Lisa Song's articles

The Keystone XL oil pipeline may have stalled for now, but a group of Nebraskans is worried that the project—which will likely be resurrected in some form—would still pass through regions of the state that are vulnerable to oil spills.

Seven landowners met with Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman on Thursday to discuss their concerns. They brought along a slideshow of maps and photos and signed their presentation "by Stewards of the Land."

The pipeline was originally slated to pass through the Sandhills, a fragile ecosystem that overlies the Ogallala aquifer in north-central Nebraska. But last November, TransCanada, the Alberta-based company that is trying to build the project, bowed to pressure and agreed to reroute the pipeline away from the Sandhills. The company had begun searching for a new route when the Obama administration rejected the pipeline permit on Jan. 18.

What worries the ranchers is the map that Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ, is using to define the edges of the Sandhills. The map marks off the land TransCanada must avoid, but the landowners say it should also include nearby areas with sandy soil and a high water table—the same characteristics that make the Sandhills so vulnerable.

Official action on the Keystone XL pipeline review has virtually ground to a halt since President Obama rejected the pipeline permit. The U.S. State Department can't proceed until TransCanada, the company that wants to build the project, files a new application. And Nebraska's environmental officials need further direction from the state or federal government before they continue rerouting the pipeline out of the fragile Sandhills.

That leaves the next step to TransCanada, which has been trying to get the project approved since 2008. Spokesman Shawn Howard told InsideClimate News that the company still intends to pursue the project, but it is now considering several options in addition to the original route.

Two of those options would avoid crossing the U.S.-Canada border. That means TransCanada wouldn't need approval from the State Department, which oversees energy infrastructure projects that cross an international boundary.

"We have to decide what the new application will look like," Howard said. "That [decision is] ultimately made for us by our shippers and our customers."

When the Obama administration rejected the Keystone XL oil pipeline last week, it cited concerns over the project's route through Nebraska as one reason for its decision. That segment of the pipeline is now being rerouted, in response to Nebraskans who spent years persuading lawmakers to move the tar sands pipeline—intended to carry crude oil from Alberta, Canada to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast—out of the Nebraska Sandhills, a fragile ecosystem that overlies the Ogallala aquifer.

Nebraska state Sen. Ken Haar, a 68-year-old Democrat who is nearing the end of his first term, played a key role in the movement's success. Haar has worked as a science teacher, business owner and inventor, and is a former executive director of the state's Democratic Party. He helped found the Save Our Sandhills coalition, a non-partisan group that includes organizations as diverse as the Sierra Club and the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska. Haar was also the first public official to call for a special session of the legislature to discuss a pipeline reroute.

In November, that special session was finally held, and an agreement was reached with TransCanada to move the pipeline out of the Sandhills. One of the bills passed during the session gave the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) authority to study alternative pipeline routes.

In an interview with InsideClimate News, Haar talked about his plans for the future, why he chose to get involved in the Keystone XL controversy and the importance of citizen activism. He also warned that the public must remain vigilant, because the pipeline will likely be built.

As the Feb. 21 deadline approaches for the Obama administration's decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, the project's supporters have launched a new advertising campaign touting its job benefits. A full-page ad placed in the New York Times this week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the president not to say "no" to "20,000 jobs." But that number isn't as straightforward as it seems.

Twenty thousand jobs is the number used by TransCanada, the Alberta-based company that wants to build the pipeline. In a recent news release, TransCanada said the Keystone XL would create 13,000 direct construction jobs and 7,000 manufacturing jobs.

Opponents of the pipeline say TransCanada has inflated the number of construction jobs by ignoring two facts: That most of the jobs would be temporary, and that there's a big difference between hiring people for varying periods of time and creating jobs.

Reports from two other sources—the U.S. State Department and Cornell University—say that no more than 6,000 jobs would be created by the pipeline, which would funnel up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands mines of Alberta, Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Much of the confusion centers around different definitions of what counts as a job.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has been publicized as a major jobs creator, but recent unemployment figures indicate that few of those jobs will go to people who live along the project's route.

According to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 57 counties in the pipeline's path have some of the nation's lowest unemployment rates. And since most of the construction jobs will go to skilled union laborers, only a fraction of the local people who are looking for work would likely qualify for those positions.

If approved, the crude oil pipeline would cross six states—Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas—on its way from the tar sands mines of Alberta, Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. According to November data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rates in the majority of the counties along the route were between 2.0 and 5.7 percent, much lower than the national rate of 8.7 percent. (The lowest national unemployment rate in the past 20 years was 4.0 percent in 2000.)

Only six of the Keystone XL counties had unemployment rates at or above the national rate of 8.7 percent. 

"There's no question that some communities are much better off than others," said Shawn Howard, a spokesman for TransCanada, the company that wants the build the pipeline. "That's fortunate for them."

A bill intended to force the Obama administration to make a quick decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline is causing confusion and could even slow the pipeline review.

When President Obama signed legislation to extend the payroll tax cut on Dec. 23, he also enacted an amendment, introduced by GOP members of Congress, requiring him to approve or deny the pipeline project within 60 days, or by Feb. 21.

But Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which is trying to reroute the pipeline around Nebraska's sensitive Sandhills, said it will take at least six months to choose and approve the new route.

A spokeswoman from the State Department—the federal agency in charge of the Keystone XL review—declined to discuss how the administration will deal with the conflict between those two dates. But interviews with spokesmen for the DEQ and TransCanada, the company that wants to build the pipeline, indicate that the federal legislation could inadvertently slow the reroute process. 

Before work on the reroute can fully proceed, the DEQ and TransCanada said they need a memorandum from the State Department outlining the agency's involvement in the process.

If the Keystone XL oil pipeline were approved today, residents in the six states along its route would not receive equal treatment from TransCanada, the company that wants to build the project.

The differences are particularly striking when it comes to tax revenue and environmental protection. States with stronger regulations have won protections for their citizens, while other states sometimes focused more on meeting TransCanada's needs.

In Kansas, for example, lawmakers gave TransCanada a 10-year tax exemption, which means the state won't receive any property tax revenue from the pipeline. Meanwhile, each of the other five states—Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas—would earn between $14 million and $63 million a year, according to U.S. State Department estimates.

Click here for a chart that compares how the six states are dealing with the Keystone XL pipeline.

When it comes to route changes and protection for landowners, residents of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas have fared the worst, because their states haven't created any regulations to safeguard their interests.

"All the power is in the hands of the pipeline companies," said Chris Wilson, an independent environmental consultant from Texas who opposes the Keystone XL. Landowners along the route "are really screwed…there's no one in the government they can call for help."

The Obama administration put the Keystone XL on hold in November, saying it needed another year to reassess the environmental risks the project could pose. Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are trying to force the president to make his decision by February 21. The pipeline would move oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

In the weeks since the Obama administration decided to delay its decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, TransCanada has said repeatedly that it could build the southern segment of the project without waiting for State Department approval.

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard made that claim again last week, when he told InsideClimate News that the pipeline's southern leg—from Cushing, Okla. to the Gulf Coast—doesn’t require State Department approval because it doesn't cross an international boundary.

"We believe we can start building now," Howard said.

But six environmental law and policy experts interviewed by InsideClimate News say that building the southern segment would violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which applies to federal projects that have "significant" environmental impacts.

"Case laws are pretty clearly defined. [You're] not supposed to get around NEPA by breaking up a project," said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

A week after a Canadian company agreed to reroute the Keystone XL oil pipeline out of the fragile Nebraska Sandhills, the initial relief felt by many Nebraskans has been tempered by the realization that the pipeline controversy is not over.

One of the many questions that remains unanswered is where the new route will go—and what protections will be provided for the people who live along its path. The legislature is expected to pass two pipeline bills on Tuesday, but neither offers any safeguards for landowners outside the Sandhills who may be affected by Keystone XL.

Rerouting the pipeline "represents a very substantial step forward," said Nebraska Farmers Union president John Hansen. "[But] from our standpoint, where we represent all landowners, we've sort of traded one set of landowners for another."

Connie and Leon Weichman had just finished branding some calves Monday when Connie's niece texted her the news: TransCanada, the Alberta-based company that wants to build an oil pipeline through the middle of the United States, had finally agreed to reroute it away from the Nebraska Sandhills where the Weichmans live and ranch.

The couple had been looking forward to this moment for almost four years, but the victory was less than they'd hoped for. TransCanada's agreement with the Nebraska state legislature would keep the pipeline out of the Sandhills, an ecologically sensitive prairie that overlies the Ogallala aquifer. But it wouldn't do anything to prevent the next route from swinging close enough to the Weichmans' property to endanger their land. And it wouldn't protect Nebraska ranchers outside the Sandhills, who are equally dependent on regional groundwater.

Connie Weichman, a middle-aged woman with graying hair and silver-rimmed glasses, doesn't consider herself an environmentalist and had never before participated in local politics. But along with a steadily growing group of Nebraskans—most of them also first-time activists—she and her husband played a key role in moving the pipeline route out of the Sandhills. Last week the State Department extended the pipeline review process by a year to study alternative routes through Nebraska. Four days later, TransCanada announced it would forgo the Sandhills route.

Environmental groups throughout the nation have celebrated these events as a significant achievement in their battle to stop the pipeline, which would funnel up to 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. But they also agree that the unlikely activists from Nebraska helped turn the tide.