The idea behind the politically contentious Keystone XL pipeline is to bring oil from Canada through the Midwestern US and then on to Texas for export throughout the world, mostly Europe and Latin America. A January 2012 report by NRDC and Oil Change International pointed out that the pipeline "will not increase America's oil supply (PDF)," but we now hear that the pipeline just might affect the US after all. Trouble is, the effect is negative, not positive.
The controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would deliver tar sands oil mined in Alberta, Canada to Texas for cleanup and then return it to Canada has a number of serious issues and points of contention. Among the debates going on in Washington are which route would be used and what, exactly, are the risks of environmental disasters. We have another example of what the Keystone XL might bring now that ExxonMobil is dealing with a pipeline rupture in Mayflower, AR in its Pegasus pipeline.
After spending several years carefully reviewing the application from TransCanada for the permit necessary to run its Keystone XL pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada to the refineries and ports along the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. Department of State has finally announced a decision. It has decided not to decide right now, saying it will wait until 2013 to decide, so it can spend more quality time examining routing options around certain environmentally sensitive parts of the Sand Hills