By opposing the Nord Stream 2 and Keystone XL pipelines, the Biden administration is perpetuating one of Washington’s favorite pastimes: chasing plot devices to advance predictable narratives.
Alfred Hitchcock might call each of these intensely polarizing lines of steel pipe a “MacGuffin.” In Hollywood, the term applies to items such as suitcases full of powdery drugs, velvet pouches of sparkling diamonds, stray spheres of radioactive plutonium, and the occasional golden falcon statuette imported from Malta and encased in a layer of black enamel. A MacGuffin is, according to the dictionary, “an object, event, or character in a film or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance.”
The pipelines’ names suggest that they are MacGuffins as well. At least, a certain level of frivolity is embedded in Washington’s focus upon them.
Though the XL doesn’t stand for “extension line,” it might as well. In fact, the Keystone pipeline already exists. Since 2010, it has daily pumped over 100,000 barrels of oil, and usually several multiples of that, from Alberta, across Saskatchewan, and down into the American Midwest. The political brouhaha has focused on the proposal to construct an additional pipeline that would cut diagonally from Alberta to Nebraska. (XL actually stands for “export limited.”)
Eyebrows will rise for a more obvious reason when it comes to Nord Stream 2. The original Nord Stream line provides an undersea conduit for Russian natural gas to flow into Germany, slicing through the Baltic Sea. Nord Stream has operated since 2011. The sequel would essentially run parallel, completely bypassing Ukraine. Depriving Russian President Vladimir Putin of the export revenue and expressing solidarity with European partners that are a bit more wary of Russia generally motivates opposition to this expansion.
In short, both Keystone XL and Nord Stream 2 would supplement existing energy supply networks. Reasonable minds can differ on the respective merits of each project (though one has a stronger case than the other), but novelty clearly has nothing to do with it.
Washington’s fixation on these MacGuffins does serve a purpose. Republicans are able to support an infrastructure project that they know Democrats will never approve, making some headway into traditionally left-leaning labor unions. Democrats are able to block that project in the name of climate change and perhaps pick off a few right-leaning private landowners distressed about the exercise of eminent domain. Meanwhile, both parties get to tighten the screws on Putin.
All of this shadowboxing obscures some messy realities. Despite the landmark success of Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s energy legislation passed in December 2020, the nation’s political class remains divided on a number of major energy policy issues. These divisions run the gamut from hydraulic fracturing to nuclear waste. A comprehensible discussion on our energy future lies beyond reach.
The geopolitics are messy, too. Blocking Keystone XL could drive the Canadians to export Athabasca oil sands to global markets, which is fine, or it could negatively affect the economics of Alberta’s energy production, which is not fine. Meanwhile, if the Maduro regime wasn’t so heavily sanctioned, Venezuelan extra-heavy oil from the Orinoco Belt would likely fill the gap at U.S. refineries already optimized to process it. These barrels will be critical to Venezuela’s economic recovery if and when the current rulers ever pass from the scene.
On the other hand, blocking Nord Stream 2 may make liquefied natural gas shipments from the United States, Australia, and Qatar more competitive in Europe. It may also sweeten the economics of piping gas from Azerbaijan through Turkey or from North Africa to southern Europe, which may compete with those same liquefied shipborne cargoes. Of course, Moscow may sell more of its natural gas to East Asia. Cheap Russian energy would ripple through the supply chains anchored in these markets, probably in unexpected ways.
Untangling this convoluted web of effects is an order far taller than the MacGuffin itself. How confident are we that Washington is up to the task?
Tristan Abbey served as a Republican senior policy adviser at the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and as the director for strategic planning at the National Security Council.
