With a final decision on a controversial international oil pipeline entering its final stages, a public meeting last night in Nebraska gave advocates and opponents one of their last formal opportunities to make their case as state regulators prepare to finalize their recommendation on a revised route.

Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline -- intended to carry crude from Alberta's oil sands to refineries in Texas -- unveiled a lengthy critique of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality's review of the pipeline's latest route, which was adjusted earlier this year to avoid sensitive environmental areas in the state.

Pipeline supporters, meanwhile, continued to press their case that the pipeline is necessary to enhance U.S. energy security by boosting oil supplies from a stable trading partner and create thousands of jobs along its route.

Hundreds of people turned out for the hours-long public hearing last night in Albion, Neb., according to news reports. Among those who spoke at the hearing, 85 opposed the pipeline while 22 supported it, said Jane Kleeb, who leads the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska.

Nebraska DEQ convened the meeting as it closes out its review of the new Keystone route before submitting its findings to Gov. Dave Heineman (R), who will recommend whether to approve the pipeline.

Heineman's recommendation will inform an ongoing review by the State Department before President Obama decides whether to approve a border-crossing permit for pipeline developer TransCanada. Obama's decision is expected by the end of March.

Kleeb and other pipeline opponents said this morning that rumors are circulating that the State Department's environmental impact statement was mostly written before yesterday's meeting and is set for release as soon as next week.

TransCanada proposed a new route earlier this year, aiming to avoid Nebraska's Sand Hills region and its Ogallala Aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the state. Pipeline opponents say TransCanada's new route still crosses sandy soils that could not adequately prevent spilled oil from seeping into groundwater and continues to traverse the aquifer; they are continuing to urge that the line be rerouted to parallel the Keystone 1 line along the eastern edge of the state.

"The so-called reroute is nothing but a PR move," Kleeb said during a conference call today. "It's as if TransCanada moved the Sand Hills and erased our aquifer."

Supporters of the pipeline say its critics would not support any route for the line because the main reason they are fighting it stems from opposition to oil exploration in general. Environmentalists have emphasized that extraction from Canadian oil sands produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional drilling.

American Petroleum Institute Downstream Manager Cindy Schild said the Keystone pipeline is "not the only option" to transport product from Canada's oil sands, pointing to proposals for additional pipelines within Canada to facilitate export to China and other countries. She said bringing it to the United States would be better for the environment because refineries here are less polluting than those in other countries.

"There's so much investment in oil sands right now, it's just a question of time and where it goes," Schild said on a conference call hosted by API yesterday.