7.5.4: At Home and Abroad - The Politics of Pipelines

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Evaluate the political forces for and against the construction of an energy pipeline in North America

Energy in North America: The Rise and Fall of the Keystone XL Pipeline

North America is a region of vast natural resources. In the far north, Canada is no exception. Among Canada’s endowments are oil-rich tar sands concentrated in the central province of Alberta. The extraction of bitumen, or a kind of thick crude oil, from tar sands is resource-intensive and environmentally destructive, but despite this Canadian interests began developing the country’s tar sands industry with the opening of the first commercial plant in 1967. The extraction process involves clearing enormous tracts of forest, including the diversion of rivers and displacement of wildlife, then mining and processing tar-soaked sands in a water- and energy-intensive process. Oil sands launched Canada to global prominence in energy markets; Canada now has the fourth-largest proven oil reserves in the world.

In 2008, the Canadian energy company TransCanada Corporation (now TC Energy) proposed the creation of an expanded pipeline system known as Keystone XL that would cut a southeasterly course from Alberta into the U.S. Midwest, then turn south to the Gulf of Mexico. The construction of a pipeline from Canada to the United States’ Gulf Coast requires U.S. presidential approval though. This was denied twice by the Obama administration (2008-2016), but then approved by the Trump administration (2016-2020). In 2021, U.S. President Biden vetoed the project. The back and forth nature of these vetoes and approvals show how the decision was really tied to who politically supported each administration. In the case of the Obama and Biden administrations, it was the voice of the average person, tribes and environmentalists that held sway, while the Trump administration listened more to business interests. Following this political tug of war, in June 2021 TransCanada officially terminated the proposed pipeline route.

 

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): A map of the Keystone pipeline route through Canada and the US. The Phase 1, 2, 3a, and 3b sections were all completed. Phase 4, or Keystone XL, was cancelled in 2021. (CC BY-SA 4.0; cmglee, Meclee, Flappiefh, Lokal_Profil et al. via Wikipedia)

 

Various groups placed pressure on the U.S. government during each turn in this saga. TransCanada argued that the pipeline would create jobs and contribute to North American energy security, with minimal risk of pipeline leaks or environmental damage. An array of environmental, human rights, and indigenous groups fought the pipeline development on opposing grounds. They drew attention to the environmental and cultural damage of the proposed pipeline. The proposed route through Nebraska, for example, would have crossed an aquifer that provided water for millions. Ranchers and farmers along the pipeline route were divided, as the pipeline might bring some economic benefits but would also cut through their ranches and farmland.

The politics of pipelines are playing out in many other parts of the world. Nord Stream pipelines connecting European economic powerhouse Germany to Russia fell sharply out of favor following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Protesters were arrested in Uganda for opposing the construction of a crude oil pipeline that would connect Uganda’s oil-producing region to Indian Ocean ports in Tanzania. French and Chinese companies are responsible for this African pipeline project. Hundreds of thousands of kilometers of oil and gas pipelines are projected to be constructed in the coming decade. This is bolstered by market incentives, governments’ search for energy security, and the people’s demand for ever cheaper energy.