And depending on who you ask, the results could be an economic boon that makes the country more self-sufficient or an environmental disaster that destroys sacred Native American sites.
The 1,172-mile pipeline would stretch from the oil-rich Bakken Formation -- a vast underground deposit where Montana and North Dakota meet Canada -- southeast into South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.
The oil potential in Bakken is massive. An estimated 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered oil is believed to be in its US portion, according to the US Geological Survey.
After the pipeline is completed, it would shuttle 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day, developer Energy Access Partners said. That's enough to make 374.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.
From Illinois, the oil could go to markets and refineries across the Midwest, East Coast and Gulf Coast.
Who approved it?
The US Army Corps of Engineers approved the project and granted final permits in July.
But the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the Corps, saying the pipeline "threatens the Tribe's environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the Tribe."
Read the complaint
The Army Corps of Engineers has declined to comment to CNN, citing pending litigation.
But an advocacy group says the tribe's claims are misleading, saying the pipeline "does not cross into the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation."
The Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now also said 100% of the affected landowners in North Dakota, where part of the tribe lives, voluntarily signed easements to allow for construction.
What's the argument for and against?
Pro: The pipeline wouldn't just be an economic boon, it would also significantly decrease U.S. reliance on foreign oil, the developer Energy Transfer Partners said. The pipeline would also help free up railways to transport "crops and other commodities currently constrained by crude oil cargos."
Con: Construction for the pipeline will "destroy our burial sites, prayer sites and culturally significant artifacts," the Standing Rock Sioux tribe said. Opponents also cite environmental concerns, including possible contamination due to breaches and eventual greenhouse gas emissions.
What's the environmental impact?
Depends on who you ask.
The developer says the pipeline would provide a safer, more environmentally friendly way of moving crude oil compared to other modes of transportation, such as rail or trucks.
Pipeline supporters cite the 2013 disaster in Quebec, Canada, where a train carrying crude oil derailed and destroyed downtown Lac-Megnatic.
But Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II said he doesn't support moving more crude oil from North Dakota. He told CNN affiliate KFYR that Americans should look for alternative and renewable sources of energy.
More than 274,000 online petitioners agree.
"The Dakota Access pipeline would fuel climate change, cause untold damage to the environment, and significantly disturb sacred lands and the way of life for Native Americans in the upper Midwest," a petition on CredoAction.com states.
Opponents also say they're worried what would happen if the pipeline, which would go under the Missouri River, ruptured and contaminated the water supply.
But the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now backed the developer's claim that pipelines are a safe way of moving crude oil.
"Already, 8 pipelines cross the Missouri River carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels of energy products every day," the group said in a statement.
What's the economic impact?
Energy Transfer Partners estimates the pipeline would bring an estimated $156 million in sales and income taxes to state and local governments. The developer also says it will add 8,000 to 12,000 construction jobs.
But Archambault said his tribe will settle for nothing less than stopping the pipeline's construction.
"We're not opposed to energy independence. We're not opposed to economic development," he told CNN. "The problem we have -- and this is a long history of problems that evolved over time -- is where the federal government or corporations take advantage of indigenous lands and indigenous rights."
What's going on with the protests?
Protests have been taking place in North Dakota for months. Police said they arrested at least 141 protesters in one day.
Law enforcement officials spent six hours pushing about 200 protesters from one area back to their main encampment. Police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas, and unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd.
In response, protesters lit debris on fire near a bridge and threw Molotov cocktails at law enforcement, North Dakota Department of Emergency Services spokeswoman Cecily Fong said.
Around 50 cars were towed away. A handful were either burned or otherwise vandalized.
What do the landowners get?
Energy Transfer Partners said it has tried to steer the pipeline away from residential areas and has tried to reach voluntary deals with property owners "at a fair price."
But Archambault, the tribal chairman, said he thinks the Native Americans are getting short-changed once again.
"What we're opposed to is paying for all the benefits that this country receives," he said. "Whenever there's a benefit, whether it's energy independence ... whether it's economic development, tribes pay the cost. And what we see now are tribes from all over sharing the same concern that we have, saying, 'It's enough now. Stop doing this to indigenous people. Stop doing this to our indigenous lands.'"
CNN's Madison Park, Jake Tapper, Alberto Moya, Christina Zdanowicz and Dani Stewart contributed to this report.
This guy is all for a pipeline. (He’s also a trademark of MillerCoors.)
Although President Obama just nixed TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, tar sands oil will in all likelihood continue to dribble from Canada to China and elsewhere, regardless of whether a pipeline links Alberta to the Gulf.
At least that’s the conventional wisdom many folks in the US manufacturing sector point to, when discussing the pros and cons of Keystone XL.
Keystone XL Pipeline and Construction Industry in the US
MetalMiner’s Jeff Yoders took readers through the implications of this glorified “construction stimulus” project in his analysis back in November 2014 – the last time Keystone was shot down:
The final environmental impact statement said 42,000 jobs would be created by Keystone XL in construction and support jobs in the states of Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska.
We have covered the rail car shortage in those states over the past few weeks and one of the side benefits of building the pipeline would be a reduction in strain on class 1 railroads, but the construction piece of the pipeline has been the focus of the argument since its initial permit application was applied for in 2008. The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) points out that nearly 10,000 miles of pipeline have been built in the US since the application was filed with little to no argument. The AGC is a big supporter of Keystone XL.
Those 42,000 construction jobs certainly look enticing to the skilled laborers in those states still looking for work, yet, pipelines are anything but permanent solutions to unemployment. That same State Dept. environmental review found that the Keystone XL will create only 35 permanent jobs. (35, that’s it.) So, for such a limited impact is, essentially, a construction stimulus project really worth all of this debate?
If the environmental objections to the process of pumping large amounts of water and natural gas into tar sands to pump steam into the tar to extract oil are to be believed, then yes.
Read the rest of the article here:Keystone XL Senate Failure About More Than Construction
Keystone Costs, Benefits
Our Executive Editor Lisa Reisman interviewed Andrew Browning of Consumer Energy Alliance back in 2011, and he took us through why an “all-of-the-above” energy policy makes sense – including the construction of Keystone XL.
From the original post:
We look at the role of the massive Keystone pipeline from central Canada — our largest trading partner — down to the Gulf of Mexico as a transport conduit for Canadian crude. While a good portion of the pipeline already exists, there are significant phases still under regulatory review.
As much as folks talk about severing ties to crude oil entirely as an energy source, the sad truth is that we’re nowhere near making that a reality just yet. Simply to sustain the country while new energies are worked out and tested, oil has a firm place in the mix of energy sources that the US has to work with. Not only that, the production of the pipeline itself, Browning mentions, will help create jobs in steel and manufacturing. Bottom line, Browning says, “The Canadians are going to produce this.” It’ll go east or west if not south; it’ll end up in China if not the US.
FREE Download: Our latest MMI® Report, analyzing price trends for steel and 9 other metals.