Keystone XlEdit

Keystone XL is the planned extension of the Keystone Pipeline System designed to move heavy crude from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. The project would run from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, and on to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to reach Gulf Coast facilities. Proponents describe it as a straightforward way to improve energy security, support domestic jobs, and supply U.S. refineries with a steady source of crude from a nearby, stable partner nation. Critics, by contrast, raise concerns about climate impact, spill risk, and impacts on land and water, as well as questions about whether the project would meaningfully alter U.S. energy dynamics. Supporters argue that transporting oil by pipeline is safer and more efficient than rail or truck, and that a robust energy infrastructure is essential to economic growth.

The project is commonly referred to as Keystone XL, a name that reflects its role as the northern leg of the broader Keystone system. If built, Keystone XL would have carried roughly 830,000 barrels per day at peak capacity and would have extended a network already used to move large volumes of crude from Canada into U.S. refining centers Keystone Pipeline TC Energy.

History

Origins and purpose

The proposal originated with TransCanada (now known as TC Energy) and evolved as a step to transport crude from the Alberta oil sands to refining hubs in the United States. The intended route would take crude from Alberta oil sands through the central plains and into Gulf Coast refineries, aligning with longstanding goals of energy diversification and near-term energy security for domestic markets.

Regulatory process and political milestones

The project became a flashpoint in national energy and environmental debates. It required a Presidential Permit because it crossed an international border, and its regulatory review encompassed assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental and land-use reviews.
In 2015, the administration in power at the time declined to grant the permit, citing environmental concerns and the broader question of how the project fit within climate and energy policy. The decision reflected a broader political moment in which infrastructure decisions were weighed against environmental commitments.
In 2017, a new administration granted a Presidential Permit, reviving the project and signaling a different approach to energy infrastructure and federal permitting.
The permit faced ongoing legal challenges and regulatory scrutiny in subsequent years, including debates over route variations, spill risks, and environmental impacts. Advocates argued that a timely decision on Keystone XL would reduce uncertainty for workers and investors and help integrate Canadian crude into U.S. refining capacity. Critics maintained that approval would lock in higher greenhouse-gas emissions and set a precedent for weaker environmental review.
In early 2021, the administration that opposed the project again acted to revoke or suspend the cross-border permit, leaving the pipeline in limbo. The halt reflected a shift in policy priorities toward climate objectives and a broader reexamination of fossil-fuel infrastructure. Legal and regulatory disputes continued in some jurisdictions, with supporters arguing that restoration of the project would restore momentum for a large-scale energy project and opponents pressing continued opposition on climate and land-use grounds.

Construction, economics, and land use

The pipeline would have required crossing a number of states and private lands, raising issues related to eminent domain, compensation for landowners, and the handling of sensitive environmental areas. Proponents argue that pipelines are the safest and most economical means of transporting large volumes of crude over land, reducing the relative risk of rail transport and the costs of shipping by truck. Critics emphasize the potential for leaks or spills, and the need to protect groundwater and ecosystems along the route.
Economic arguments focus on job creation during construction, long-term maintenance, and tax revenue for localities along the route. Supporters also point to improved reliability and price stability for consumers and manufacturers who depend on steady supplies of crude. Opponents caution that the local and regional costs—whether in the form of land value impacts, environmental stewardship costs, or potential adverse climate effects—need to be weighed against any short-term economic gains.

Economic and energy implications

Energy security and diversification: The project is framed as a way to diversify supply sources for U.S. refineries, reducing exposure to disruptions in other parts of the world and strengthening ties with a close neighbor and partner in energy. The arrangement would have integrated a stable Canadian supply with U.S. refining capacity on the Gulf Coast.
Domestic jobs and investment: Construction and long-term operation would have generated jobs and capital investments in the regions along the route, with indirect benefits to suppliers and service sectors. This aligns with broader views that a robust energy sector supports economic growth, tax bases, and regional development.
Refinery integration and market access: Heavy crude from the oil sands is compatible with many Gulf Coast refineries designed to process such feedstocks. The project would have helped ensure a steady feedstock flow to U.S. processing facilities and could influence regional crude markets. See Gulf Coast refineries and Alberta oil sands for related context.
Environmental trade-offs: Proponents stress that pipelines are a lower-emission mode of transport for crude relative to rail, trucks, or other methods, potentially reducing accidents and spills per ton-mile. Critics note that even if transport is relatively efficient, the project would enable ongoing production of oil sands crude, which have higher lifecycle emissions than some other crude sources. This debate sits within the broader framework of climate policy, energy policy, and economic growth objectives.

Environmental and regulatory debates

Climate and emissions: A central point of contention concerns lifecycle emissions and the role of oil sands production in climate change. Supporters assert that maintaining and expanding access to stable, nearby oil supplies supports American refineries without necessarily locking in higher emissions than other supply chains, and that energy security has value in its own right. Critics argue that approving new cross-border pipelines undermines climate objectives and could lock in long-term fossil-fuel infrastructure.
Water resources and land impacts: Route considerations included potential interactions with groundwater resources and sensitive ecosystems. Proponents contend that pipeline construction and operation can be tightly regulated to minimize risk, maintain safety, and protect water resources, while opponents emphasize the potential for spills and the disruption of local ecosystems and Indigenous lands.
Indigenous communities and land rights: The route intersected lands used or claimed by various Indigenous groups and other landowners. Some communities supported the project for economic development and energy ties with Canada, while others opposed it on grounds of sovereignty, environmental protection, or concerns about consent and consultation. The discussion highlights broader questions about how infrastructure projects are planned, approved, and implemented in relation to affected communities.
Regulatory process and oversight: The controversy has often centered on how environmental reviews are conducted, the adequacy of impact assessments, and the speed and transparency of permitting decisions. Advocates for a quicker permitting timeline emphasize the need for a clear and predictable regulatory framework to support energy investment, while opponents stress thorough safeguards and accountability.