The Environmental, Economical, and Political Purposes and

Subsequent Consequences of the Keystone XL Pipeline Expansion

by
Chidambara Vinayagam

Jindal School of Management

University of Texas at Dallas

Politics and Business

PSCI 3326.001
Professor Iliyan Iliev
April 29, 2015

ABSTRACT
The Keystone XL Pipeline Expansion has become a very broad subject for debate and research.
Studies have been done on the many purposes and consequences of the pipeline, which branch
all varieties of disciplines. When relating to matters of public policy, the main areas of focus
should be the environmental, economical, and political effects of the pipelines construction, as
these are the sectors that will be most affected by the Keystone XL Pipeline construction. Just
recently, the legislation requiring the approval of TransCanadas border-crossing pipeline
proposal was vetoed by President Obama. To analyze the reason as to why President Obama
denied the proposal, a holistic analyses has been conducted of the environmental, economical,
and political factors that are both in proposition of and in opposition to the pipelines
construction. This analyzes proves that the veto was rightfully justified, as the environmental,
economic, and political effects of the Keystone XL pipeline, if allowed to be constructed, would
have been more harmful than helpful to the national interest.

INTRODUCTION
TransCanadas proposal to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL) has been a source
of fierce debate for the past five years between political activists, environmentalists, and
economists. It has dominated both congressional and presidential agenda for the past two terms.
However, on February 25, 2015, President Obama vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval
Act. Ten days later, the Senate failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote to override the veto.
Thus, the construction of the pipeline has now come to standstill.
Three other phases of the Keystone Pipeline system have already been built and have
been in operation between the United States (US) and Canada for the past five years. The
southern part of the original KXL proposal, from Cushing, OK to Houston, TX has already been
constructed with no problem. But, because the northern portion would cross an international
border, a Presidential Permit is necessary for construction. However, the application for the
Presidential Permit has ensued a ferocious dispute about the purpose and consequences of
constructing KXL, considering that not only is the oil to be extracted from the Alberta tar sands
considered to be more harmful to the environment, but also because the pipeline itself goes
through a very environmentally sensitive region of Nebraska, the Sandhills region and the
Ogallala Aquifer.
TransCanada claims that KXL serves the public interest. To assess their, three sectors
that help determine US living standard, which can help evaluate public interest, should be
examined.
It can then be determined that there are many environmental, political, and economic
considerations that have gone into the KXL decision. This paper serves to analyze these
arguments, and assess if President Obamas denial of the KXL legislation is justified. Part I will

assess previous literature written on this subject, taking into consideration the arguments for both
proposition and opposition. Part II will provide more detailed hypotheses on the impacts of KXL
in all three areas of consideration. Part III will connect both preceding sections, analyzing if the
hypotheses are indeed supported with the writings of previous researchers. This will determine if
President Obama denying TransCanadas proposal was warranted.
PART I: LITERATURE REVIEW
The controversy surrounding KXL has necessitated the need for its study and review by
experts. These studies focus on the environmental, political, and economic factors surrounding
KXL. This paper will utilize the following sources for their portrayal of the arguments both for
and against the construction of KXL.
TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline: Eminent Domain and Transportation of Energy: William
G. Blake, Esq., has conducted legal research about the eminent domain that TransCanada has
over Nebraska and subsequent other states in order to build KXL. He attests that the main
problems property owners have are the routing and safety of the pipeline, not necessarily the
companys refusal for just compensation. As a result of his research, Blake has been able to
clearly outline the reasons that KXL should be supported; conversely, he has also listed the
reasons that it should be denied.
Securitizing the Environmental Risk and the Keystone XL Pipeline: V. Kerry Smith, who
specializes in environmental economics, has analyzed the topic enough to provide a method of
securitizing KXLs construction. He advocates a method that will estimate, in monetary terms,
the value of the negative consequences of KXL. KXL should only be constructed after this
value has been assessed. Smith theorizes that monetizing these types of risks associated with
the pipelines construction will allow for more accurate and detailed research associated with

following through on a project with potentially irreversible consequences.

Social Construction and Physical Nihilation of the Keystone XL Pipeline: Lessons from
International Relations Theory: Robert Y. Shum, a professor of political science and
international studies, has applied Constructivist international relations theory to the politics
and economics of KXL. He examines energy security and policy on a global scale in relation
to environmental stability and economic feasibility. Concerns related to sustainability have
also inundated policy makers to search for strategies that will maximize economic growth
while trying to achieve an energy system composed of more renewable resources than fossil
fuels.
Politics, Proximity, and the Pipeline: Mapping Public Attitudes toward Keystone XL:
Timothy B. Gravelle and Erick Lachapelle, professors in government and political science,
respectively, have examined the public views about KXL through survey and statistical
methods and analyzes. These methods have proven to demonstrate that proximity as well as
political party affiliation affects the peoples decision about KXL. Their decision concerning
KXL construction are also affected by the ideological predispositions that they have towards
their environment and economy. These are factors which also affect the politicians decision
about support for KXL legislation.
The Incidence of an Oil Glut: Who Benefits from Cheap Crude Oil in the Midwest?: Severin
Borenstein and Ryan Kellogg, lecturers in business and economics, respectively, have
analyzed the Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) bench-markings for crude oil prices in
order to assess the impact that decreased Midwest crude oil prices can have on fuel. Their
findings indicate that the increased production of Bakken shale oil has created a glut of supply
in oil in Cushing, OK that cannot match the low capacity of the existing pipelines. This is

what creates a bottleneck that decreased the price of crude oil, as it is not clear if either
consumers or refiners benefit from the lower prices. They attest that KXL will allow the
Midwest oil price to match closer with the Brent Gulf Coast oil price, although this will not
necessarily decrease fuel prices globally.
Thirst for Oil and the Keystone XL Pipeline: Sam Kalen, a professor in law, has explored how
the want for oil has embedded the KXL controversy into energy policy politics. Building KXL
will increase oil production, thus supporting the use of more fossil fuels. However, although
the US will have trouble achieving sound energy policy because of oil acquisition, Kalen
signals that the US should not ignore the global market that demand Canadian crude oil as a
commodity.
A Line in the Sands: Jeff Tollefson has conducted research about the effects of KXL on the
climate. Most IN the scientific community oppose KXL because it would signify the increase
in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result of increased production of tar sands oil.
However, some believe that KXL is just a small part in the quest to reduce these carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions. He concludes, along with the help of numerical analyses from
scientific experts, that building KXL will increase the addiction that the US has for fossil
fuels, all the while helping the oil industry become richer at the expense of the global climate.
Keystone XL Pipeline = Climate Catastrophe: Don Lieber has researched the threats that KXL
has on climate. He assess that much of the political support for KXL legislation stems from
those who have strong financial associations with oil industry affiliated PACs. Lieber also
points out that despite the environmental risks, not allowing Canadian oil to pass through the
US could lead TransCanada to build other pipelines that concentrate on oil exports to Asia.
Keystone XL: Pipeline to Nowhere: Jerald L. Schnoor has laid foundation for the case against

the KXL, concluding that more oil is not necessary for a nation that is already so rich in fossil
fuels. He indicates that along with the increase in global GHG emissions, KXL will increase
global CO2 concentration due to the massive size of the Alberta tar sands. He signals that the
world should be prepared to pay the consequences for the sheer amount of energy that has
been spent in the last few centuries.
The Grass is Always Greener: Keystone XL, Transboundary Harms, and the Guidelines for
Cooperative Environmental-Impact Assessment: Wyatt Sassman, J.D., has analyzed the
environmental impact assessment law and the complications that arose when the Department
of State (DoS) was considering the arguments in support for and in opposition of KXL. He
examines the assumptions taken by the DoS when evaluating the transboundary
environmental harms, which allowed them to skew their analysis of the effects of KXL.
The Keystone Pipeline Addition: Assessing the Potential Benefits of Reduced Gasoline Prices
and Increased National Security: Edwin Slade, J.D., has assessed the effects of KXL on oil
prices and national security, concluding that oil prices will not decrease as a result of the
pipelines construction, while admitting that national security does pose an important cause
for approval. KXL would be better for US imports because oil would be brought in from
Canada and not the turbulent Middle East region. However, he signals that there are better
ways for the US to achieve national security (in the form of energy policy) rather than
extracting oil from the Alberta tar sands.
Keystone XL: The Pipeline to Energy Security: Congressmen Lee Terry has cited the creation
of jobs and increased reliance on dependable energy sources as reasons for KXLs approval.
KXL will be beneficial for the economy due to private investments funneling money into the
country, which will ultimately raise GDP. Terry also examines diplomacy in buying oil and

becoming more energy independent, rather than importing most fuel from the Middle East.
Likelihood, Causes, and Consequences of Focused Leakage and Rupture of US Natural Gas
Transmission Pipelines: Hui Wang and Ian J. Duncan, experts in the geosciences, have
examined the likelihood and causes of pipeline leaks and ruptures in natural gas transmission
pipelines through detailed numerical and scientific analysis. Their reports signify that the
chance of a leak or rupture, and subsequent contamination of ecosystems, is highly unlikely.
They conclude that with proper construction techniques and materials, chances of failures
through external and internal forces are greatly reduced.
Canada Looks Overseas to Reduce Dependence on Relations with the USA: Carrie Lennard
has investigated reasons for Canadas decreased dependence on the US for imports, even
though the US is one of Canadas largest trading partners. She cites the standstill over KXL
construction, signaling that Canadas oil markets are just gaining more momentum in overseas
Asian and European markets as a result.
The use of the aforementioned sources will allow for a more holistic analysis of the
effects of KXL, which will demonstrate why KXL was rightfully denied.
PART II: HYPOTHESES
Building KXL may not be in the best interests for the US. There are many environmental,
political, and economic repercussions that are associated with this particular pipeline.
First, there are the many environmental threats to consider. The KXL will have Canada
mining out some of the worlds dirtiest oil from the ground. Tar sands oil is very difficult to
work with because it takes copious amounts of energy to extract and refine; the aftermath of the
drilling leaves the fields full of toxic sludge ponds. These ponds can feed into water systems,
contaminating the substance consumer by nearby communities.

Mining tar sands oils also increases the amount of GHG and CO2 emissions in the
atmosphere, resulting in increased pollution and eventual climate change over time. Transporting
the oil also has many safety risks, as chemicals such as diluted bitumen within the tar sands oil
make pipelines more vulnerable to leaks due to the corrosive substances. If there are any leaks or
ruptures, entire ecosystems can be ruined. Much of the wildlife habitat will be displaced, as they
already would be from construction; the general population could be dislocated if there is any
water contamination from the failures.
Second, there are many political implications surrounding the support and opposition of
KXL construction. KXL will make an impact on international relations. Canada relies on US
imports for sustenance. Although Canada is an ally for the US, reducing the dependence of oil
from there could also start a movement that reduces the need for the US to import any other
fossil fuels as well. This approach would allow a greater energy independence and better energy
security policies to be put into place.
KXL also affects domestic political relations. The determination to pass the Keystone XL
Pipeline Approval Act was a largely Republican effort, therefore showing the stark
bipartisanship apparent in Congress. Many legislative leaders that have helped spearhead the
KXL legislation have received considerably large campaign contributions from the oil and gas
industries and PACs. Republicans view KXL as a means for creating jobs during construction;
Democrats point out that the amount of permanent jobs after construction will be significantly
fewer. Thus, there is a large bipartisan divide over something that should serve public interest.
Third, the economic benefits of the KXL are very short-term. In what is considered the
main divide between Republicans and Democrats, job creation will be incredibly limited in its
long-term standing. Constructing KXL will boost the economy for a small period of time;

however, this boost will soon wear out after construction is complete and number of permanent
jobs decreases. The cost of refining the oil is already high, the cost of clean-up if the pipeline
were to leak or rupture is significantly. If the pipeline were to have failures, the cost of
healthcare will also increase as a result of illnesses caused by habitat contamination and
environment pollution.
KXL will not necessarily decrease the price of oil, even though more oil is being
produced for consumption. Canada also intends for this oil to be exported to other parts of the
world after passing through the US; this action will not help the US economy or keep the prices
of oil and gas low.
It can then be reasoned that KXL should not be built. There are too many environmental,
political, and economical consequences, as highlighted by experts in the industry, which cannot
be ignored when considering TransCanadas proposal. This is why the legislation forcing the
approval of KXL construction was vetoed.
PART III: DATA & FINDINGS
PART III.A: ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS, THREATS, AND CONSEQUENCES
The construction of KXL has many environmental risks, political hurdles, and economic
drawbacks associated with it. The following section strives to analyze these detriments in order
to gain a clearer understanding of why the proposal was denied.
The primary opposition for Keystone stems from its numerous environmental threats.
This 1179 mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline will have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels of
crude oil daily from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, NE (Blake 2014, 9). However, extracting
the approximately 170 million barrels of Alberta tar sands oil will also release more GHG and
CO2 emissions. The development of this type of crude oil also has a very large carbon footprint,

10

which is 17% higher than the carbon footprint of US produced crude oil (Schnoor 2013, 3943).
Tar sands oil production emit three times as much emissions as those from conventional oil
production (Palliser 2012, 10); CO2 emissions will end up increasing by 110 million tons per
year as a result of the extraction (Hodson 2014, 10). Albertas tar sands have the highest level of
CO2 emissions through extraction, however, they also emit sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide
(Blake 2014, 14).
The world is burning through 300 million year fossil fuels in just a few centuries at
alarming rates, will also contribute to increased levels of acid rain (Schnoor 2013, 3943). The US
depends greatly on fossil fuels for energy; KXL will only increase the use of these energy
sources. The use of fossil fuels have also caused an increase in GHG emissions, which is
affecting atmosphere quality (Schnoor 2013, 3943). The tools and techniques used to extract and
refine the oil, such as construction equipment, heat, and smoke, also affect the air quality
(Palliser 2012, 10). These types of atmospheric contamination can affect climate in the longterm. In fact, the increase in fossil fuel usage has been linked to the increase in acid rain levels as
well as rising frequency of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, and wildfires
(Schnoor 2013, 3943).
The extraction of tar sands oil is also extremely difficult. The sands must first be steamed
heated for months beforehand and then be diluted with bitumen (Lieber 2012, 27). This
procedure is necessary because much of the oil that can be extracted through surface mining has
been depleted, necessitating the need to use more refined procedures for extraction from deeper
sands deposits (Tollefson 2013, 137). For this process, almost 2.4 million barrels of water is used
daily (Blake 2014, 14); the aftermath of extracting leaves behind toxic tailing pools. These pools
already cover 65 square miles, and is increasing with the increased crude oil production (Palliser

11

2012, 9). The pools will eventually contaminate the current clean water supply, which are
already threatened by failures that could come from the pipelines (Blake 2014, 14).
After extraction, the oil is further heated to allow better flow under high pressures
through the pipeline since it is heavier (Blake 2014, 13; Tollefson 2013, 137); it is also more
corrosive than conventional crude. Therefore, leaks and ruptures of the pipeline have a greater
chance of occurring. The pipeline would go through the sensitive Sand Hills region and the
Ogallala Aquifer, which currently provides drinking water to over two million people in
Nebraska (Blake 2014, 13). These are two extremely fragile places where a leak of any size can
be detrimental to the quality of life that it sustains. Although current technological improvements
can better detect leaks, these systems are not always foolproof (Palliser 2012, 9). Even though
carrying this type of oil is much safer than railroad transportation (Duncan, Wang 2014, 186),
there is still an increased risk of ruptures and leaks with the larger diameter, high pressure
transmission pipelines, which is KXLs classification. Increasing pipeline diameter and wall
thickness can account for a lower failure rate, with total failure rate reducing to 10-5 for pipelines
built after 1990 due to the improvements in construction technology (Duncan, Wang 2014, 186).
However, the risk is still there, as a failure will still impact the environmentally sensitive regions
that the pipeline runs through.
Failures of the pipeline can cause spills which will result in both physical and
toxicological impacts (Palliser 2012, 9). The physical impacts can turn toxicological whenever
spilled crude oil is ingested by many animals in the habitat. These impacts will cause lower
quality of life in those areas. Additionally, the cost of trying to clean up a spill is extremely high.
Because tar sands oils sink, not float (Blake 2014, 13), it is more difficult to assess the water
contamination that would result from a spill. Even with the most extreme costs and cleanup

12

efforts, there will always be some degree of contamination, as is evidenced by the Kalamazoo
River spill (Blake 2014, 14).
In addition to the threats that wildlife face with spills and contamination, they are also
threatened by deforestation. In order to extract the oil from the ground, thousands of acres of
Canadas boreal forest would have to be destroyed (Lieber 2012, 28). These forests are so large
that they currently store 15% 30% of the entire worlds soil-based carbon (Lieber 2012, 28).
The Environmental Protection Agency also reported that 30% of North American birds breed in
these boreal forests (Sassman 2012, 1503), and that the deforestation for the development of the
dirty tar sands oil will result in the significant harm to these bird populations. It will be very
difficult to reclaim all the destruction of the plants and ecosystem which have been around for
millions of years. If these habitats are destroyed, there could be irreversible consequences that
will strongly affect future generations.
These are the many environmental risks associated with KXL. If the pipeline were to be
built, there must be a system in place to protect the environment. Although not the most optimal
method, one technique would be to monetize the costs of the worst case scenario of damage that
the pipeline could cause (Smith 2012). This would force those that are undertaking the
construction to properly analyze potentially irreversible consequences of taking an action that
may not be in the national interest. However, despite the monetization of consequences, all the
environmental risks serve to further highlight the decision to sustain the denial of the pipelines
construction.
PART III.B: POLITICAL EFFECTS ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DIPLOMACY
KXL has dominated political arena for most of the past two presidential terms. Many
factors surrounding the political support or opposition stems from: party affiliation, caused by

13

legislators allegiance with the oil industry; international relations and trade theories, and
national security through better energy policy.
Two of the primary supporters of KXL are Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and
Speaker of the House John Boehner. McConnell received a substantially large campaign
contribution from Exxon Mobile and Boehner received almost $500,000 from the oil and gas
industry affiliated PACs back in 2011 (Lieber 2012, 28). This suggests that the financial backing
of these legislators affects their support on key controversial issues. Because McConnell and
Boehner are supported by the oil and gas industries, they must likewise, support and even
spearhead any legislation that will act in that industrys favor.
Surveying methods used by Gravelle and Lachapelle (2015) show that Republicans are
more likely to support KXL than Democrats in the interest of economic benefits (104). The two
professors also found that the likelihood of favoring the pipeline decreases as distance to the
pipeline increases (Gravelle, Lachapelle 2015, 104). This is perhaps because the greater
proximity to the pipeline results in increased awareness to communities about the danger that it
poses to the environment and about the limited impact it will have in improving the economy.
In terms of diplomacy, Canada is one of the USs largest trading partners (Lennard 2012).
However, due to the refusal of the US government approving KXL, relations have been a bit
strained. This has caused Canada to look towards Asian markets for energy exports, and
especially China, for oil sector investments (Lennard 2012). As a result, Canada is slowly
reducing its independence on the US for imports.
Therefore, the likelihood of strengthened relations with Canada, one of the USs strongest
allies, is probably what led to the skewed initial opinion of the DoS alleging their support for
KXL. As summarized by Sassman (2012), the DoS managed to make three assumptions about

14

KXL, all of which were disproved (1505-1506):

1. The Oil-Demand Assumption: the KXL would have no effect on world demand for Canadian
crude oil; likewise, the US would also not have a demand for other foreign crude oil.
However, worldwide demand for the Canadian produced crude is increasing.
2. The Extraction-Efficiency Assumption: Canada would use more efficient techniques to extract
the oil, therefore lowering the rate of emissions. However, technological improvements are
only furthering extraction from within deeper levels of the earth, which is even more harmful.
3. The Land-Use Governance Assumption: the KXL would have no significant impact on the
environmental resources. However, KXLs numerous threats to the environment have been
previously proven.
Proponents also cite the increase in US national security as a reason for KXL. Dependence
on the Middle East for oil is threatening to national security (Kalen 2012, 13). Relying on the
imports from these further foreign markets can also be an economic risk for the US (Lee 2012,
84). The only way to protect national, and consequently, economic security, is in the form of
energy security (Slade 2012, 49). Energy is one of the fundamental factors in a nations
economy and defense (Slade 2012, 49). Through this reasoning, it can be surmised that if secure
energy resources are maintained, then the national security of the US is protected as well.
However, Canada is a stable and trustworthy trading partner for the US with the largest
and closest supply of foreign crude oil in North America (Lee 2012, 62; Kalen 2012, 11).
Importing Canadian oil has reduced chances of environmental and security accidents happening
as a result of marine transportation (Kalen 2012, 11), which would be the case for US imports of
crude from the Middle East. The path for imports from Canada is shorter, quicker, and cheaper.
Therefore, KXL would bring the US closer to energy independence. However, Shum (2013)

15

points out that there may be better ways to reach energy independence (84). One such method is
finding an energy system composed of more renewable resources (Shum 2013, 84). This method
will allow society to stop extracting fossil fuels for energy, which will increase because of KXL.
KXL is largely supported by Republican politicians who have strong affiliations with the
oil industry. However, Democratic interests in preserving the environment have trumped many
of the Republican arguments for strengthened international relations and energy independence
policy. These are the factors that influenced the rightful denial KXL.
PART III.C: ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS ON JOBS AND OIL PRICES
KXL supporters also believe in the creation of its economic benefits. Republicans argue
that KXL will create jobs; as a result of private investments totaling $7.6 billion (Lee 2012, 87),
the US GDP can increase. However, even though constructing the pipeline would lead to the
creation of about 9000 direct jobs and even 42000 indirect jobs (Blake 2014, 13), the
maintenance of the pipeline would only require about 50 to 100 permanent jobs. Because of
technological improvements, KXL could potentially kill more jobs than it permanently creates
in the end (Blake 2014, 13).
Furthermore, although there will be an increase in production of Canadian crude oil as a
result of KXL, this increased supply will ultimately not cause a decrease in the price of oil or
gas. The world currently consumers about ninety million barrels of oil per day (Slade 2012, 48);
therefore, an increase of less than a million barrels per day of Canadian crude oil will not have
an effect on the overall prices. Canada is also trying to expand their market for crude oil,
especially since there is an inelastic demand for this particular commodity (Sassman 2012,
1505). Much of the oil will be refined in one of the 56 US refineries that are equipped to deal
with this heavier crude oil (Lee 2012, 81). However, this refined oil will probably be sold to

16

overseas Asian markets, where there has been an increased demand for energy imports
(Sassman 2012, 1507).
However, studies show that due to the increased production, an excess supply of oil in
Cushing, Oklahoma, has contributed to cheaper gas prices in the central US (Slade 2012, 41).
This is most probably were the argument that greater supply of the crude oil will decrease the
price of oil and its refined products, such as gas, originated. This argument is not quite true.
Currently, there is a transportation bottleneck because increased production has caused
existing pipelines to reach full capacity (Borenstein, Kellogg 2014, 29). The two benchmarking
systems used to set oil prices have been diverging. The Cushing supply follows the WTI system,
which is currently priced lower than the Brent system (Borenstein, Kellogg 2014, 29). However,
if Canada starts pushing their Cushing supply through to the Gulf Coast refineries, they will just
be looking to sell the oil according to the world market price, which will be substantially higher
than either systems prices, due to the large demand for the Canadian crude oil on the world
market (Kalen 2012, 10).
Therefore, because of the limited extent of job creation and the limited effect on
decreasing oil prices, the KXL will not be as beneficial for the economy as it is perpetuated to
be. These are yet more reasons as to why the KXL proposal denial should be sustained.
CONCLUSION
For the past five years, environmental groups, economic experts, industry representatives,
and political parties have posed many opposing viewpoints regarding the KXL proposal.
Proponents claim that the following are enough backing for KXL to be built: increased energy
independence security, strengthened diplomatic relations with Canada, an increase in national
security as result of decreased dependence on foreign markets for oil, a temporary increase in

17

GDP through job creation, and slightly cheaper oil and fuel prices.
Opponents cite these primary reasons for the denial of KXLs construction: increase in
GHG emissions, chances of leaks and ruptures in pipelines, cost and methodology of extracting
tar sands oil for transport, threat to wildlife, alternative methods of energy independence which
include a decrease in fossil fuel usage, lack of long-term permanent job creation, and lack of
substantial impact on the price of oil.
President Obama sided with opponents of KXL and denied TransCanadas proposal.
However, he does have a bargaining chip with the Republican-dominated Congress for the last
twenty moths of his administration, although it is highly doubtful that he will employ it.
Nevertheless, once his term is over, there is a chance that the next presidential administration
will be willing to approve KXL. This adds to why KXL is so politically controversial the
Presidential Permit can be issued by the succeeding president if they decide that the proponents
of KXL a better argument for national interest.
Furthermore, it is important to note that it was Hilary Clintons administration of the
Department of State that approved the initial KXL proposal. In light of her recent announcement
for the 2016 presidential office, if she does gain victory, then there is greater probability that she
will approve construction if another proposal one that further addressees the environmental,
political, and economic costs to be more in favor of the national interest at that time is brought
forward.

18

Bibliography
Blake, William G. 2014. TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline: Eminent Domain and
Transportation of Energy. Real Estate Issues 39(2): 8-14. MasterFILE Premier (April
20, 2015).
Borenstein, Severin and Kellogg, Ryan. 2014. The Incidence of an Oil Glut: Who Benefits from
Cheap Crude Oil in the Midwest? Energy Journal 35 (1) (January): 15-33. Academic
Search Complete (April 20, 2015).
Duncan, Ian J. and Wang, Hui. 2014. Likelihood, Causes, and Consequences of Focused
Leakage and Rupture of U.S. Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries 30 (July): 177-187. ScienceDirect Complete (April
20, 2015).
Gravelle, Timothy and Lachapelle, Erick. 2015. Politics, Proximity, and the Pipeline: Mapping
Public Attitudes toward Keystone XL. Energy Policy 83 (August): 99-108.
ScienceDirect Complete (April 20, 2015).
Hodson, Hal. 2014. Keystones Climate Impact. New Scientist 223 (2982): 10. LexisNexis
Academic (April 20, 2015).
Kalen, Sam. 2012. Thirst for Oil and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Creighton Law Review 46(1)
(December): 1-25. Academic Search Complete (April 20, 2015).
Lee, Terry. 2012. Keystone XL: The Pipeline to Energy Security. Creighton Law Review 46(1)
(December): 61-88. Academic Search Complete (April 20, 2015).
Lennard, Carrie. 2012. Canada Looks Overseas to Reduce Dependence on Relations with the
USA. October 31. Global Market Information Euromonitor International (April 20,
2015).
Lieber, Don. 2012. Keystone XL Pipeline = Climate Catastrophe. E: The Environmental
Magazine 23(2) (April): 27-28. Academic Search Complete (April 20, 2015).
Palliser, Janna. 2012. The Keystone XL Pipeline. Science Scope 35(9) (June): 8-13. Education
Research Complete (April 20, 2015).
Sassman, Wyatt. 2012. The Grass is Always Greener: Keystone XL, Transboundary Harms, and
Guidelines for Cooperative Environmental-Impact Assessment. Vanderbilt Journal of
Transnational Law 45(5) (November): 1489-1528. Academic Search Complete (April 20,
2015).
Schnoor, Jerald L. 2013. Keystone XL: Pipeline to Nowhere. Environmental Science &
Technology 47(9) (May): 3943. ACS Online (April 20, 2015).

19

Shum, Robert Y. 2013. Social Construction and Physical Nihilation of the Keystone XL
Pipeline: Lessons from International Relations Theory. Energy Policy 59 (August): 8285. ScienceDirect Complete (April 20, 2015).
Slade, Edwin. 2012. The Keystone Pipeline Addition: Assessing the Potential Benefits of
Reduced Gasoline Prices and Increased National Security. Creighton Law Review 46 (1)
(December): 27-60. Academic Search Complete (April 20, 2015).
Smith, V. Kerry. 2012. Securitizing Environmental Risk and the Keystone XL Pipeline. The
Economists Voice March 23. http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ev (April 26, 2015)
Tollefson, Jeff. 2013. Climate Science: A Line in the Sands. Nature 500 (7461) (August): 136137. Academic Search Complete (April 20, 2015).

20