@article {53050,
	title = {Oil sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline: Background and selected environmental issues},
	year = {2013},
	note = {CRS Report 7-5700. },
	month = {04/2014},
	pages = {51 pages },
	institution = {Congressional Research Service },
	address = {Washington, DC},
	abstract = {If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline would transport crude oil derived from oil sands sites in Alberta, Canada, to U.S. refineries and other destinations. Because the pipeline would cross an international border, it requires a Presidential Permit.
Although some groups have opposed previous oil pipelines, opposition to the Keystone XL proposal has generated substantially more interest. Stakeholder concerns vary from local impacts, such as oil spills or extraction impacts in Canada, to potential climate change consequences.
Arguments supporting the pipeline{\textquoteright}s construction cover an analogous range. Proponents of the Keystone XL Pipeline, including high-level Canadian officials and U.S. and Canadian petroleum industry stakeholders, base their arguments supporting the pipeline primarily on increasing the security and diversity of the U.S. petroleum supply and economic benefits, especially jobs.
A number of studies have looked into the various environmental impacts of oil sands crude. This report focuses on selected environmental concerns raised in conjunction with the proposed pipeline and the oil sands crude it will transport.
},
	keywords = {CCS, CO2, GHG, legislation, pipeline, policy},
	url = {http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42611.pdf},
	author = {Ramseur, Jonathan L. and Lattanzio, Richard K. and Luther, Linda and Parfomak, Paul W. and Carter, Nicole T.}
}
