Mr. Obama! Build Up That Pipeline!

It’s Time to End the Nonsense About Keystone XL

For nearly five years the Keystone XL pipeline has sat in political limbo, awaiting approval from the Obama administration. The proposed oil pipeline from Canada requires blessings from the West Wing because, once completed, it will obviously cross the U.S./Canada border.

Follow TLR on Google+

In the meantime, what should be just another one of the countless components in the U.S. energy infrastructure has become a household name. It’s as polarizing as any other issue in current American political culture. In between the massive industry multi-media ad-buys and the vibrant environmentalist protests across the country, almost every imaginable argument has been made for and against the construction of Keystone XL. Some claim the pipeline will be an environmental and ecological disaster. Others claim it will lower energy prices. Other arguments suggest that the pipeline will guarantee North American energy security and create thousands of jobs. Some even conversely argue that the pipeline will actually destroy jobs.

This back and forth ascends to the highest of levels, demonstrated by Super Bowl Sunday’s pre-kickoff Barack Obama-Bill O’Reilly showdown. The anchor of Fox News’s flagship political opinion show challenged the president on his administration’s stalling on Keystone XL.

O’Reilly, prompted by a recent State Department report that determined the pipeline would have little to no significant environmental impact, claimed that the pipeline would create 42,000 new jobs and that such a figure makes approving Keystone XL a no-brainer. The president quickly countered and argued that Keystone XL would likely create only a few thousand jobs.

The fact is that all of the back and forth over the last half-decade on these hypothetical environmental, economic, and employment scenarios are utterly useless and completely miss the broader point about the Keystone XL situation. It has almost been a competition of who can make the worst argument.

The environmentalist arguments are worth little if any consideration.


An independent study by the State Department has indeed, as Mr. O’Reilly suggested, found that the construction of Keystone XL and the use of the Canadian oil it will transport to U.S. refineries will have a negligible environmental impact. The State Department understands that, because of growing global energy demand, the Canadian crude oil slated for Keystone XL, in the event that Keystone XL is rejected, will simply enter the global market via another vehicle, such as trains or trucks to the refineries or a pipeline to Chinese ships waiting in Vancouver. What makes Keystone XL actually the more advantageous option for those with environmental concerns is that in the event of an accident or spill, the pipeline flow can be shut off, unlike derailed rail cars or a sinking ship.

Further, the portion of Keystone XL requiring approval totals 1,179 miles in length. To the lay person, this sounds significant. In fact, there are already 2.6 million miles of various fuel, oil, and natural gas pipelines in place within the United States operating with exceptional safety records. The U.S. portion of the Keystone XL pipeline would be a mere 850 mile addition to this extant infrastructure.

On the other side, economic benefits of the pipeline are equally overblown. Oil’s fungibility in the market precludes Keystone XL alone from having any significant impact on U.S. fuel prices. With that, proponents still claim energy security benefits. Yet, with increased use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies, previously inaccessible resources within the U.S. have become economically viable. As a result the U.S. is set to be energy independent sometime within the next decade making the energy security argument behind Keystone XL irrelevant.

But again, these arguments are insufficient means of deciding the pipeline’s fate. The question at hand isn’t a matter of employment, the environment, or the easing prices at the pump. The real question is whether or not the President of the United States is going to allow Americans and their Canadian business partners to construct the necessary infrastructure required for them to freely engage in commerce.

Rarely, if ever, has such extreme scrutiny been applied elsewhere in the economy. When someone wants to build a new restaurant, do we first evaluate that restaurant’s contribution to the jobs market? Will they hire ten chefs or twenty? Should we only allow that restaurant to be built if at least 15 chefs are hired? Do we prohibit the construction of the restaurant because there’s an infinitesimal chance the kitchen may catch fire and burn the building down? The answer, of course, is no and therefore the answer to the Keystone XL question should, of course, be yes.

In the end, the danger in saying no to Keystone XL is not 42,000 or 4,200 jobs lost, higher gas prices, or being held hostage by Arab oil barons. The danger is the precedent such a decision sets and the message it sends. The continued delay by the administration signals that all complex commerce in the future must be blessed by the bureaucracy. The message that sends is that, despite the nation’s lingering economic woes, our friends and neighbors should move along; the United States is closed for business.

Patrick HedgerPatrick Hedger is a Policy Analyst at the FreedomWorks Foundation. He specializes in energy and environmental policy and healthcare policy. Patrick graduated from George Mason University in 2012 with a B.A. in Government and International Politics and is currently pursuing a Master of Public Policy degree at George Mason as well.

1 comment

Leave a Comment