How the Keystone XL pipeline would help the US, and why some oppose it

The Obama administration announced on Thursday it was delaying construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a proposed Canadian project so rich in promised jobs, tax revenues, and oil imports that its approval seemed assure. But the proposal to bring crude oil from Alberta’s tar sands to refineries in Texas involved a pipeline traversing America’s heartland, including an environmentally sensitive region atop the vital Ogallala aquifer.

Delaying the project to examine an alternative route around the aquifer appears the safest political move for the moment, though it won’t give President Obama immunity from criticism. Here is some background on the pipeline project.

- Mark Guarino, Staff writer

How much oil will the pipeline transport, and who gets it?

The existing Keystone pipeline is currently carrying an average of 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) to Illinois refineries, short of its capacity of 590,000 bpd, according to TransCanada. The proposed “XL” extensions will be capable of transporting an additional 700,000 bpd, boosting the network’s overall capacity to 1.3 million bpd, says company spokesperson Terry Cunha.

For the American market, the increased capacity could mean an additional 255 million barrels of oil per year imported from Canada, already America’s largest single foreign supplier at 720 million barrels in 2010.

The companies that harvest the crude from the oil sands and pay TransCanada for its transport – Marathon, Shell, Conoco Phillips, Valero, and Suncor among others – say the extension would give them greater access to domestic markets and allow them to ship a higher volume of oil.

Before Thursday’s delay, TransCanada had expected oil to start flowing in 2013.