WASHINGTON – The long-delayed Keystone XL oil pipeline cleared a major hurdle toward approval Friday, a serious blow to environmentalists’ hopes that President Barack Obama will block the controversial project running more than 1,000 miles from Canada through the heart of the U.S.
The State Department reported no major environmental objections to the proposed $7 billion pipeline, which has become a symbol of the political debate over climate change. Republicans and some oil- and gas-producing states in the U.S. – as well as Canada’s minister of natural resources – cheered the report, but it further rankled environmentalists already at odds with Obama and his energy policy.
The report stops short of recommending approval of the pipeline, but the review gives Obama new support if he chooses to endorse it in spite of opposition from many Democrats and environmental groups. Foes say the pipeline would carry dirty oil that contributes to global warming, and they also express concern about possible spills.
Republicans and business and labor groups have urged Obama to approve the pipeline to create thousands of jobs and move further toward North American energy independence.
The pipeline is also strongly supported by Democrats in oil- and gas-producing states, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. All face re-election this year and could be politically damaged by rejection of the pipeline. Republican Mitt Romney carried all three states in the 2012 presidential election.
The 1,179-mile pipeline would travel through the heart of the United States, carrying oil derived from tar sands in western Canada to a hub in Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. It would cross Montana and South Dakota before reaching Nebraska. An existing spur runs through Kansas and Oklahoma to Texas.
Canadian tar sands are likely to be developed regardless of U.S. action on the pipeline, the report said.
The report says oil derived from tar sands in Alberta generates about 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming than traditional crude. But the report makes clear that other methods of transporting the oil – including rail, trucks and barges – would release more greenhouse gases than the pipeline.
U.S. and Canadian accident investigators warned last week about the dangers of oil trains that transport crude oil from North Dakota and other states to refineries in the U.S. and Canada. The officials urged new safety rules, cautioning that a major loss of life could result from an accident involving the increasing use of trains to transport large amounts of crude oil.
An alternative that relies on shipping the oil by rail through the central U.S. to Gulf Coast refineries would generate 28 percent more greenhouse gases than a pipeline, the report said.
State Department approval is needed because the pipeline crosses a U.S. border. Other agencies will have 90 days to comment before Secretary of State John Kerry makes a recommendation to Obama on whether the project is in the national interest. A final decision is not expected before summer.