Trump and Keystone XL: should controversial pipeline go ahead?

In President Donald Trump's second term, will the Keystone XL pipeline be built? And more importantly, given the landowners' objections and climate breakdown, should it be built?

The Keystone XL pipeline has been a focal point of debate in North America for over a decade, symbolizing the broader conflict between energy security, economic growth, and environmental protection.

Originally proposed by TC Energy in 2008, the project aimed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Canada’s Alberta oil sands to refineries in the United States.

However, its future remains highly uncertain due to ongoing political, environmental, and legal challenges.

Is the Keystone XL pipeline going ahead?

After years of back-and-forth decisions by different U.S. administrations, TC Energy officially canceled the Keystone XL pipeline in June 2021. This followed President Joe Biden’s revocation of the project’s permit as part of his broader climate strategy.

Biden’s decision was in stark contrast to his predecessor Donald Trump, who had approved the pipeline in 2017.

Despite the project's cancellation, discussions around its revival resurfaced in late 2024 after Trump, during his presidential campaign, suggested that he would work to bring the project back if re-elected.

Even if a new U.S. administration attempted to restart the Keystone XL pipeline, it would face numerous hurdles. Since TC Energy has already abandoned the project, the company would have to decide whether it wants to reinvest in a project that has faced repeated cancellations. Additionally, securing new permits and overcoming legal challenges could take years.

What are the pros and cons of the Keystone XL pipeline?

Supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline argue that it would strengthen North American energy security by reducing reliance on oil imports from unstable regions such as the Middle East and Venezuela.

With global energy markets facing uncertainty, proponents believe the project could provide a steady, reliable source of crude oil from Canada, a close U.S. ally.

Additionally, the pipeline was expected to bring significant economic benefits. Construction was projected to create thousands of jobs, providing work for laborers, engineers, and other skilled workers.

While many of these jobs would have been temporary, some would have been permanent positions tied to maintenance and pipeline operations. Industry advocates have also pointed out that the increased oil supply could have helped stabilize fuel prices, benefiting consumers and businesses alike.

US: what is the outlook for oil and gas over next five years? 

As the world's foremost oil and gas producer, what is expected to happen to the United States' production of fossil fuels over the next 5 years? The next five years will be pivotal for U.S.... Read More

However, one of the primary concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline is its environmental impact.

The pipeline’s route would have crossed environmentally sensitive areas, including the Ogallala Aquifer, a major source of drinking water and irrigation for millions of Americans. A potential oil spill in this region could have catastrophic consequences for agriculture and local communities.

Moreover, the oil that Keystone XL was designed to transport—bitumen from Canada’s tar sands—is one of the most carbon-intensive forms of crude oil.

The process of extracting and refining this type of oil emits significantly higher levels of greenhouse gases compared to conventional crude, exacerbating climate change. Environmentalists argue that approving the pipeline would have locked in decades of fossil fuel dependency at a time when the world is shifting toward renewable energy.

The second major point of contention is the opposition from indigenous communities in both Canada and the U.S. In a way, it's a simple question of ownership.

Some sections of the proposed route crossed lands covered by treaties, particularly those governed by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 and 1868, which granted certain land and resource rights to the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota nations (commonly known as the Sioux).

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Fort Belknap Indian Community took legal action against the pipeline, arguing that it violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and tribal laws. They claimed the project threatened their water sources, sacred sites, and burial grounds.

Some tribal lands have federally recognized sovereignty, meaning that any infrastructure project crossing them would require tribal consent—something that was not granted in the case of Keystone XL.

Does the market even want Keystone XL?

The global energy landscape has also changed significantly since Keystone XL was first proposed. The rise of renewable energy, advancements in electric vehicle technology, and increasing climate policies make it unclear whether such a large-scale oil pipeline would be a viable long-term investment.

Many analysts argue that expanding oil pipeline infrastructure no longer aligns with the direction of the global energy transition.

The Keystone XL pipeline remains a divisive issue, representing the clash between energy security and economic growth on one side and environmental protection and climate action on the other. While some political leaders continue to push for its revival, the project faces formidable legal, financial, and logistical challenges.

Whether or not Keystone XL moves forward, its legacy will continue to influence the broader conversation about North America’s energy future.

Rosebank approval 'unlawful': will new UK oil fields still go ahead? 

In a historic decision, a British court has declared that the approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields was unlawful - but development may still go ahead. A Scottish court has ruled th... Read More