As the U.S. Department of State considers whether to approve the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline project, heated discussions are taking place across the nation, including at a public hearing in Glendive yesterday. But while opposition persists, supporters can take comfort in knowing that Montana’s most powerful politicians have thrown their weight behind the pipeline.
I wrote a story earlier this month discussing the support shown by Rep. Denny Rehberg and Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Then yesterday, Gov. Brian Schweitzer sent a letter to the State Department giving what amounts to a ringing endorsement for the 1,700-mile pipeline, which will enter the U.S. in northeastern Montana and make its way down to refineries in Texas.
“On behalf of the State of Montana,” Schweitzer writes in the letter, “I strongly believe the Keystone XL pipeline project is in the nation’s best interest.”
Schweitzer goes on to list three primary reasons for his assertion. First, in addressing energy security, he says Canadian oil that will pass through the pipeline is “conflict-free” oil.
“Montana will never have to deploy National Guard troops to ensure the flow of oil from Canada into the United States,” he writes.
Secondly, the project “will help to increase domestic oil production by allowing oil producers in Montana and North Dakota improved market access and a better price for 65,000 barrels of oil per day” at an on-ramp planned in the eastern Montana town of Baker.
Thirdly, Schweitzer argues that Keystone XL will be a “$20 billion shot-in-the-arm for the United States economy.”
“Over the life of the pipeline, this means 20,000 jobs, 118 person-years of employment, and $5 billion in property taxes ($60 million annually in Montana).”
Schweitzer also attached two previous letters of support, dated May 10, 2010 and April 8, 2011.
In North Dakota, the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner recently sent a letter of support as well. But TransCanada, the Canadian company proposing the pipeline, isn’t being greeted quite as warmly in Nebraska, where even the state’s top Republican leaders are voicing their opposition out of fears over detrimental impact to an important aquifer there.