Thanks to Twitter (thank you David Roberts@drgrist), I came across this Jan. 30 story on the Keystone XL Pipeline by Lisa Song of InsideClimate News that includes at least one option that may be favorable to pipeline supporters in Montana.
What I found interesting is that two options being considered by the pipeline’s builders, TransCanada, would avoid crossing the United States-Canada border. That means State Department approval would not be needed as it was no longer crossing international boundaries.
Song also reports TransCanada could cut off the Canada connection and use Baker, Mont., as the pipeline’s starting point, again sidestepping State Department approval.
According to the article: “Instead of transporting heavy crude from Canada’s tar sands, the pipeline would tap into the booming Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota. Bakken oil was slated to fill 25 percent of the capacity on the original Keystone XL route.”
Another option could shorten the project even more by building from Cushing, Okla., eliminating not only the border crossing but also the section through Nebraska.
To read her story, click here.
How long would it take for TransCanada to break ground in Montana if the pipeline did not cross an international border?
If you remember, on Dec. 15, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Keystone will receive a permit from the state of Montana and bring $1 billion in construction to Montana and 1,200 jobs once the project clears federal hurdles. Also, the Canadian Energy Research Institute claims Keystone would create 343,000 new U.S. jobs between 2011-2015. And it would add $34 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 2015 and $42 billion by 2025.
The 36-inch pipeline would extend through 281 miles of the eastern Montana counties of Phillips, Valley, McCone, Dawson, Prairie and Fallon.

– PHIL DRAKE