• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Timeline: Keystone's Three Years in Limbo

    President Obama announced he was rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline project Wednesday, blaming Republicans in Congress for forcing him to make a decision. The pipeline would have transported up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada to Oklahoma and Texas.

    “This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people,” Obama said in a statement. “I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision.”

    Below is a comprehensive timeline of the project, providing details about major actions over the past 40 months from the time the State Department first received the application.

    Sept. 19, 2008: The State Department receives an application from TransCanada to build the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, and announces that it will conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

    Jan. 1 – June 1, 2009: State conducts 20 “scoping meetings” to explore the issues that should be addressed in the EIS, and consults with federal and state agencies and Indian tribes impacted by the pipeline.

    April 16, 2010: State releases its draft EIS, which finds that the Keystone pipeline would have “limited adverse environmental impacts during both construction and operation.” This finding would be supported by subsequent environmental assessments by the department. The draft report also notes that, in the absence of the pipeline, “crude oil would likely be shipped to countries outside of North America, which would require new infrastructure that would result in environmental impacts at least as great as those of the proposed project.”

    April 16 – Sept. 1, 2010: The department solicits comments on the proposed pipeline, twice extending the comment period due to the volume of submissions it receives. After receiving nearly 1,800 verbal and written comments, State ends the comment period at the request of federal agencies.

    June 2010: Meetings held in Texas and Washington, D.C., in response to public comments.

    Sept. 14, 2010: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the International Union of Operating Engineers endorse the pipeline, marking the beginning of a rare political alliance that pits supporters of increased energy production and labor unions against environmental groups.

    Oct. 15, 2010: Asked about the Keystone XL pipeline at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says “we are inclined” to approve the project.

    Oct. 25, 2010: The general presidents of four major labor unions representing more than 2.5 million workers urge the State Department to approve the pipeline.

    Dec. 7, 2010: State hosts meetings between Indian tribes and federal officials in Washington to address concerns about the pipeline.

    Jan. 1, 2011: TransCanada, Keystone’s parent company, agrees to 57 safety measures relating to the construction, operation and design of the pipeline. The measures were a joint creation of the State Department and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

    March 6, 2011: In a show of bipartisanship, Democratic Sens. Mark Begich (AK), Mary Landrieu (LA), and Max Baucus (MT), join 11 of their Republican colleagues in endorsing the pipeline. “Now more than ever, it is critical that this country move forward with this project,” they write in a letter to Clinton.

    April 15, 2011: State releases a supplemental draft EIS, which, it notes, “does not alter the conclusions” reached by its initial statement a year earlier.

    April 15 – June 6, 2011: State opens another comment period following its supplemental draft EIS, soliciting a whopping 280,000 public comments.

    May 23, 2011: Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) introduces the North American-Made Energy Security Act, which would force the president to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline by Nov. 1, 2011.

    July 25, 2011: The White House releases a “Statement of Administration Policy” calling Terry’s bill unnecessary, since State “has publicly committed to reaching a decision” before year’s end.

    July 26, 2011: The House passes Terry’s bill by voice vote. It never receives Senate consideration.

    Aug. 26, 2011: State releases its final EIS, which supports moving ahead with the pipeline. The department “does not regard the No Action Alternative to be preferable to the proposed Project,” it states. Among its key findings:

    • Construction of the pipeline would not affect fossil fuel demand – which it noted is expected to grow substantially over the next 10 years – meaning its absence would not contribute to the president’s “green energy” agenda, which involves compelling consumers to seek alternatives to fossil fuels;
    • The “No Action Alternative” would lead to increased American imports of oil from nations that “are not secure and reliable sources of crude oil, including the Middle East, Africa, Mexico, and South America”;
    • If unable to import oil through the Keystone pipeline, Canadian producers would simply seek other customers using alternative methods of transportation.

    Aug. 26 – Oct. 9, 2011: State conducts its National Interest Determination, soliciting public comments and holding meetings in six states and Washington, D.C.

    Oct. 20, 2011: Continuing the labor movement’s support for the project, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers states, “the Keystone project will put thousands back to work and have ripple benefits throughout the North American economy. Our members look forward to being part of this historic project and pledge to deliver the highest quality work to make it a success.”

    Nov. 10, 2011: President Obama announces he is delaying the project “in light of additional information gleaned from consultations with Nebraska state and local officials as well as public comments.” Citing concerns over the pipeline’s effects on the Sand Hills region, Obama questions whether the pipeline “is in the national interest.” The president makes clear that no decision will be made on Keystone before the 2012 election.

    Nov. 14, 2011: TransCanada announces that it has reached an agreement with Nebraska officials on an alternate pipeline route through the state, which avoids the Sand Hills region.

    Nov. 22, 2011: Nebraska enacts a law codifying a process for approving the route and directing the state’s Department of Environmental Quality to cooperate with State in moving it forward.

    Nov. 30 – Dec. 15, 2011: Keystone receives support from numerous Senate Democrats, including Baucus, Jon Tester (MT), Kent Conrad (ND), Claire McCaskill (MO), and Joe Manchin (WV).

    Dec. 13, 2011: Steel pipe manufacturer Welspun Tubular announces that it had to lay off 60 employees as a result of the delays in permit approval for the Keystone pipeline.

    Dec. 23, 2011: The House and Senate unanimously approve and Obama signs the payroll tax bill, which requires the president to approve or deny the Keystone permit within 60 days.

    Jan. 18, 2012: Obama announces he is denying the Keystone XL permit, and cites inadequate environmental examination.

    Jan. 19, 2012: Reports indicate that Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper is looking to sell crude to China in light of Obama’s Keystone XL rejection.

    Posted in Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Timeline: Keystone's Three Years in Limbo

    1. Soco Steve says:

      rolling, so it's the republican's fault because they forced this idiot to MAKE A DECISION, and we all know he hates to do that, what a tool this dude is.

    2. Ben says:

      So Obama signs the law requiring him to make a decision, and then — after denying the permits — blames Republicans?

      Politics is the art of information exploitation.

    3. Rob says:

      "As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree. "

      Is he supposed to ignore this? jobs at the expense of health? The convo would be alot different if you lived somewhere that was directly impacted by this pipeline. Imagine investing money in this pipeline and then stopping the project due to health suits or whatever. Lost money….

    4. Scott says:

      Rob, The impact has been studied for YEARS. The State Department ALREADY found it would have “limited adverse environmental impacts during both construction and operation.” Even so, The President said his concern was with the pipeline location through the "Sand Hills region". So the pipeline company and the State of Nebraska agreed to MOVE the pipeline. The President's concerns were addressed post haste! He still balked.

      This isn't about anyone's health or safety. The pipline company has already agreed to meet the State Department and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's construction and operating guidelines.

      Adding 1700 miles of on-shore pipeline to the already existing 55,000 miles of crude oil pipelines, and the 95,000 miles of refined product piplines along with the other 40,000 miles of gathering piplines is just business as usual. This is NOT unchartered territory demanding hands-on Presidential oversight.

    5. Bolo says:

      Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008)
      This is exactly what the so-called progressives want. Along with population control. Mark my words.

    6. Daneshia says:

      Looking at the facts of the project, by this being the dirtiest oil that needs to be refined, it also has corrosion capabilities that will risk a spill, human health, water and air supply and our wildlife and ecosystems. If you really think about it, the so called created jobs are not permanent, maybe for about a year. There would be more jobs lost if this project was approved than what would be created even temporarily. And get this!! the tar sand will not be helping our gas prices either because most will be exported. Do we really want to risk all of that because people want to make us think our gas prices will DRASTICALLY drop and for a hand full of permanent jobs?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.