fbpx

Pipeline in Perspective

By Kellyn Brown

When President Barack Obama last week rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, at least for now, Montana’s U.S. delegation swiftly rebuked him. Their support for the project has been steadfast and they directed a bipartisan chorus of boos at the White House. Then there was Gov. Brian Schweitzer, whose displeasure was aimed at an altogether different target.

“The people of Nebraska said we don’t want the pipeline,” Schweitzer said. “They’ve got 16,000 miles of pipeline in Nebraska, but they didn’t want this one.”

The governor was speaking to Neil Cavuto on Fox News. And Cavuto pressed him:

“So when the president makes a statement like he did today that this is being rushed and the House Republicans are rushing this on him, what was he talking about?” Cavuto asked.

“He’s talking about you cannot sign this until Nebraska has a route,” Schweitzer said. “Nebraska hasn’t even permitted this pipeline. And they won’t for six or nine months.”

Nebraska politicians had opposed the original pipeline route for ecological reasons and are still working on an acceptable alternative. Schweitzer argues that until the state finds one, the delay rests squarely on its shoulders.

Meanwhile, Nebraska Republican Gov. Dave Heineman called Obama’s decision “disappointing” and argued that the president should have conditionally approved the permit before Nebraska finalized a new route. He argued that TransCanada would then be able to begin work on the pipeline in other states where it is already approved, like Montana.

But Heineman and his colleagues, and especially Schweitzer, at least provided the Obama administration political cover. “It’s important for us to look at the full pipeline and not move forward on such a major infrastructure project that will be a part of the country and the landscape for many years in pieces like that,” Assistant Secretary of State Kerri Ann Jones said.

Proponents of the Keystone XL, a 1,700-mile pipeline that would run from Alberta, Canada, cross five states and make its way down to refineries in Texas, say it is not only safe but would create tens of thousands of jobs. Environmentalists disagree, arguing that there is potential for spills and that petroleum derived from Canadian oils sands is more toxic than from other soils.

The pipeline rose to the forefront of the nation’s political discourse when Republicans added a provision requiring Obama to make a decision on Keystone XL within 60 days as part of an agreement to extend the payroll tax holiday for two months. In the next round of negotiations over extending the tax break, which will play out in coming weeks, the GOP is considering using the pipeline as a bargaining chip again.

“We’re going to do everything we can to keep it on the front burner,” Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton told the New York Times.

Following the president’s decision, Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester said he was “disappointed.” And Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg called it “shameful.” But TransCanada may be moving forward with sections of the project anyway.

The company only needs federal approval to cross an international border and, until that happens, may build the pipeline from Montana to the Gulf Coast.

“We believe there may be the potential to accelerate the construction of some elements of the pipeline,” TransCanada President Alex Pourbaix told Bloomberg News.

The pipeline already has support in Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas. Pourbaix is confident a deal will be in place with Nebraska by September. The company would then apply for federal approval to connect the pipeline to the Alberta oil sands after it begins construction in the States.

Despite the rhetoric, which may appeal to both sides’ base, the chances of the Keystone XL being built are still high.