In November 2016, oil company TransCanada Corp (TSX:TCA) spilled the company’s Keystone XL oil pipeline near the town of Kalamazoo, Michigan, spilling about 500,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazo River and the surrounding region.
The spill was the worst spill in US history.
It has since cost the federal government $4.7 billion.
President Donald Trump and Republican legislators in Congress have been fighting to save the pipeline, arguing that it would be safer for American workers and businesses.
But the Keystone XL has been stalled for more than a decade.
Now the US has reached a point of no return.
The oil spill has become a symbol of the Obama administration’s environmental failures, the Trump administration’s failure to take climate change seriously, and its failure to invest in infrastructure and jobs.
The US has now spent more than $1 trillion on its Keystone XL pipeline, which was never built.
TransCanada, which owns the pipeline project, has said that it will use the spill to strengthen its infrastructure.
It’s estimated that the spill will cost the United States $2.7 trillion.
How did we get here?
The spill took place on the west bank of the Kalamakan River, which is located between the city of Kalamagans, in southeastern Montana, and the state of Idaho, in north-central Idaho.
A pipeline of the Keystone pipeline is seen at the Kalahari Desert, north of the town in February 2017.
The pipeline had been built in the 1970s to carry Alberta oil to markets in the United State.
In recent years, it had been a contentious project that involved fighting against international environmental rules.
TransCaspace is a Canadian company.
It was formed in 2003 and is the world’s largest supplier of pipeline systems.
It is also one of the main contractors for Keystone XL.
Transcaspace said that the pipeline would be used to transport crude oil, but would also be used for pipelines to transport Canadian tar sands oil.
This is a big difference from previous spills that have caused environmental harm, including in Alaska, which has been hit with several pipeline spills in recent years.
It also makes Keystone XL the most expensive pipeline project ever built, surpassing the previous record-holder, the Keystone X project, which cost about $3.2 billion.
TransCanadian, which operates the Keystone and Keystone XL pipelines, has also faced criticism for its environmental record.
In 2017, the company was accused of “corporate welfare,” after the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it had found that TransCanada had failed to properly document its environmental impact assessments.
The EPA cited TransCanada’s failure as an example of the company failing to meet its environmental obligations, saying it “may have violated the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Safe and Accurate Construction Act”.
The EPA also said that TransCas pipeline was “not compliant with Federal, State, or local regulations” and that “TransCanada is not taking any actions to reduce its environmental impacts”.
It said that, as a result of the spill, TransCanada would spend $1.3 billion to repair the pipeline and to install “a system of protective barriers and corrosion control devices”.
But the EPA also found that there was a “significant risk of spillage”.
The US Department of the Interior (USDOI) found that the Keystone would have been “damaged” by the spill if it had gone through the proper environmental assessment process.
The Keystone XL Pipeline will not be built because of the pipeline spill, but the US did not have a better alternative than to go ahead with it, according to TransCanada.
The project would have provided about 4,000 jobs and increased US GDP by about $2 trillion, according TransCanada CEO Russ Girling.
The company had argued that the project would be built with $3 billion in subsidies from the Canadian government.
But US taxpayers would have to pay $2 billion to the government to cover the cost of repairing the pipeline.
Trans Canada’s statement that the company would have had to “take all appropriate steps” to reduce environmental impact had been “overstated,” according to the US EPA.
The government had already invested $2 million in a project that would have helped with cleanup costs, according the EPA.
A report by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) found there was no “substantial environmental risk” to the pipeline’s integrity, but said the pipeline could still rupture.
According to the report, “the potential environmental impact of the potential rupture is low, but could cause damage to infrastructure, damage to property, and cause significant damage to the environment.”
What did the EPA think?
In its assessment of the project, the EPA cited several issues.
The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), the US Department Of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Transportation (DOT) had all issued