A company called Bridger Pipeline is proposing a new crude oil pipeline from Canada into Phillips County, Montana to Guernsey, Wyoming. Although it’s in the very early stages, some are cautioning that it might be Keystone XL returned.
Inside Climate News reporter Nick Kusnetz explored that comparison and what’s next in the process in a recent article. He spoke with Wyoming Public Radio News Director Kamila Kudelska.
Editor’s Note: This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
Nick Kusnetz: The Keystone XL Pipeline was maybe the most controversial pipeline, fossil fuel project in the country's history. It was [first] proposed a couple of decades ago, and was initially rejected by Pres. Obama, then approved by Pres. Trump in his first term, rejected again by Pres. Biden.
It was a very big pipeline that was going to bring Canadian oil from its tar sands or oil sands region all the way down to the Gulf Coast along Texas. So the concern with this Bridger Pipeline is that this is sort of like a quiet revival of that pipeline under a different name and a bit of a different path.
Kamila Kudelska: And just to clarify, what happened to the Keystone [XL] Pipeline?
NK: This pipeline needs approval. It's called a presidential approval. It's from the State Department because it crosses the border. So one of Biden's first acts was to cancel that permit. By then, the project was so controversial in the United States that it was struggling in parts of its path, so its future was in doubt anyway.
KK: Besides the fact that the Bridger Pipeline is starting at the Canadian border, what else is similar?
NK: The company is now called South Bow. It was spun off from what was then Trans Canada, the company that was gonna build this. It's a Canadian pipeline company, and as I mentioned, they had actually built sections in Canada, including this section right up to the border.
REcently, there had been some reports that South Bow was looking to get into new projects to get oil into the United States. It entered what's called an open season when they're sort of just seeking customers to buy the oil. They were looking to send oil somewhere into multiple locations in the United States, including the Gulf Coast.
The original Keystone XL Pipeline cut from that place in Montana across through South Dakota and then Nebraska, and those parts were some where it drew some of the biggest opposition from ranchers, farmers and Indigenous groups. This [Bridger Pipeline] route would avoid that controversial area, potentially, although it's only getting into southeastern Wyoming.
A number of analysts have said it doesn't really make sense to bring a whole lot of oil. This pipeline is initially proposed for 550,000 barrels of oil [per day], but it said it could carry up to 1.1 million. So there isn't really necessarily a market for all that much additional oil in that part of Wyoming.
I mean, one of the big controversies and part of why the Keystone XL Pipeline was so controversial was the kind of oil it carries. It's called tar sands or oil sands. There are these huge deposits – it's not even really oil, it's called bitumen in Canada – [and] it's extracted. A lot of them are in these huge open-pit mines. It's extremely polluting where it's done. The extraction releases more greenhouse gas pollution than conventional oil, and then it has to be diluted in order to flow through a pipeline. If there's a pipeline spill, those spills are a lot harder to clean up than conventional oil.
KK: This Bridger Pipeline is for crude oil. So that's a different type of oil, if I'm understanding.
NK: The approval doesn't specify what kind of oil. I think that the term is used sort of loosely for non-refined oils. The vast majority of Canadian oil is tar sands oil. That's the only really major growing source of Canadian oil. So while there's no confirmation, that's most of the oil that's coming into the United States from Canada.
KK: You mentioned instead of ending in the Gulf of Mexico, this [Bridger Pipeline] is going to end in Guernsey, Wyoming. And there's been some questions about why.
NK: The company behind it has rights of way along a lot of the route. That would make it easier to build, because there would be fewer landowners that you'd need to negotiate with to put down a pipeline through their land.
One of the people I spoke with, her name's Jane Kleeb. She was one of the key organizers who helped build this really huge coalition of people opposed to the Keystone XL Pipeline. She's from Nebraska. They banded together farmers and ranchers and Indigenous activists and environmentalists throughout the region and on a national level.
She had talked about how since [Keystone XL Pipeline] and since some other major pipeline projects have faced a lot of opposition, companies have started to sort of break their projects up into smaller pieces. So if it's just a pipeline from Montana to Wyoming, and in particular, if there are rights of way already for a lot of these sections, it might not generate as much opposition. Then, if there needs to be a new pipeline from Wyoming to Nebraska, again, that's a shorter route and it might not galvanize this kind of huge national campaign in the way the Keystone XL Pipeline did going all the way from Montana to Texas.
KK: As you mentioned, there's right of ways. When I was reading about it [Bridger pipeline], it mentioned that a lot of the pipeline would be going through federal land. Are you aware if that is true or there are sections that are going to have to go through private land as well?
NK: A relatively small amount of the line actually crosses federal lands – notwithstanding the Bureau of Land Management is overseeing the environmental review process. But it's less than a hundred miles on federal land. It's largely on private land or on state lands in Montana and Wyoming.
The thing is, there are a lot of stream crossings and river crossings, and all of those would need approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers, so it will need federal oversight. But most of the project is on private or state lands.
KK: As I'm understanding, this is pretty early in the process and they're looking for public comment. What's the process and how soon could this potentially actually get approved?
NK: The Bureau of Land Management and Montana Environmental Authorities just held public meetings last week [week of April 13]. What they're doing now are getting comments on their plan to write an environmental review. That [public comment period] closes end of this month.
Then they'll need to write the environmental review. Then that'll be a draft that'll be open for public comments. They'll need to respond to those and finalize environmental review.
All that has to happen before there is any approval. As I mentioned, there's other permits the project will need. It will need or would need a presidential permit to cross the border. There are a lot of hurdles.
Public comment is open through May 1.
