Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Keystone Xl topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arkansas officials warn Keystone XL cancellation risks thousands of ancillary jobs at Port of Little Rock
Summary
State economic and port officials told a Senate committee that President Biden’s revocation of the Keystone XL permit could ripple through Arkansas manufacturing and port services, threatening thousands of supply‑chain and service jobs tied to Welspun’s pipe production.
State economic officials and industry leaders told the Senate Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development Committee that Arkansas stands to lose significant ancillary jobs and tax revenue after the federal government revoked the Keystone XL permit.
Mike Preston, Arkansas secretary of commerce and executive director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, said much of the pipe for the cancelled project was produced in Pulaski County and that the decision is a ‘‘big setback’’ for firms recruited to the state. Preston introduced Brian Day of the Port of Little Rock and Rajesh Shokani, who identified himself as chief operating officer managing Welspun/Wells Fund business in North America, to describe local impacts.
Rajesh said the pipeline’s halt ‘‘hurts’’ and estimated the project could relate to more than 11,000 direct jobs and ‘‘almost $100 million plus’’ in property tax revenue across states along the route. He told senators Welspun employed roughly 600 people in the region in a busy year and that the company sustained payroll during the pandemic because of pipeline contracts.
Port executive Brian Day described Welspun as the port’s flagship customer and warned that the loss of pipeline work would affect trucking companies, dock workers, equipment rental firms and caterers that serve port operations. Day said a recent labor‑shed study found about 7,000 people travel to the port each day from 23 counties, demonstrating the port’s regional economic reach.
Lawmakers pressed witnesses on transport costs and emissions. Committee members and witnesses cited an estimated transport cost differential of roughly $12–$20 per barrel between pipeline and rail; witnesses also repeated a testimony claim that pipeline transport produces materially lower CO2 emissions than rail or truck. Witnesses characterized pipelines as a lower‑cost and lower‑emissions option but framed many figures as industry estimates rather than settled facts.
Witnesses and legislators emphasized uncertainty. Preston and Rajesh urged raising legislative and public awareness and suggested litigation or administrative avenues might be pursued to reverse the federal decision. Brian Day said port revenues come from railcar and barge movements and land leases, so any prolonged loss of activity would force the port and its customers to ‘‘tighten our belt’’ and could lead to layoffs among ancillary businesses.
The committee did not take formal action on matter-specific relief; members asked staff and witnesses for follow‑up information about job counts, payroll figures and the accuracy of emissions comparisons. The testimony flagged the local economic links between a large industrial pipe producer and the Port of Little Rock, and it left several numerical claims identified by witnesses as estimates rather than audited totals.
The committee adjourned after later business on other bills.
