A New Form Of Energy

Should our president approve this harmful pipeline, he could unite his decision with requirements to reduce the carbon intensity of extracting the tar-sands and processing it.

The Keystone XL is a controversial oil pipeline extension that would travel from Alberta, Canada, to the United States Gulf Coast. The Keystone XL should not be built because of the damage it would cause to the environment. The oil would be found within tar sands that contain bitumen. The process of extracting the crude oil uses a lot of energy and causes a large amount of greenhouse gases. Many citizens, in Canada and the United States, are outraged because it can be detrimental to the surrounding land and wildlife. TransCanada, the company building the oil pipeline, has to receive permission from the United States government to begin construction. If the United States does not have the pipeline built and chooses to not use Canada’s oil, then TransCanada will have the pipeline built elsewhere and exported to other countries. There has been a divide between those in favor of the Keystone XL and those who are not. The Keystone XL would be able to provide the United States with a reliable source of oil, but it would also take the risk of faults in the oil pipeline and ruining parts of America’s resourceful soil. The Keystone XL will cause a negative effect on the environment and damage resourceful land; therefore, the oil pipeline should not be constructed.

One of the most controversial issues faced nowadays is the way we deal with the transport of oil. One of the proposed methods is The Keystone XL Pipeline. Although there are some pros associated with building the pipeline, the risk outweighs the benefits by far. Building the Keystone XL pipeline would negatively affect the environment, jeopardize the public health and is to no benefit to the American people.

Almost 95 million barrels of oil and fuel are produced each day in order to provide energy and fuel to people the world over. A major component of the oil industry is the transportation of oil through various means including oil pipelines. These pipelines are capable of transporting thousands of barrels of oil thousands of miles per day. In the United States one possible pipeline has caused a lot of controversy and discussion on the impact it will have on the United States. The difficulty in deciding if the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built is in whether the possibility of economic growth outweighs the possibility of environmental destruction. In order to make a decision, one must first look into the history of oil pipelines. It is crucial

You wake up one day but everything seems odd. Its freezing cold in your house and you wonder what happened to the heat. You go to the kitchen and try to find something to eat and there is no food anywhere. Suddenly you hear scattering and banging in your parents bathroom.Your mom is looking for medicine because she is extremely sick but there is no medicine that she can find to help her. Do you know why, it’s because this is how our future will look like if we have nothing efficient enough to transport the oil that we use in almost everything to us.Therefore we believe the U.S should build the Keystone Pipeline XL because doing so will provide more jobs and increase tax revenue, oil is extremely essential for daily life and the keystone will help to transport our oil easier and safer.

“In a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources, and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy, and peace (Nobel Peace Prize Medalist Maathai 2004).” A Canadian oil company that goes by TransCanada hopes to build an oil pipeline that would extend an enormous 1,200 miles onto an already gargantuan 2,600 mile long pipeline. Keystone XL represents just under a third of the entire Keystone project, and every other piece of pipe has been built and laid out. In fact, TransCanada 's pipeline system is already shipping hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil from the Canadian oil sands across the U.S. border -- and into Illinois (Diamond). The current proposal would take the pipeline on a journey all the way through to Texas. Extracting crude oil from oil sands would be enormously problematic for the environment as it causes the pumping of about 17% more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than standard crude oil extraction. Tar sand oil has levels of carbon dioxide emissions that are three to four times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive removal and refining processes (Friends of the Earth). The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would stimulate employment, the effects would be temporary and the whole scheme would produce a negative long term outcome. The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has caused

The Keystone XL Pipeline Project has many pros and cons just as any project does, but this project has way bigger cons than most projects this country will face today. “The Keystone XL Pipeline is an environmental crime in progress.” “It’s also been called the most destructive project on the planet.” The major issues with the Keystone XL Pipeline are “the dirty tar sands oil, the water waste, indigenous populations, refining tar sands oil and don’t forget the inevitable; pipeline spills.” And these are just some of the environmental issues, not too mention how building this thing from Canada to Texas; 2,100 miles to be exact, is affecting the people and their land, as stated “this isn’t a little tiny pipeline,

With an increasing global population and ever industrializing society 's, environmental concern is rarely given priority over economic incentive. But what people fail to realize is that our environmental failures, and relative apathy about it set up a plethora of problems for future generations to deal with. One of the most important decisions president Obama will face in the next year will be whether or not to approve the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, a massively sized, and massively controversial oil pipeline that would stretch all the way from Alberta Canada, to American oil refineries along the Gulf Of Mexico. Despite the economic incentive present, the building of the Keystone XL pipeline should not happen because of the

In Bill McKibben’s article, “Why Dakota Is the New Keystone,” McKibben expresses through vivid word choice, aggressive tone, and sentence structure, why the New Keystone pipeline should be in the Dakota’s. He brings together these elements to paint a vivid picture to persuade the reader into believing it too. McKibben uses words that clearly show what he wants the reader to picture and shows how he wants to shape this piece. He illustrates this by stating that there are “shocking images of the National Guard destroying tepees and sweat lodges and arresting elders” (McKibben).

Due to the evident climate change that is affecting the world and the ones who live in it negatively and the enormous contribution of human impact. The Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interests of the United States. Cushman’s book strives to weigh what the U.S. stands to gain verses what it likely to lose by investing in the Keystone XL Pipeline. Constructing the pipeline is for instance likely to create thousands of jobs besides contributing billions of dollars to the exchequer. The project is in addition seen as way of satisfying the U.S. energy needs in a way that offers economic and social stability in a number of ways. Since the project also involves the Canadian government, it’s definitely seen as a major boost to the U.S.

In addition to its detrimental environmental effects and commitment to furthering the use of unclean energy sources, the Keystone XL Pipeline does not offer significant benefits to the American economy or oil industry. When the Keystone XL pipeline was first proposed in 2008, there was a much higher need for more crude oil. America had just gone into a recession, gas prices were high, and many people thought that the pipeline was the answer to making this country money. However, as of January 2015 oil prices have dropped 50%, therefore resulting in cheaper gas prices (Cappiello 2). The President of the United States, Barack Obama, stated that “…the oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf Coast to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does

Before the TransCanada pipeline extension can begin, the project requires presidential authorization from the U.S. State Department, since the pipeline crosses an international border.2 The stated goal of the pipeline extension is to reduce American dependence on foreign oil by relying on our neighbor, rather than on Arab and Latin American countries, enhance national security, and advance economic development through job creation in pipeline construction. However, there are numerous environmental considerations and ethical concerns surrounding the issue. Though the pipeline may strengthen American security and create jobs in

Thesis: Building the proposed extension of the Keystone XL Pipeline would be disastrous for the future of our country and planet since it would place vital natural resources in its path at risk of an oil spill, continue and increase mining processes that damage the environment, and increase global warming by furthering our nation’s use and dependency on fossil fuels.

There has been much controversy over whether or not to build the Keystone XL pipeline that would connect Canadian Alberta oil fields to refineries in Texas. The proposed pipeline, which would be built by TransCanada, would connect two existing pipes, consisting total of around 1,700 miles of pipeline. The two sides of this argument can be roughly boiled down to two words: environment and economy. In such turbulent times can Americans afford to pass up a so-called shovel ready project that would create jobs and cut dependence on foreign oil from unfriendly places, or, as some would claim, is the risk of environmental mayhem too great? There is much dispute between both sides on the actual facts of the project, and a surprising amount of

The Keystone XL pipeline is a proposed expansion of the existing Keystone system, being proposed to transport greater volumes of Canadian oil sands crude to world market. It would transport Canadian crude oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refining or export. Trans Canada’s proposed XL pipeline has emerged as a symbolic flashpoint in the complex debate over energy, the environment, and the economy. Pipeline advocates argue that the project will creates tens of thousands of jobs and by increasing the flow of Canadian Oil into the U.S., will lower gasoline prices and strengthen energy security. Pipeline opponents counter that any