(01 of17)
Open Image ModalFrom the U.S. State Department\'s report on the Keystone XL pipeline, Jan. 2014.\n\nDrivers of oilsands development are global and any single infrastructure project is unlikely to significantly affect the rate of extraction in oilsands areas. (credit:Getty Images)
(02 of17)
Open Image ModalCross-border pipeline constraints have a limited impact on crude flows and prices. (credit:AP)
(03 of17)
Open Image ModalEast-west pipelines to Canada\'s coasts would be used to export oilsands crude to growing Asian markets. (credit:AP)
(04 of17)
Open Image Modal If east-west and cross-border pipelines are at capacity, oilsands crude could reach U.S. and Canadian refineries by rail. (credit:Getty Images)
(05 of17)
Open Image ModalKeystone XL would result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the alternative of shipping oil by rail. (credit:Getty Images)
(06 of17)
Open Image ModalU.S. jobs supported during construction: 16,100 direct and 26,000 indirect. (credit:AP)
(07 of17)
Open Image ModalU.S. jobs once completed: 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors. (credit:AP)
(08 of17)
Open Image ModalTotal estimated property tax from pipeline: US$55.6 million spread across 27 counties and three states. (credit:Getty Images)
(09 of17)
Open Image Modal\"This has been a lengthy and thorough review process. The benefits to the United States and to Canada are clear. We await a timely decision on this project.\" — Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver. (credit:The Canadian Press)
(10 of17)
Open Image Modal\"There is a simple question that needs to be answered: Is this pipeline in America\'s national interest. From our perspective, from an environmental perspective, we continue to believe that the answer is undoubtedly yes.\" — TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling.\n (credit:Getty Images)
(11 of17)
Open Image Modal\"The final supplemental environmental impact statement is an important step toward approval of a pipeline that will build our economic partnership with our friends in the U.S. and help foster North American energy security and independence.\" — Alberta Premier Alison Redford.\n (credit:The Canadian Press)
(12 of17)
Open Image Modal\"This State Department report, I think, should cause some optimism. But at the end of the day, it is a decision that rests with the president.\" — Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall.\n (credit:The Canadian Press)
(13 of17)
Open Image Modal\"Technically there\'s no deadline.\" — State Department spokeswoman Melanie Harf on when Secretary of State John Kerry will make a recommendation to the president.\n (credit:Getty Images)
(14 of17)
Open Image Modal\"If President Barack Obama truly wants to be able to tell his kids he did everything he could to combat climate change, then he must reject this pipeline because it is a fuse to one of the largest carbon bombs on the planet.\" — Mike Hudema, a Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner.\n (credit:Getty Images)
(15 of17)
Open Image Modal\"President Obama says he will only approve Keystone XL if it does not significantly worsen carbon pollution. By that standard, Keystone XL is not in the U.S. national interest.\" — Clare Demerse, federal policy director at the Pembina Institute.\n (credit:The Canadian Press)
(16 of17)
Open Image Modal\"Mr. President, no more stalling, no more excuses. Please pick up that pen you\'ve been talking much about and make this happen. Americans need these jobs.\" — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky).\n (credit:BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES)
(17 of17)
Open Image Modal\"Piping the dirtiest oil on the planet through the heart of America would endanger our farms, our communities, our fresh water and our climate. That is absolutely not in our national interest.\" — Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, international program director, Natural Resources Defence Council.\n (credit:STEPHEN STRATHDEE VIA GETTY IMAGES)