Subcommittees Hold Hearing on Keystone XL Pipeline - Committee Democrats Emphasize Safety and Environmental Concerns
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittees on Energy and Environment held a joint hearing entitled, “Keystone XL Pipeline: Examining Scientific and Environmental Issues.” The completed Keystone XL pipeline would transport tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast. The State Department recently released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) on the pipeline.
Democratic Members of the Subcommittees discussed a number of issues regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline such as how the extraction and combustion of tar sands releases more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil; what impact the pipeline’s construction and use will have on agriculture and cattle grazing; how corrosive tar sands oil is relative to conventional oil; how the cleanup of tar sands oil spills require different responses than conventional oil spills; and the threat the pipeline would pose to water resources.
Ranking Member of the Energy Subcommittee, Eric Swalwell (D-CA), said, “I support an ‘all of the above’ approach to energy and I understand the good these jobs could do for communities, but I think that when you are dealing with so many miles, a thousand miles with this particular project, it is in our interest to make sure that we get it right. Although it has taken four years to look at this project, it could take only a matter of seconds to cause devastating consequences to our environment, our earth and people around the pipeline. I think it is worth making sure that we get it right.”
Democratic Members also discussed claims that the construction of the pipeline would create many jobs and would help the U.S. achieve energy independence. They heard testimony on the DSEIS that finds that the pipeline would create several thousand temporary construction jobs and other jobs indirectly related to the construction project, but that the ongoing operation of the project will generate only 35 permanent jobs. The pipeline would also do little to insulate the U.S. from oil price volatility or a potential supply disruption in the Middle East because the tar sands oil will only make up a tiny percentage of the global market and the U.S. will have no claim on that oil.
Ranking Member of the Environment Subcommittee, Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) reminded Committee members of the consequences of ignoring long-term outcomes in favor of short-term objectives. “Short-term benefits to our economy should not be overlooked, but they should be considered alongside the substantial environmental and safety challenges presented by the pipeline, including the potentially disastrous impact on the local economy if a spill were to occur. The EPA recently recommended that the State Department take a closer look at how spills of oil sands may require different response actions or equipment from response actions for conventional oil spills. That’s why Congress requested that the National Academy of Sciences study this type of oil, and it is my hope that we will soon know more about what differences exist between oil sands and conventional crudes.”
Mr. Anthony Swift with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) testified as the witness for the Minority. He said, “The substantial risks of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline outweigh its marginal benefits. Keystone XL would enable a substantial expansion of tar sands and substantial climate pollution associated with it. The pipeline would endanger critical jobs on ranches and farms in the Great Plains states in order to transport tar sands to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. In exchange for 35 permanent jobs, Keystone XL would pose a permanent risk to American communities, sensitive water resources and agricultural industry…The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would undermine U.S. efforts to reduce its carbon emissions, threaten communities and sensitive water resources, and increase refinery emissions in the Gulf Coast in order to provide tar sands producers a means of exporting their product on the international market. This tradeoff is not in the nation’s interest.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article