Opposition to Keystone 1 Pipeline in South Dakota and huge oil leak, USA

Resistance to Keystone pipeline continues after most recent spill, while South Dakota Public Service Commission warns TransCanada Inc that they could pull the permit allowing them to operate the pipeline in the state


Description
The Keystone Pipeline is a network of pipelines that carry oil from the Canadian tar-sands to refineries in the United States. It is owned and operated by TransCanada Corp., a Canadian company operating pipelines, storage facilities and power generation plants in Canada, the USA and Mexico. The operational sections of the Keystone network were constructed in three phases. Keystone Phase 1, runs from Hardisty, Alberta, through Saskatchewan, Manitoba, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, to a storage facility in Illinois. While the Keystone-Cushing Extension runs from a refinery in Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma; and the Gulf Coast Extension runs from Cushing to refineries in Texas. TransCanada is currently attempting to build a controversial fourth phase of the Keystone network, also known as Keystone XL.

When TransCanada announced its intentions to construct the Keystone Phase 1 pipeline in February 2005, the proposed route ran through  the Brown and Sprink counties of South Dakota. However, when TransCanada presented the proposed route of the pipeline to community members at the Clark Community centre in November of 2005, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission and community members were surprised to hear that the pipeline was now proposed to run through Day and Marshall counties [3].  TransCanada had not informed the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission of the proposed route change, and representatives had to field dozens of calls from concerned community members [3]. The route was later changed again in 2006, at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because of conservation efforts [6].

See more...
Basic Data
NameOpposition to Keystone 1 Pipeline in South Dakota and huge oil leak, USA
CountryUnited States of America
ProvinceSouth Dakota
SiteAmherst
Accuracy of LocationHIGH local level
Source of Conflict
Type of Conflict (1st level)Fossil Fuels and Climate Justice/Energy
Type of Conflict (2nd level)Transport infrastructure networks (roads, railways, hydroways, canals and pipelines)
Pollution related to transport (spills, dust, emissions)
Specific CommoditiesCrude oil
Land
Water
Ecosystem Services
Project Details and Actors
Project DetailsThe Keystone pipeline network is owned and operated by TransCanada Corp, and delivers Canadian tar-sands oil from Alberta, to various refineries throughout the United States. The section of pipeline which is discussed in this case, is Keystone 1, which is the first section of the Keystone Pipeline network to be completed. It became operational on June 30th, 2010, and delivers roughly 591'000 barrels of oil per day from Hardisty, Alberta, to Patoka, Illinois. [7]

The Affected Population given is the population of the Town of Amherst, where the leak occurred; however, the pipeline affects a much high percentage of people nationwide.

The Financial Institutions listed are those who bankroll TransCanada corp., but not necessarily the Keystone Pipeline.
Project Area (in hectares)34,560
Level of Investment (in USD)12,000,000,000
Type of PopulationRural
Potential Affected Population106
Start Date10/11/2005
Company Names or State EnterprisesTransCanada Corp. from Canada
Relevant government actorsSouth Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources

South Dakota Public Utilities Commission

Federal Government of the United States of America (Trump)

Environmental Protection Agency

National Transportation Safety Board

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
International and Financial InstitutionsJP Morgan Chase (JPM) from United States of America
Wells Fargo (WFC) from United States of America
Citibank (C) from United States of America
Bank of Montreal
Alberta Treasury Branches
Bank of America (BofA) from United States of America
Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS) from Canada
The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ (MUFG) from Japan
Barclays Bank from United Kingdom
Caisse Centrale Desjardins du Québec
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) from Canada
Crédit Agricole
Credit Suisse (CS) from Switzerland
Deutsche Bank (DB) from Germany
Export Development Canada (EDC) from Canada
HSBC (banking) from Hong Kong SAR, China
Mizuho Bank from Japan
National Bank of Canada
Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) (RBC) from Canada
SMBC Nikko Securities from Japan
TD Bank
Environmental justice organisations and other supportersThe Sierra Club (https://www.sierraclub.org/)

360.org (https://www.360.org/)

NOKXL Dakota (http://nokxldakota.org/)

Dakota Rural Action (http://www.dakotarural.org/)

Yankton Sioux Tribe (https://www.yanktonsiouxtribe.net/)

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (http://www.crstgfp.com/)

Rosebud Tribe Sioux Tribe (https://www.rosebudsiouxtribe-nsn.gov/)

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (https://www.standingrock.org/)

WEB - Quality Rural Water Provider

(http://www.webwater.org/)
The Conflict and the Mobilization
Intensity of Conflict (at highest level)MEDIUM (street protests, visible mobilization)
When did the mobilization beginPREVENTIVE resistance (precautionary phase)
Groups MobilizingFarmers
Indigenous groups or traditional communities
International ejos
Local ejos
Neighbours/citizens/communities
Ethnically/racially discriminated groups
Local scientists/professionals
Forms of MobilizationDevelopment of a network/collective action
Involvement of national and international NGOs
Media based activism/alternative media
Objections to the EIA
Official complaint letters and petitions
Public campaigns
Appeals/recourse to economic valuation of the environment
Refusal of compensation
Impacts
Environmental ImpactsVisible: Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Oil spills, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Groundwater pollution or depletion, Soil contamination, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality
Potential: Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Food insecurity (crop damage), Global warming, Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems, Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity
Health ImpactsPotential: Exposure to unknown or uncertain complex risks (radiation, etc…), Mental problems including stress, depression and suicide
Socio-economic ImpactsVisible: Displacement, Land dispossession, Loss of landscape/sense of place
Potential: Loss of livelihood, Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, Militarization and increased police presence, Violations of human rights
Outcome
Project StatusIn operation
Pathways for conflict outcome / responseEnvironmental improvements, rehabilitation/restoration of area
Migration/displacement
Technical solutions to improve resource supply/quality/distribution
Do you consider this as a success?No
Why? Explain briefly.Environmental Justice has not been served since the pipeline is still in operation. Furthermore, even though the recent spill occurred days before Nebraska voted on whether or not to approve the Keystone XL extension, state regulators chose to grant TransCanada the permit to build and operate the pipeline without considering the recent leak.
Sources and Materials
Legislations

Office Of Pipeline Safety. 2017. "Corrective Action Order." Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration.
[click to view]

Department of Transportation. 2006. "Special Permit: Keystone Pipeline". Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration.
[click to view]

References

[1]McKenna, Phil. 2017. "Cause of Keystone Pipeline Spill Worries South Dakota Officials as Oil Flow Restarts". Inside Climate News
[click to view]

[2]Axelrod, Joshua. 2017. "S.D. Tar Sands Oil Spill: Bad Omen for Keystone XL Safety". Natural Resource Defense Council.
[click to view]

[4]Mercer, Bob. 2007. "Archive: Landowners lash out at pipeline." Aberdeen News.
[click to view]

[5]Mercer, Bob. 2007. "Archive: Battle lines drawn." Aberdeen News.
[click to view]

[6]Waltman, Scott. 2006. "Archive: Pipeline route changes again". Aberdeen News.
[click to view]

[7]Reuters. 2010. "UPDATE 1-Keystone oil pipeline "halfway" to full capacity." Reuters
[click to view]

[8]Volcovici, Valerie. 2017. "South Dakota Regulators Say They Could Evoke Keystone Permit After Spill." Reuters.
[click to view]

[9]Mercer, Bob. 2007. "Archive: Oil pipeline hearing schedule set". Aberdeen News.
[click to view]

[3]Arthur, Emily. 2005. "Archive: TransCanada Keystone route to be announced." Aberdeen News.
[click to view]

[10] Office Of Pipeline Safety. 2017. "Corrective Action Order." Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration.
[click to view]

[11] Hetland, Cara. 2008. "SD approves new pipeline." MRP News.
[click to view]

[12] Cuevas, Mayra & Steve, Almasy. 2017. "Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota". CNN
[click to view]

Links

EDM Services, Inc. 1993. "Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Risk Assessment." California State Fire Marshal.
[click to view]

Axelrod, Joshua. 2015. "New Documents Reveal Serious Corrosion Concerns for Tar Sands Pipelines." Natural Resource Defense Council.
[click to view]

Other Documents

Keystone Pipeline Leak
[click to view]

Keystone Pipeline Leak near Amherst, SD Here you can see the oil soaked patch of land where the leak occurred.
[click to view]

Demonstrators resisting Keystone XL The recent spill reignites the conversation about pipeline safety concerns, and strengthens opposition to the Keystone XL Extension
[click to view]

Meta Information
ContributorJames Joshua Young - [email protected] - Lund Univeristy
Last update13/02/2018
Comments