Oil pipeline construction is a controversial topic.

On Nov. 18, the Senate defeated a bill — by one vote — to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The proposed line would run nearly 1,200 miles from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

A week earlier, the House passed similar legislation allowing the pipeline to be built.

Even if the bill had passed, President Obama doesn’t support the bill. He prefers to have the State Department work through the approval process for the project.

Expect another attempt to pass a similar bill when the new Congress takes office. Republicans will control the House and Senate so one of the first orders of business could be to pass the Keystone bill.

The St. Cloud Times Editorial Board supports the Keystone project. Delays are not acceptable.

Closer to home, Gov. Mark Dayton said he thinks the best way to untangle the glut of oil trains on Minnesota rail lines is to transport more oil by pipeline. The large increase in the number of trains carrying oil from North Dakota to Midwest refineries has caused delays for grain, propane and coal shipments by rail.

Those oil trains also pose a higher safety risk to population centers along the tracks, including cities in the St. Cloud area.

Dayton is correct. The best way to move oil from the rigs to the refineries is by pipeline.

One example of a pipeline proposal that could help reduce the amount of oil carried by trains is the Sandpiper Pipeline. The project would carry oil from North Dakota to refineries in Clearbrook and Superior, Wisconsin.

This project would clearly reduce some of the rail traffic transporting oil along Minnesota’s rail lines.

The state Public Utilities Commission has asked for a review of six alternative routes proposed by opponents of the project.

Dayton has made a strong point: Look for ways to carry oil by pipeline, not just rail.

— St. Cloud Times, Nov. 26