filed in the beginning of 2009 and the National Energy Board of Canada started hearings in September 2009.[10] It was approved by the National Energy Board on March 11, 2010.[11] The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission granted a permit on February 19, 2010.[12]

The pipeline, however, has faced strong opposition from the environmental community. In its March 2010 report, the Natural Resources Defense Council stated that "the Keystone XL Pipeline undermines the U.S. commitment to a clean energy economy", instead delivering dirty fuel from oil sands and high costs.[13] On June 23, 2010, 50 Members of Congress spoke out against the Keystone XL pipeline. In their letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they warned that "building this pipeline has the potential to undermine America's clean energy future and international leadership on climate change."[14][15] On July 6, 2010, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman urged the State Department to block Keystone XL, saying in a letter to the department that "this pipeline is a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available".[16][17] On July 21, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency said the draft environmental impact study for Keystone XL was inadequate and should be revised,[18][19] indicating that the State Department's original report was "unduly narrow" because it didn't fully look at oil spill response plans, safety issues and greenhouse gas concerns.[20] The final environmental impact report was released on August 26, 2011. It stated that the pipeline would pose "no significant impacts" to most resources if environmental protection measures are followed, but it would present "significant adverse effects to certain cultural resources". The final decision is expected by the end 2011.[21]

Route

Phase 1

The 3,456 kilometres (2,147 mi) long pipeline runs from Hardisty, Alberta to the United States refineries in Wood River, Illinois and Patoka, Illinois.[22] The Canadian section involves approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of pipeline converted from the Canadian Mainline natural gas pipeline and 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new pipeline, pump stations and terminal facilities at Hardisty, Alberta. The United States section is 2,219 kilometres (1,379 mi) long.[23] It runs through Buchanan, Clinton and Caldwell counties in Missouri, and Nemaha, Brown and Doniphan counties in Kansas.[8] Phase 1 went online in June 2010.

Phase 2

From Steele City, Nebraska, the 291 miles (468 km) Keystone-Cushing pipeline was routed through Kansas to the oil hub and tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma in 2010 and went online in February 2011.[1]

Phase 3

This phase is part of the Keystone XL pipeline. This proposed phase would start from Cushing, Oklahoma and expand 435 miles (700 km) to a delivery point near terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.[1] Also proposed is an approximate 47 miles (76 km) previous pipeline to transport crude oil from the pipeline in Liberty County, Texas to the Houston, Texas area.[1][24]

Phase 4

This phase is part of the Keystone XL pipeline and would start from the same area in Alberta, Canada as the main pipeline.[9] The Canadian section would consist of 529 kilometres (329 mi) of new pipeline.[11] It would enter the United States at Morgan, Montana and travel through South Dakota and Nebraska, where it would join the existing Keystone pipelines at Steele City, Nebraska.[1]

Truck hauling 36-Inch pipe to build Keystone-Cushing Pipeline south-east of Peabody, Kansas, 2010

Description

The initial capacity of Keystone Pipeline is 435,000 barrels per day (69,200 m3/d) which will be increased up to 590,000 barrels per day (94,000 m3/d).[25] The diameter of the pipeline is 36 inches (910 mm).[26] It will have a minimum ground cover of 4 feet (1.2 m).[9] The Keystone XL will add 510,000 barrels per day (81,000 m3/d) increasing the total capacity up to 1.1 million barrels per day (170×10^3 m3/d).[25][26]

The original Keystone Pipeline cost $US5.2 billion with the Keystone XL expansion slated to cost approximately US$7 billion. The Keystone XL is expected to be completed by 2012–2013.[26]

Upon completion, the Keystone Pipeline System would provide 5 percent of the current U.S. petroleum consumption needs and represent 9 percent of U.S. petroleum imports.[27]

Partnership

The project was originally developed as a partnership between TransCanada and ConocoPhillips. Certain parties who have agreed to make volume commitments to the Keystone expansion have an option to acquire up to a combined 15% equity ownership.[26] One of such companies is Valero Energy Corporation.[28] On August 12, 2009, however, TransCanada received regulatory approval to purchase ConocoPhillips' interest in the project and is now the sole owner of the Keystone Pipeline System.[6]

Lawsuits

In September 2009, independent refiner CVR sued TransCanada's for Keystone Pipeline tolls seeking $250 million damage compensation or release from transportation agreements. CVR alleged that the final tolls for the Canadian segment of the pipeline were 145% higher than initially presented, while the tolls for the US segment were 92% higher.[29] In April 2010, three smaller refineries sued TransCanada to break Keystone transportation contracts, saying the new pipeline has been beset with cost overruns.[30]

In October 2009, a suit was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council that challenged the pipeline on the grounds that its permit was based on a deficient environmental impact statement. The suit was thrown out by a federal judge on procedural grounds, ruling that the NRDC lacked the authority to bring it.[31]

Impacts

Environmental groups, concerned citizens, and politicians have raised a number of concerns about the potential impacts of the Keystone XL extension. One concern is that the pipeline could pollute air and water supplies and harm migratory birds and other wildlife.[18] It will cross the Sandhills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world.[32] The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture.[33] Critics are concerned that a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.[34] Portions of the pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3 magnitude earthquake as recently as 2002.[33] Opponents claim that TransCanada applied to the U.S. government to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than normal.[34]

Analysts believe that including the Alberta Clipper pipeline owned by TransCanada's competitor Enbridge, there is an extensive overcapacity of oil pipelines from Canada and after completion of the Keystone XL line oil pipelines to the U.S. will run nearly half-empty.[30] However, in its March 2010 report, the Natural Resources Defense Council stated that "the Keystone XL Pipeline undermines the U.S. commitment to a clean energy economy", instead delivering dirty fuel from oil sands and high costs.[13]

In December, 2010, No Tar Sands Oil campaign was launched. Sponsored by a number of action groups, including Corporate Ethics International, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Rainforest Action Network and featuring TV ads on CNN, MSNBC, and Comedy Central, the $500,000 US campaign[35] asked that people urge President Obama to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from being built by visiting The National Wildlife Federation website.

Demonstration against the Keystone XL extension, White House, August 2011.

According to the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, the President and US State Department have the power to require an additional Environmental Impact Assessment.[36] Members of Congress and the EPA requested this measure be taken.[37]

Concerns of bad sections of pipe using defective steel are causing areas of Keystone to be excavated and checked. PHMSA had earlier sent out warnings about some pipe swelling under pressure.[38]

In Kansas, local officials along the pipeline's path think that the state sold them out unnecessarily to get the pipeline. Due to an exemption the state gave TransCanada, the local authorities would not see any revenue from property taxes from the project for a decade, a loss they estimate at $50 million in public revenue.[20]

On August 21, 2011, the New York Times published an editorial opposing the Keystone XL pipeline because of the additional greenhouse gas emissions and the probability of oil spills in sensitive areas.[39]

While TransCanada has asserted that a set of 57 conditions will ensure Keystone XL's safe operation, investigative journalists have determined that all but a few of these conditions simply restate current minimum standards. [40]

In October 2011, the New York Times questioned the impartiality of the environmental analysis of the pipeline done by Cardno Entrix, an environmental contractor based in Houston. The study found that the pipeline would have `limited adverse environmental impacts,` but was authored by a firm that had "previously worked on projects with TransCanada and describes the pipeline company as a `major client` in its marketing materials." According to The Times, legal experts questioned whether the US government was "flouting the intent" of the Federal National Environmental Policy Act which "[was] meant to ensure an impartial environmental analysis of major projects." [41] The report prompted 14 senators and congressmen to ask the State Department inspector general on October 26 "to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process" for reviewing environmental impact. [42]

Support

TransCanada has replied by saying that development of oil sands will expand regardless of whether the crude oil is exported to the United States or alternatively to Asian markets through the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines or the Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain line.[43] TransCanada Corp. CEO Russ Girling argues that "the U.S. needs 10 million barrels a day of imported oil" and the debate over the proposed pipeline "is not a debate of oil versus alternative energy. This is a debate about whether you want to get your oil from Canada or Venezuela or Nigeria."[44] Girling has also argued that if Canadian oil doesn't reach the Gulf through an environmentally friendly buried pipeline, that the alternative is oil that will be brought in by tanker, a mode of transportation that produces higher greenhouse-gas emissions and that puts the environment at greater risk.[45]

Girling has described the Keystone Pipeline as "routine," noting that TransCanada has been building similar pipelines in North America for half a century and that there are 200,000 miles of similar coil pipe in the United States today. He also stated that the Keystone Pipeline will include 57 improvements above standard requirements demanded by U.S. regulators so far, making it "the safest pipeline ever built."[45]

In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto on September 23, 2011, Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, sharply criticized opponents of oil sands development and the pipeline, arguing that:

  • The total area that has been affected by surface mining represents only 0.1% of Canada's boreal forest.
  • The oil sands account for about 0.1% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.
  • Electricity plants powered by coal in the U.S. generate almost 40 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than Canada's oil sands (the coal-fired electricity plants in the State of Wisconsin alone produce the equivalent of the entire GHG emissions of the oil sands.
  • California bitumen is more GHG-intensive than the oil sands.

Oliver criticized opponents of the pipeline, stating that all of the above facts are ignored by "celebrity protestors."[46]

Writing in the National Post, Diane Francis argued that opposition to the Pipeline "ma[kes] no sense because emissions from the oil sands are a fraction of the emissions from coal and equivalent to California heavy crude oils or ethanol" and questioned why "None of these has been getting the same attention as the oil sands and this pipeline." She also argued that much of the opposition to the oil sands actually comes from foreign countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, all of whom supply oil to the United States and who could be affected if the price of oil drops due to the new availability of oil from the pipeline. She cited as an example a recent effort by Saudi Arabia to stop television commercials by a pro-oil sands NGO called EthicalOil.org.[47][48]

Political issues

In February 2011, Reuters reported that Koch Industries were poised to be "big winners" from the pipeline.[49] In May 2011, Congressmen Waxman and Rush wrote a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee which cited the Reuters story, and which urged the Committee to request documents from Koch Industries which relate to the Keystone XL pipeline.[50][51]

In response to negative publicity, president and CEO of TransCanada Russ Girling touted the positive impact of the project by "putting 20,000 US workers to work and spending $7 billion stimulating the US economy."[52] This has been disputed by an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute which found that while the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs, this impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest which will likely reduce national employment.[53]

Landowners in the path of the pipeline have complained about threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land and lawsuits to allow the "pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval." As of 17 October 2011, TransCanada had "34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas" and "22 in South Dakota." Some of those landowners gave testimony for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May 2011.[54]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Keystone Pipeline System; TransCanada; February 2011.
  2. ^ "Union calls on Ottawa to block Keystone". Upstream Online. NHST Media Group. 2007-10-24. (subscription required). Retrieved 2010-07-22.
  3. ^ "TransCanada: Keystone Construction to Start Early Next Year". TransCanada Corporation. Downstream Today. 2007-09-21. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  4. ^ "State Dept. Grants Keystone Permit; Work To Start In Q2". TransCanada Corporation. Downstream Today. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  5. ^ "ConocoPhillips Acquires 50% Stake in Keystone". ConocoPhillips. Downstream Today. 2008-01-22. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  6. ^ a b "Keystone Pipeline System". TransCanada Corp. Retrieved 8 September 2009.
  7. ^ O'Connor, Phillip (2010-06-08). "TransCanada's Keystone pipeline ready for flow, but is the market there?". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. MCT. Retrieved 2011-02-23.
  8. ^ a b Newton, Ken (2010-06-09). "Oil Flows Through Keystone". St. Joseph News-Press. Downstream Today. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  9. ^ a b c Hovey, Art (2008-06-12). "TransCanada Proposes Second Oil Pipeline". Lincoln Journal-Star. Downstream Today. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  10. ^ "NEB Sets Keystone XL Hearing". National Energy Board. Downstream Today. 2009-05-13. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  11. ^ a b "NEB Okays Keystone XL". National Energy Board. Downstream Today. 2010-03-11. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  12. ^ "Keystone XL Clears Hurdle In South Dakota". South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. Downstream Today. 2010-02-19. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  13. ^ a b "Say No to Tar Sands Pipeline" (PDF). NRDC. 2010-03-10. Retrieved 2010-07-22. Cite error: The named reference "Say No to Tar Sands Pipeline" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  14. ^ Casey-Lefkowitz, Susan (2010-06-23). "House members say tar sands pipeline will undermine clean energy future". NRDC. Retrieved 2010-07-27.
  15. ^ Sullivan, Bartholomew (2010-06-24). "Enviro Groups, 50 Congressmen Mobilize Against Keystone XL". The Commercial Appeal. Downstream Today. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  16. ^ Rascoe, Ayesha; Haggett, Scott (2010-07-06). "Key US lawmaker opposes Canadian oil sands pipeline". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-07-27.
  17. ^ Dvorak, Phred; Welsch, Edward (2010-07-08). "Oil Sands Push Tests US-Canada Ties". The Wall Street Journal. Downstream Today. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  18. ^ a b Sudekum Fisher, Maria (2010-07-21). "EPA: Keystone XL impact statement needs revising". Associated Press. Retrieved 2011-04-27.
  19. ^ Welsch, Edward (2010-07-21). "EPA Calls for Further Study of Keystone XL". Downstream Today. Dow Jones Newswires. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  20. ^ a b Goldstein, David (2011-02-13). "Oil pipeline from Canada stirring anger in U.S. Great Plains". McClatchy Newspapers. McClatchy Washington Bureau. Retrieved 2011-02-15.
  21. ^ Tracy, Tennille; Welsch, Edward (2011-08-26). "Keystone Poses 'No Significant Impacts' to Most Resources Along Path - US". Downstream Today. Dow Jones Newswires. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
  22. ^ "Canada-US link gets green light". Upstream Online. NHST Media Group. 2008-03-14. (subscription required). Retrieved 2008-03-14.
  23. ^ "TransCanada: Keystone Construction to Begin in Spring". TransCanada Corporation. Downstream Today. 2007-10-30. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  24. ^ TransCanada's quarterly profit rises to $390 million
  25. ^ a b O'Meara, Dina (2010-07-27). "U.S. delays decision on Keystone XL". The Calgary Herald. Retrieved 2010-07-27.
  26. ^ a b c d "TransCanada, ConocoPhillips To Expand Keystone To Gulf Coast". TransCanada. Downstream Today. 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  27. ^ McDermott, Michael (2010-09-24). "Oil pipeline work near finish". Augusta Gazette. Gatehouse Media, Inc. Retrieved 2011-02-23.
  28. ^ "Valero: Prospective Keystone Shipper". Valero Energy. Downstream Today. 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  29. ^ Shook, Barbara (2009-09-18). "Independent refiner CVR sues TransCanada's Keystone Pipeline". The Oil Daily. AllBusiness.com, Inc. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  30. ^ a b Vanderklippe, Nathan (2010-04-29). "Pipeline fees revolt widens". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  31. ^ "NRDC's Suit to Block Canada-US Oil Pipeline Thrown Out". Associated Press. 2009-10-02. Retrieved 2010-07-22.
  32. ^ "World's Largest Aquifer Going Dry". U.S. Water News Online. 2006. Retrieved 2010-12-30. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  33. ^ a b Anderson, Mitchell (2010-07-07). "Ed Stelmach's Clumsy American Romance". The Tyee. Retrieved 2010-07-22.
  34. ^ a b Dembicki, Geoff (2010-06-21). "Gulf Disaster Raises Alarms about Alberta to Texas Pipeline". The Tyee. Retrieved 2010-07-22.
  35. ^ O'Meara, Dina (2010-12-08). "Pressure in U.S. mounts against oilsands pipeline". Calgary Herald. Retrieved 2010-12-08.
  36. ^ Carmichael, Robyn (2010-11-30). "New Ads Urge President to Stop Dirty Oil Pipeline". National Wildlife Federation Action Fund. Retrieved 2011-08-29.
  37. ^ Zelman, Joanna (2010-12-06). "No Tar Sands Oil Campaign Urges President Obama To Stop Keystone XL Cross-Country Pipeline". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2010-12-06.
  38. ^ St. Louis Post-Dispatch (2010-12-09). "Massive oil pipeline to be checked for defective steel". iStockAnalyst.com. Retrieved 2011-08-25.
  39. ^ Editorial (2011-08-21). "Tar Sands and the Carbon Numbers". The New York Times. New York Times Company. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2011-08-25.
  40. ^ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110919/keystone-xl-pipeline-safety-regulations-phmsa-transcanada-oil-sands-bitumen
  41. ^ News (2011-10-7). "Pipeline Review Is Faced With Question of Conflict". The New York Times. New York Times Company. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2011-10-31. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  42. ^ Tar Sands Pipeline Probe Urged Sen. Bernie Sanders October 26, 2011
  43. ^ Welsch, Edward (2010-06-30). "TransCanada: Oil Sands Exports Will Go To Asia If Blocked In US". Downstream Today. Dow Jones Newswires. Retrieved 2010-08-01.
  44. ^ Hussein, Yadullah (2011-09-23). "Keystone 'exaggerated rhetoric' untrue". Financial Post.
  45. ^ a b Cattaneo, Claudia (September 9, 2011). "TransCanada in eye of the storm". Financial Post.
  46. ^ NOTA Bene, National Post, September. 24, 2011.
  47. ^ Foreign interests attack oil sands by Diane Francis, National Post, September 23, 2011.
  48. ^ Saudi oil's Ethical Warfare by Claudia Cattaneo, National Post, September 21, 2011.
  49. ^ Sassoon, David (2011-02-10). "Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved". Reuters. Retrieved 2011-08-25.
  50. ^ Waxman, Henry A.; Rush, Bobby L. (2011-05-20). "Reps. Waxman and Rush Urge Committee to Request Documents from Koch Industries Regarding Keystone XL Pipeline". Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats. Retrieved 2011-08-25.
  51. ^ Sheppard, Kate (2011-05-23). "Waxman Targets the Koch Brothers". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2011-08-25.
  52. ^ TransCanada CEO on Proposed Pipeline. Fox News Channel. 2011-08-31. Retrieved 2011-10-12.
  53. ^ "Pipe dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL" (PDF). ILR School Global Labor Institute. 2011. Retrieved 2011-10-12. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  54. ^ LESLIE KAUFMAN and DAN FROSCH (2011-10-17). "Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian Twist". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-10-31. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keystone_Pipeline&oldid=459394129"