Was the Keystone XL Pipeline Really Cancelled for Environmental Reasons?

On his first day in office in 2021, Joe Biden canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline project. This decision was made with promises to fight climate change in mind, but it has led to debates about whether it truly helped the environment. This article will break down the history of the pipeline, the financial hit the oil company took, how moving oil by train might affect the environment more than pipelines, the risks of oil spills, and how land is fixed after pipeline projects.

History of the Pipeline

Way back in 2008, TC Energy (formerly TransCanada) came up with the idea for the Keystone XL Pipeline. It was meant to take oil from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, down to Nebraska in the U.S., where it would connect with other pipelines to go to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Right from the start, people were worried about its impact on the environment, how it would affect Native American lands, and the possible harm to farming areas and water sources like the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer.

Side note: I am a member of the Cherokee Nation Tribe, and even being a Native American myself, I do not agree with Biden’s decision to cancel this pipeline. We need to end energy poverty.

Why Was It Canceled for Environmental Reasons?

President Biden decided to cancel the pipeline because mining oil from the oil sands in Alberta creates more pollution than getting oil in the usual ways. His plan was to reduce how much we depend on oil to help fight climate change. There was also worry about oil spills, especially in sensitive places, which could hurt the environment badly.

Money Matters

The cancellation hit TC Energy hard financially. They had already spent billions on this project. When you add up what they'd already put in, plus legal costs and the money they'd lose by not finishing it, it was a big financial blow.

Switching to Trains = More Pollution?

After the pipeline was canceled, Canada didn't stop producing oil from the oil sands. Instead, they started using trains more to get the oil to the U.S. Trains, however, can cause more pollution than pipelines when moving oil far distances. This shift raises the question: did canceling the pipeline really help the environment if more oil is now going by train, which pollutes more?

Spill Risks - Pipeline vs. Train

Pipelines are usually safer for moving lots of oil over long distances because there are fewer chances for accidents. If a pipeline does leak, it's often in one spot and can be fixed. Trains, however, can derail anywhere, and while spills might be smaller, they can happen in unexpected places, causing quick environmental damage.

Fixing the Land

When a pipeline is built or if there's a spill, the companies like TC Energy work to fix the land. They plant native plants, take care of the soil so it can support life again, and watch the area over time to make sure it's recovering. They also pay landowners if there's lasting damage. Oftentimes, these lands are restored to a condition better than before.

So, Was It Really Because of Environmental Reasons?

Biden's move to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was supposedly about protecting the environment by leaning away from oil. But since oil production from Alberta didn't drop and more oil started moving by train, we have to wonder if this was the best way to help the environment. While pipelines have their risks, the increase in train transport has its own set of environmental drawbacks. This situation shows how tricky it can be to balance environmental goals, money matters, and the need for energy and ending energy poverty.