Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography: Keystone XL Pipeline Extension


Atwood, A. & Roy, J. (2012, February 1). President Obama was right to reject the Keystone pipeline. Oregon Live. Retrieved from http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/president_obama_was_right_to_r.html

This online opinion piece was written by the lawyer for and a co-director of a pair of Oregon environmental agencies. They issue a rebuttal to a pro-Keystone XL editorial by discussing the negative impact the extension would have on climate, American wildlife and wildlife. They also cite an underwhelming jobs creation estimate from the State Department to negate the economic argument in support of Keystone XL. Furthermore, they argue that much of the oil it produces will be exported, and that it will not affect the U.S.’ need for imports significantly. This piece’s genre, as well as its writers’ backgrounds, indicate that it is biased. It will help me frame the arguments being waged against Keystone XL by environmentalists.


Cockburn, Alexander. (2011, September 26). Secrets of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Nation 293(13), 9. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.

In this article for The Nation, Cockburn lampoons the State Department’s encouraging environmental impact report of August 2011—which would be contradicted when the State Department denied Keystone XL pending more time for reconsideration in January of 2012—and assumes Obama will bend to Republican pressure and allow KXL. This was written before Obama delayed the decision until 2013. However, the interesting portion of this article is Cockburn’s assertion that KXL is merely a moneymaker for Big Oil, particularly Valero, which plans to export the crude to a hungry foreign market. The source and tone of this article make its ideological bias clear; however, it is helpful because it offers a purely economic argument that undercuts KXL proponents’ promises of energy security and independence.



Congressional Digest. (2011, December). Keystone XL pipeline overview. Congressional Digest 90(10), 290-295. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.

This report by Congressional Digest provides an overview of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, describing the need for a presidential permit, the potential to connect with the U.S.’ Bakken oil shale formation, and the environmental impact report requirements. Most interestingly for my purposes, it provides a primer on the arguments for and against construction of Keystone XL. This will help me identify the major issues at play in this controversy. This piece appears to be unbiased in its description of the opposing arguments over KXL.



Cornell University Global Labor Institute. (2011, September). Pipe dreams? Jobs gained, jobs lost by the construction of Keystone XL. Retrieved from http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

This report investigates job creation claims made by TransCanada and finds them to be exaggerated. In fact, this study finds that Keystone XL may destroy more jobs through increased gas prices in the Midwest, health care costs, spillage costs, and a downsizing of the green energy industry. While it has a critical lens, this is a fact-driven report from a scholarly source that will help me place the economic argument for KXL in a critical context.


Energy and Commerce Committee. (2011, December). North American-made energy security act: H.R. 1938 background and rationale. Congressional Digest 90(10), 303-320. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.

This is a short report that describes and criticizes the permit approval process that has been undertaken for KXL. It is primarily useful in helping me understand the essence of, and justifications for, H.R. 1938, which provided Obama with an ultimatum for making a national interest determination for KXL. This report is biased in that it conveys the opinions and rationalizations of a group that is for KXL and is urging an executive decision regarding it.



Giles, Cynthia. (2011, June 6). Keystone XL project comment letter. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from http://www.bilateralist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/keystone-xl-project-epa-comment-letter-20110125.pdf

This letter from Giles to the State Department (DOS) explains why the EPA found the State Department’s Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) inadequate in its treatment of KXL’s potential for spills, greenhouse gas emissions, and impact on wildlife and wetlands. This letter’s critique of the State Department’s draft—when compared to its Final EIS—can help me understand how thoroughly the DOS shored up the flaws pointed out by the EPA. The EPA has an interest in conservation and climate policy and is required by law to critique the DOS’ draft; however, this source is unbiased in tone as its aim is to improve the substantive depth of the DOS’ EIS.



Hudson, Audrey. (2012, January 30). Republicans move to revive Keystone XL. Human Events 68(4), 1-20. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.

This article includes remarks from a number of lawmakers, mostly Republicans, who are unhappy with Obama’s deferral of the KXL decision until 2013. It also describes Rep. Lee Terry’s (R-Neb.) bill, the North American Energy Access Act, to transfer decision-making power on KXL from the State Department to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This article comes from Human Events, a biased source billed as “The National Conservative Weekly.” It could be useful as it includes a number of remarks from lawmakers that represent the arguments being waged in the House on KXL.



Investor’s Business Daily Editorial Staff. (2011, April 5). An oil market of our very own. Investor’s Business Daily. Retrieved from http://news.investors.com/article/568232/201104051839/an-oil-market-of-our-very-own.htm

In this editorial for Investor’s Business Daily, the writers argue that the Keystone XL extension would ease gas prices and help Obama’s approval ratings. They predict that it“would eventually transport a million barrels of crude a day,” and accuse Washington Democrats and environmentalists of opposing it based on ideology and not evidence. Finally, the writers express hope that Keystone XL could start a North American oil market, providing greater energy security. This editorial’s genre and source betray its bias, which will help me define the arguments being waged by interested parties for the construction of Keystone XL.



Jones, Kerri-Ann. (2012, January 18). Briefing on the Keystone XL pipeline. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/01/181492.htm

In this conference call, the State Department’s Kerri-Ann Jones fields a number of questions from the media about the State Department’s decision to advise Obama against approving KXL in response to Congress’ 60-day ultimatum for him to make a national interest determination on the pipeline. This source is primarily useful in helping me keep track of the recent timeline regarding the State Department’s involvement with KXL. Jones’ responses to the media’s questions stress the importance of Nebraskan’s concerns in the State Department’s decision, going into more depth than the press release that announced it. This source is fairly straightforward and informational in tone.


McGowan, Elizabeth. (2011, August 29). NASA’s Hansen explains decision to join Keystone pipeline protests. SolveClimate News. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/idUS257590805720110829

This article includes an interview with NASA climate scientist James Hansen about his decision to join protests against the Keystone XL pipeline. It discusses Hansen’s credentials as a pioneering climate scientist before presenting the e-mail interview, in which Hansen specifically takes on KXL’s carbon emissions and its effect on the U.S.’ “oil addiction.” The crucial information here comes from a respected scientist, albeit one with a clear interest in environmentalism and conservation. It will help me define the climatic argument against KXL.



Oil Change International. (2011, September). Exporting energy security: Keystone XL exposed. Retrieved from http://dirtyoilsands.org/files/OCIKeystoneXLExport-Fin.pdf

This report argues that TransCanada and its supporters have employed a bait-and-switch argument to garner support for KXL by promoting it as a means of securing energy independence when it is really an export pipeline. OCI discusses the changing oil market, in which American supply is up and demand is down, and cites Valero documents that detail its export strategy. This report comes from an organization dedicated to exposing the cost of fossil fuel dependence and supporting green technologies. It will be helpful as a counterargument to the position that KXL is justified on the basis of providing energy security.


TransCanada. (2011, February). Leak prevention and detection. Retrieved from http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/LeakAndDetection_KXL.pdf

This release from TransCanada, the company behind Keystone XL, details the measures it would take to prevent and respond to leaks from the pipeline extension. It lists the state-of-the-art pipe fabrication, coating and surveillance practices TransCanada employs. This creates a picture of TransCanada as a technologically advanced, safety-minded organization. While written by a deeply interested source, this release will be helpful in locating the rebuttal to arguments against Keystone XL based on safety and environmental concerns.


United States State Department. (2011, December). Environmental impact of the Keystone XL project. Congressional Digest 90(10), 296-320. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.

This excerpt of the State Department Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), printed in Congressional Digest, provides both an overview of the Keystone XL proposal and a consideration of its purpose, environmental impact and economic potential. It discusses the market need for KXL, the risk of spills to sensitive areas such as the Ogallala Aquifer, and the feasibility of alternative routes, all of which are included in a fairly cumulative report. This report discusses positive and negative features of KXL and comes from an ostensibly neutral source. It will help me understand the environmental ramifications of KXL, the reason alternative routes are deemed unfeasible by some, and the market demand for crude oil that led to the proposal in the first place. Though it treats KXL’s environmental impact optimistically, this report covers several of the fine points regarding its environmental dangers. It is a condensed version of the complete EIS that will help me locate important pieces of information from it.


United States Department of State. (2011, August 26). Executive summary: Final environmental impact statement for the proposed Keystone XL project. Retrieved from http://www.keystonepipelinexl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KXL_FEIS_Executive_Summary.pdf

This is perhaps the densest report included in this compilation of sources. Elsewhere I have included a condensed version from which I can glean some of the most important points. However, this exhaustive report could be valuable to me, as it includes additional information about Keystone XL’s potential environmental impact, alternative routes, and greenhouse emission projections. It comes from an ostensibly unbiased source conducting a fact-finding mission in order to determine whether KXL is in the national interest.


United States State Department. (2011, September 29). Keystone XL oil pipeline project: Atkinson, Nebraska. Public Comment Meetings. Retrieved from http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open

This transcript records one in a series of public meetings held to determine the State Department’s public good determination—which came back negative in January 2012 to allow time for further consideration. First the process of State Department approval, including its favorable environmental impact report of August 2011, is described. Then a pair of elected officials and a host of community members voice their opinions about KXL, particularly concerning its route through the Nebraskan sand hills and Ogallala Aquifer. This is one of the most unbiased sources I have been able to find, given the plurality of opinions on display. It is a strong showcase of public opinion regarding KXL’s impact on a sensitive local environment.