1. 1
Joanne Pan
GES328
Dr. Lansing
May 18, 2016
Balancing the Economy and the Environment: The Keystone Pipeline
Introduction
In 2010, TransCanada applied for a permit through the US State Department to build the
Keystone Pipeline XL. In late 2015, President Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline, a pipeline
that stretched from the boreal forests of Alberta, Canada to the oil refineries of Texas, and would
cut through six states in areas vulnerable to ecological damage. The pipeline was an international
issue because it would go through both Canada and the United States, and was about the future
of energy in America and in international markets. In a statement from his Press Secretary,
President Obama justified his veto by arguing that the points the proponents made weren’t
enough to justify him allowing the pipeline to be built, arguing
…Let me briefly comment on some of the reasons why the State Department rejected this
pipeline. First: The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our
economy…Second: The pipeline would not lower gas prices for American
consumers…Third: Shipping dirtier crude oil into our country would not increase
America’s energy security. What has increased America’s energy security is our strategy
over the past several years to reduce our reliance on dirty fossil fuels from unstable parts
of the world. (Obama, 2015).

2. 2
The United States has historically been dependent on dirty energy and fossil fuels, which
President Obama wants to ease the United States off of. The proposition TransCanada had for the
Canadian government and the American government was to build a pipeline that would link
together the boreal forests of Canada, with its supply of tar sands, to refineries along the Texas
coast and ship it out. Both countries would benefit because Canada has access to a larger market
and the United States gets oil from a stable part of the world.
However, the controversy over the pipeline would gather together an unlikely alliance of
environmentalists, labor unions, First Nation communities in Canada, environmental groups such
as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, and the National Wildlife
Federation (NWF), scientists, and Canadian environmental groups such as the Pembina Institute,
Environmental Defence Canada, and Greenpeace Canada. The rhetoric of protesters and energy
companies shifted governmental action and policy to see how the United States government will
approach future energy projects both domestically and internationally, and how much say
governments, big energy companies and producers have in the energy markets.
Background
In 2010, Canadian energy company TransCanada applied for a permit to build a “1,664-
mile project that would transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day, most of it from Canada’s oil
sands to refineries in Port Arthur, Tex.” (Eilperin, 2014), and would “cross environmentally
sensitive and agriculturally important areas, including Nebraska’s Sandhills and the Ogallala
Aquifer” (Killing KXL, 2015). However, transportation of tar sands can be devastating, as the
2010 Kalamazoo oil spill in Michigan can testify. According to the National Wildlife Federation,
the Kalamazoo, Michigan was built by Canadian company Enbridge, TransCanada’s largest
competitor who

3. 3
…was responsible for the largest and costliest inland oil spill in U.S. history, when a
pipeline rupture sending over a million gallons of tar sands into the Kalamazoo River
system poisoning people and wildlife for miles around. This disaster underscored the
weakness of our state and federal safety regulations, but also showed how unprepared the
industry is to respond to a toxic spill: almost three years later the river remains polluted
despite Enbridge spending nearly $1 billion on the cleanup. (Growth of Tar Sands Across
the Midwest, National Wildlife Federation).
Proponents of the pipeline included TransCanada, the Canadian government and oil
companies, argue that the pipeline would bring jobs and help revitalize the economies of the states
the pipeline ran through, and “improve U.S. energy security and decrease reliance on Middle
Eastern oil” (Song, 2011) while opponents include the domestic and international environmental
groups such as Greenpeace Canada, Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Wildlife
Federation, ranchers and farmers, and landowners who claim that “it will make it harder for the
U.S. to shift away from fossil fuels, and will expand production in Canada’s oil sands” (Eilperin,
2014). Both sides have equally valid arguments, and have taken the issue to court.
During his first term in office, President Obama wanted a comprehensive and thorough
review of the pipeline from his State Department, because as an international issue it fell under
their jurisdiction. Other actors in the issue include TransCanada, the Canadian and US
government, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and eight federal agencies,
which include the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
the Interior and Department of Commerce, oil companies, labor unions, and First Nation
communities in Canada and Native American tribes in the United States. The pipeline sets

4. 4
economic interests against environmental preservation, where the environmental groups want to
save the area and keep it as pristine as possible.
TransCanada claims that there have been five studies, 17,000 pages of scientific analysis,
and a seven year review process and should not have been denied. Legislation for and against the
pipeline was fierce, and in January 2016, TransCanada filed a lawsuit under NAFTA, claiming
that while creating the pipeline may have repercussions on the environment, the economic gains it
would bring would offset that because of all the jobs that would be created. They also claimed that
“Misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and science-rhetoric won out over reason” and as a
result, filed a lawsuit under NAFTA, and will apply for another permit sometime in the future. The
controversy was summed up by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest who said “I would
venture to say that there’s probably no infrastructure project in the history of the United States
that’s been as politicized as this one” (TransCanada, 2015).
TransCanada had spent over seven years waiting for the permit to be approved, and touting
the economic benefits, and repeating what proponents of the pipeline had been telling Congress.
According to their website
This pipeline was intended to be a critical infrastructure project for the energy security of
the United States and for strengthening the American economy. The pipeline would have
meant thousands of much-needed jobs for Americans, increased tax benefits for counties
and communities, and a safe, secure, reliable source of energy to help fuel the everyday
lives of Americans. On November 6, 2015, President Obama denied the required
presidential permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. (TransCanada, 2016).

5. 5
Their rhetoric compelled both Republican and Democratic senators in Congress to help
push the pipeline through. However, in the 113th Congress Senate bill 2280, sponsored by
Senator John Hoever (R-ND) was killed in the Senate by a vote of 59-41, with 45 Republican
Senators and 14 Democratic Senators voting yes, and 39 Democratic Senators and two
Independent Senators voting no. (“Senate Vote 280-Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline.” 2016). The
bill then fell to President Obama in a last-minute effort to push through, and after reviewing all
the documents from the State Department and from other governmental agencies, vetoed it.
President Obama had to balance economic interests against the environment, and with a
presidential election coming up there wasn’t much he could do about it, because approving the
pipeline would “infuriate environmentalists, who not only lent major support to Democrats in the
recent election but will serve as important allies in legislative battles as well as the 2016
presidential race” (Eilperin and Mufson, 2014).
Environmental groups had been trying to persuade the communities and other grassroots
organizations to look at the environmental damage that would be done. In Nebraska, where the
pipeline would affect the Sands Hills landscape and the Ogallala Aquifer, a court decision
invalidated “Keystone XL’s route through Nebraska has reverberations that extend far beyond the
borders of that state and is likely to have a major impact on the federal evaluation process” (Swift,
2014). Nebraska’s district court decision also showed that the “Citizens v Pipeline case is a huge
win for both the citizens of Nebraska as well as the larger global community that would be subject
to the climate impacts from an expanded tar sands industry” (Swift, 2014) despite both Republican
senators voting yes for the bill to be pushed through.
As of January 2016, TransCanada has filed a lawsuit under NAFTA, and will sue the
United States government claiming that they

6. 6
…[H]ad every reason to expect its application would be granted, as the application met the
same criteria the U.S. State Department applied when approving applications to construct
similar cross-border pipelines-including the existing Keystone Pipeline, which has safely
transported more than 1.1 billion barrels of Canadian and American oil through Canada
and the United States. (TransCanada, 2015).
There has been no response from either NAFTA or the United States yet, but it will still
be a political controversy for future Congress sessions and Presidents. However, in early January
Time magazine has said that the lawsuit wouldn’t “take place under U.S. law, nor unfold in U.S.
courts” (Edwards, 2016) but would instead fall under the “Investor-State Dispute Settlement”
jurisdiction, which
…allows foreign investors to challenge sovereign nations’ laws and regulations that they
believe violate the terms of a treaty. Those legal challenges are not considered under U.S.
laws, nor by U.S. judges or juries, but through a special arbitration process that takes
place outside of any nation’s court system. (Edwards, 2016).
Time Politics goes on to explain that the “ISDS has been around for nearly fifty years and
resulted in only eighteen challenges to the U.S., and the U.S. has never lost a challenge. (It has
won 13; five are pending)” (Edwards, 2016). Canadian news outlet CBC News Calgary asked
legal experts about the case, and according to Cyndee Cherniak of LexSage, the “odds are
historically against TransCanada, as the U.S. has a 100 per cent winning percentage in NAFTA
claims” but warns “there could be a first” (CBC News Calgary, 2016).
Native American tribes were another major group that was also affected because it would
go across their land. Public Radio International reports that Native Americans tribes involved

7. 7
include the “Dene and Creek Nations to the Omaha, Ho-chunk and Panka tribes” (Boos, 2015).
Opponents of the pipeline argue that many of the Senators who are expected to vote yes for the
pipeline are fueled by big oil companies, and tribes agree, saying that “a lot of tribes are really
frustrated at the lack of inclusion in the process that’s guaranteed through our treaty rights” and
that “the State Department’s permitting process has overlooked tribal treaties with the federal
government” (Boos, 2015). The clash between conservative Republicans and environmentalists
is shown when the Senate voted to pass the bill or not, and all Republicans voted yes and the
majority of Democrats voted no. In a statement, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said “This veto
tells the world that our nation takes seriously the planetary crisis of global warming and that we
will not support legislation that would let a Canadian oil company ship some of the dirtiest oil on
the planet across the United States” (Eilperin and Zezima, 2015).
The Case
The pipeline has become a controversial issue because both sides have valid arguments,
both Canada and the US are part of NAFTA, and what could happen to the climate are issues that
President Obama and his administration must take into consideration.
The Washington Post explains that there are two reasons it has become similar to the
Alaskan drilling controversy in the 1980s, and scientific evidence to prove that it would undo the
promise 196 countries made in the 2015 Paris Treaty. Washington Post journalist Juliet Eilperin
explained that
Extracting bitumen…from the region is more akin to mining than conventional oil drilling,
and the process of extracting crude or bitumen from oil sands emits roughly 15 percent
more greenhouse gas emissions than the production of the average barrel of crude oil used

8. 8
in the United States…The pipeline also crosses a half dozen states, and the people living
along the route are concerned that spills from the pipeline could damage ecologically-
sensitive habitat. While the project’s sponsor TransCanada says this new pipeline will boast
the newest technology…recent spills like last year’s breach of the Exxon pipeline in
Mayflower, AR has may people worried. (Eilperin, 2014).
In order to turn the tar sands into a form of usable energy, it requires a lot of money and
water, and the outcomes are high pollution levels, heat, and decimated forests. Scientific
American journalist David Biello explained that
Bitumen…requires roughly 12 barrels of water to separate one barrel of it from the sand,
although only three of those barrels are consumed, thanks to recycling. That water also
has ot be hot to separate the clingy hydrocarbon-at least 50 degrees Celsius, which
requires burning natural gas to heat it…it is chemically manipulated further with heat and
pressure in a process known as “upgrading”…that’s just for the tar sands close enough to
the surface-no more than 80 meters deep-to be mined. For deeper deposits, volumes of
superhot pressurized steam are pumped underground to melt out the bitumen so it can be
sucked up to the surface by production wells running in parallel. Such…production
requires less water but far more energy to get the bitumen flowing, resulting in
greenhouse gas emissions some 2.5 times higher than those from mining (Biello, 2016).
TransCanada and its proponents touted the benefits of the pipeline, saying that hundreds
of thousands of new jobs would be created, would be an economic boon and everyone would
share in the money the bitumen would bring. However, opponents say that this ignores the real
issues of how much carbon dioxide and heat is released into the atmosphere from transforming

9. 9
the bitumen into usable energy. In one study done by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, they found that
The…Keystone XL tar sands oil would result in additional greenhouse gas emissions of
27 million metric tons annually compared with conventional oil. Regardless, the tar sands
represent a significant chunk of potential carbon emissions, and those from tar sands have
increased in recent years—up 16 percent since 2009, according to CAPP. Keystone XL
itself would exacerbate that—the U.S. State Department notes that the greenhouse gas
emissions from just the pipeline's pumps would be 4.4 million metric tons per year,
roughly the same as one average U.S. coal-fired power plant (Biello, 2016).
The Montana chapter of the Sierra Club explained how potentially disruptive and
devastating the extraction would be. According to Bob Clark, “Extracting tar sands is one of the
most destructive projects on earth. Reliance on tar sands oil hinders our ability to avoid climate
disaster”, and because “it’s the dirtiest oil on earth with 11 times more sulfur and nickel and 5
times more lead than conventional oil, emits nearly twice the greenhouse gases, and would
exacerbate climate change.” (Clark, 2016).
The pipeline was about the short-term economic impact and boon it would bring to
agricultural communities for the State Department, the state government and local leaders, rather
than the long term issues. Citizens opposing the pipeline argue that it would affect them the most
because it was their land and water that would be polluted if the pipeline went through.
Opponents were looking at the long-term rather than the short term, and found that global
warming would be quicker than ever before. Leading climate scientist James Hansen from
NASA warned that “the tar sands were ‘one of our planet’s greatest threats’” (Killing KXL,
2015).

10. 10
Scientific American concurred with other environmental groups and explained that not
only would the climate suffer but repercussions would be felt for generations. In December 2015,
196 countries came together to agree on a treaty that would decrease the amount of greenhouse
gases, which would allow the United States to reach their goal of “reducing global warming
pollution” (National Wildlife Federation, Keystone XL Pipeline). Although the bill didn’t pass
the Senate, if it had been passed it would be ‘game over’ for the climate, says NASA climate
scientist James Hansen. Scientific American backed him up, saying that the pipeline would
“move enough tar sands oil to result in another 181 million metric tons of greenhouse gases
entering the atmosphere yearly” (Biello, 2013). Although Secretary Clinton had implied that she
wanted to move the pipeline through, the decision ultimately fell to President Obama, who,
according to his aides, wanted to see state decisions before making their own, especially the
states affected. Nebraska’s District Court ruled that the governor had no constitutional power to
allow the pipeline being built because it cut through environmentally sensitive land. Federal
agencies added credence to what environmental activists and their allies had been saying. The
EPA “estimated that Keystone XL tar sands oil would result in additional greenhouse gas
emissions of 27 million metric tons annually compared with conventional oil” (Biello, 2013).
Transportation of the tar sands was also an issues for environmentalists and their allies.
Natural Resources Defense Council anti-tar sands advocate Elizabeth Shope argued that “Other
options like rail or truck are not feasibly for the transportation of large quantities” which could
triple “the cost of moving tar sands oil” (Biello, 2013). An LA Times article found that
…the rail system doesn’t have the capacity for the 830,000 barrels of oil the pipeline is
expected to carry each day. Trucks are even slower. In 2013, the United States shipped
about 8.3 billion barrels of crude oil, according to the An. Of Oil Pipelines. Trains carried

11. 11
only about 291 million barrels of oil that year, according to the Assn. of American
Railroads (Lee, 2015).
Fracking is becoming a method that isn’t as extreme as turning tar sands into oil, and
opponents claim that fracking would be more beneficial, especially hydraulic fracking. Scientific
American defines fracking as “A single fracture of deep shale” with “action that might be
benign” (Scientific American, 2011). According to the American Water Works Association, the
“use of modern, high-volume hydraulic fracturing techniques to enhance production has
increased dramatically in the United States” since 2000. Although both state and federal
governments have attempted to regulate the use of hydraulic fracking, it claims that there isn’t
enough being done. Hertzler argues that “The earliest regulation by states of the oil and gas
industry also focused on oil conservation measures rather than on protection of groundwater and
surface water” (Hertzler, 2014). Although hydraulic fracking produces large amounts of
wastewater, it can be treated through “underground injection, reuse, on-site treatment, and
treatment at publicly owned treatment works or centralized waste facilities” (Hertzler, 2014).
The pipeline however, would destroy the land it runs through and benefit TransCanada.
Fracking causes another set of problems as well, which include new, untested technology,
high costs, land scarring, water contamination and no scientific evidence for regulations so it
depends on a state by state scale. Scientific American wrote that “Some regulators are not
waiting for better science; they are moving toward allowing fracking on an even wider scale”
(Scientific American, 2011). Public health is another problem for fracking and extraction of
natural gas. According to the American Journal of Public Health, chemicals found in fracking
technology can “damage the lungs, liver, kidneys, blood, and brain.” (Finkel, Madelon L., Law,
Adam. 2010).

12. 12
The Environmental Science and Technology journal, part of the American Chemical
Society, argues that fracking would not only destroy land but also get into the water systems of
the states it runs through. Professor Spalding at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln explains that,
“…pipeline construction would disturb fragile Sandhills’ soils and that crude oil releases during
pipeline operation could contaminate large volumes of the Ogallala aquifer. These issues
affected about 225 miles of the route through Nebraska” (Spalding, Roy. 2012). The National
Wildlife Federation compares the pipeline to the “million-gallon Enbridge oil spill in Michigan”
which would negatively affect “America’s agricultural heartland, the Missouri, Platte, and
Niobrara Rivers, the Ogallala Aquifer, habitat for sage grouse and sandhill cranes, walleye
fisheries…Our public water supplies, croplands, and recreational opportunities will all be at risk”
(“Keystone XL Pipeline.” National Wildlife Federation). For environmental activists, the
pipeline was not worth the risk to the environment, especially because it would cause prices in
food to go up and take generations to repair ecologically-sensitive lands. For proponents, the
pipeline is worth the risk to lessen dependency on foreign oil, and would have closer trading ties
with Canada under NAFTA.
Outcomes
Although not unexpected, President Obama had indicated that he would veto the pipeline.
During his administration, he had kept a centrist view on the issue, and in a State of the Union
address said “Let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline” (Liptak, 2015). The White
House Press Office added a statement in late 2015, saying that “The United States will continue
to rely on oil and gas as we transition-as we must transition-to a clean energy economy” (Obama,
2015). He also acknowledged the fact that climate change is a very serious threat and it’s
America’s duty to “fight climate change” (Obama, 2015).

13. 13
The pipeline controversy became a rallying point for environmentalists and their allies
because it would affect everyone, whether economically or environmentally. However,
Republicans in Congress did not agree with President Obama’s veto. CNN reports that in a USA
Today op-ed, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote
“This White House refuses to listen and look for common ground. It’s the same kind of top-
down, tone-deaf leadership we’ve come to expect and we were elected to stop” (Liptuk, 2015).
Another factor in the outcome were the pictures of pipelines already built and used. The
NRDC wrote in Killing KXL that “images of Canada’s lush green boreal forest and what
happened once the industry dug in-a lunar landscape of mines that stretched one to two miles
across, surrounded by enormous mounds of sulfur and pet coke from refineries” (Killing KXL,
2015) helped activists show the devastation in a formerly pristine habitat to skeptics. Other
activists include Native American communities, who claim that the government did not honor
their treaties with the tribes. The EPA warned President Obama that the “State’s assessment was
‘inadequate.’ It recommended reviewing a broader range of environmental issues, including the
potential impacts of a major spill” (Killing KXL, 2015). President Obama had wanted to “cement
his environmental legacy by forging a climate deal with China, imposing carbon limits on U.S.
power plants” (Eilperin and Mufson, 2014).
Conclusions
After the pipeline was proposed, it became a rallying point for environmentalists and
their allies, especially after the Enbridge oil spill in the Kalamazoo River spilled “nearly one
million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River” in Michigan. The spill resulted in
health problems and “the Enbridge pipeline looked as if a bomb had exploded inside it” (Killing
KXL, 2015).

14. 14
Currently, we use some of the most destructive methods known to us allow us to dig
deeper and deeper for fossil fuels, so it costs more to extract it and not enough in renewable
energy. Although the 2015 Paris Treaty had about 196 countries agree to limit their carbon
footprint, they need to find energy sources that won’t cause as much damage and try to slow
global warming and climate change.
The pipeline was also a clash of ideologies, with Republicans in denial about the truth of
climate change. Major media outlets such as The Washington Post, CNN and New York Times
all argue that this was more a fight between conservatives and environmentalists, and more
broadly, a “symbol of the partisan political clash over energy, climate change and the economy”
(Shear and Davenport, 2015).
In the last year of his presidency, President Obama has signed the Paris Treaty along with
196 other nations to curtail the rapid expansion of greenhouse gases. Currently, there is no
timeline to see if TransCanada will win its court case, because NAFTA courts have traditionally
sided with the US. If the court did agree with TransCanada, the next president may have to make
a decision on whether to build or not. However, ignoring what fracking or tar sands may do to
the climate, one thing to keep in mind is the devastation it can cause, especially in the
agricultural heart of America. Although the pipeline may have been built with good intentions,
the environmental destruction it would cause is not worth the risk of being built, especially
because the majority of jobs would be construction and would leave after the project had been
completed.
President Obama’s administration has said that he would choose the course that would
get the United States off of dirty fuel and onto clean energy, and the 2015 Paris Treaty started it.
If TransCanada does get the lawsuit filed and win their case, the next president may have to

15. 15
make a decision about the pipeline. However, NAFTA’s court has yet to release any statement
on TransCanada’s lawsuit against the US State Department, and the next president may have to
make a decision similar to President Obama, where they must balance the economic gains
against the environmental destruction and devastation the pipeline would bring.

16. 16
Bibliography
Biello, David. “Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Exacerbates Climate Change.” Scientific American. 17
April 2013. Web. 7 March 2016.
Boos, Robert. “Keystone Pipeline and Government ‘Disrespect’.” Public Radio International:
Science, Tech & Environment. Public Radio International, 19 February 2015. Web. 21 April
2016.
Clark, Bob. “Keystone XL Pipeline.” Montana Sierra Club. Sierra Club. N.d. Web. 17 February
2016.
Edwards, Haley Sweetlands. “Keystone Pipeline Decision Challenged in Shadowy ‘Court’.”
Time Politics. Time Magazine, 7 January 2016. Web. 21 April 2016.
Eilperin, Juliet. “The Keystone XL Pipeline and Its Politics, Explained.” The Washington Post
Fix. The Washington Post. 4 February 2014. Web. 17 February 2016.
Eilperin, Juliet and Mufson, Steven. “As House Approves Keystone Pipeline Bill, Obama veto
Grows More Likely.” The Washington Post Politics. The Washington Post. 14 November 2014.
Web. 20 April 2016.
Eilperin, Juliet and Zezima, Katie. “Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Bill.” The Washington Post
Politics. The Washington Post. 24 February 2015. Web. 19 April 2016.
Finkel, Madelon L., Law, Adam. “The Rush to Drill for Natural Gas: A Public Health
Cautionary Tale.” American Journal of Public Health. American Public Health Association
101:5 (2011): 784-785. Web. 9 March 2016.

17. 17
“Growth of Tar Sands Across the Midwest.” National Wildlife Federation. What We Do:
Confronting Climate Change. N.d. Web. 20 April 2016.
Hertzler, Patricia Carroll. “Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Operations at the Federal and
State Levels.” American Water Works Association 106:11 (2014): 58-65. Computers & Applied
Sciences Complete. Web. 5 March 2016.
“Killing KXL: How an Unlikely Coalition of Environmental Activists Stopped the Destructive
Tar Sands Oil Pipeline.” Natural Resources Defense Council Stories. Natural Resources Defense
Council. 12 August 2015. Web. 19 April 2016.
“Keystone XL Rejection Leads TransCanada to Sue Obama Administration.” CBC Canada.
CBA News. 6 January 2016. Web. 17 February 2016.
Lee, Kurtis. “Keystone XL Oil Pipeline: What You Need to Know About the Dispute.” LA
Times. LA Times, 6 March 2015. Web. 22 March 016.
Liptak, Kevin. “Obama Rejects Keystone XL Bill.” CNN Politics. CNN. 25 February 2015. Web.
17 February 2016.
“Senate Vote 280-Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline.” New York Times Politics. New York Times,
18 November 2014. Web. 22 March 2016.
Shear, Michael D., and Davenport, Coral. “Obama Vetoes Bill Pushing Pipeline Approval.” New
York Times Politics. New York Times, 24 February 2015. Web. 22 April 2016.
Song, Lisa. “Keystone XL Primer: How the Pipeline’s Route Could Impact the Ogallala
Aquifer.” Inside Climate News. Inside Climate News, 11 August 2011. Web. 21 April 2016.

18. 18
Spalding, Roy F. and Hirsh, Aaron J. “Risk-Managed Approach for Routing Petroleum
Pipelines: Keystone XL Pipeline, Nebraska.” Environmental Science & Technology 46.23
(2012): 12754-12758. Business Source Premier. Web. 5 March 2016.
Swift, Anthony. “Nebraska’s Court Ruling Deeming Keystone XL’s Route Void Is a Win for
Landowners, Water and Climate.” Natural Resources Defense Council. Natural Resources
Defense Council, 21 February 2014. Web. 21 April 2016.
“TransCanada Challenges Keystone XL Denial.” TransCanada. TransCanada. N.d. Web. 17
February 2016.
United States. Department of State.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency.
United States. Roosevelt Room. Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Washington: 2015. Web.
Warrick, Joby, Mooney, Chris. “196 Countries Approve Historic Climate Agreement.” The
Washington Post. The Washington Post. 12 December 2015. Web. 9 March 2016.