Analysis Of Transcanada 's Proposal Of The Keystone Xl Pipeline Essay

Thesis Statement: In the U.S, the Keystone XL Pipeline is doing more harm than good.

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

As a way to directly link the unrefined tar-sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the refineries in Texas, there is no doubt that the Keystone XL Pipeline remains a topic of controversy. As with many large projects, there are both positive and negative consequences that result from its construction. While there are potential economic benefits like the creation of infrastructure-related jobs and a potential shift from energy dependence, there are many dangers to the building of the pipeline. The notion of building a pipeline that connects Canada and the United States for economic reasons is neither completely unjustifiable nor unreasonable, but given the current circumstances, in which ecological damage and neglect on the part of TransCanada are likely, I cannot support the building of the Keystone XL pipeline.

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.

On the 9th of February 2004 TransCanada Corporation, an energy company based in Alberta, Canada proposed a plan for the installation and use of a pipeline that would stretch from Alberta, Canada to oil refineries in the Gulf Coast of Texas in the United States. The pipeline, titled the Keystone Pipeline, would be installed in four separate phases and once completed would transport up to 1.1 million barrels of synthetic crude oil per day. Phases two through four of the pipeline encompass the parts of the pipeline that would be installed in the United States and would be located in the states of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, and Illinois. TransCanada is currently awaiting approval from the US government in order to

On June 25th, 2014, a $3.5 billion project was revealed to the public; a 1,172-mile-long oil pipeline that is intended to pump more money into state and local economies. The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) was supported by a natural gas and propane company known as the Energy Transfer Partners. The pipeline’s construction would be carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The people who preach pro-pipeline continue to hype the bountiful construction job opportunities this gives the people in the surrounding areas; however, many of these communities have different feelings towards this development. The Pipeline stretches from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to the oil tank farm near Patoka, Illinois, hitting South Dakota and Iowa

The Keystone XL proposal is fascinating in both its complexity and controversy. As the pipeline would go through Canada and the United States, approval from the government of each country is required for the project to proceed. Political, economic, and environmental issues in both countries have put pressure on the governments with advocates and opponents for the proposal vying to have their voices heard. Even the Canadian federal political parties do not all agree on whether or not the pipeline should be built. The Conservatives, for instance support the proposal, citing its potential economic benefits while the Greens are against the project, arguing that the environmental impact is far greater than the economic gains it might produce. First Nations groups also have an important stake in the outcome of the project. The approaches taken towards aboriginal issues by the two parties have differed greatly from one another, further dividing the Greens and the Conservatives. Indeed, both parties seem so firmly entrenched in their own stances that it seems highly unlikely that they will ever reach an agreement on the project. Unless the Green Party and the Conservative Party can come to a consensus on the Keystone XL proposal’s effects on the economy, environment, and First Nations, they will be unable to reconcile their positions.

Keystone XL is one of the worst energy solution proposals in recent memory. Recently, President Trump issued a go-ahead order for the pipeline to be built, which countered Obama’s own order to halt its construction. While there is continuous debate on which of Trump’s orders is the most harmfull, the issue of the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline is a prospect many should be concerned about. Not only does it violate many environmental regulations (which Trump also aims to be rid of), but the costs will end up outweighing the potential “benefits.” In this paper, I will examine potential problems associated with Trump’s decision to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and argue that it should not be built in the first

The first group we will outline is the Sioux peoples of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The outermost layer, the positions of these people, are that that the proposed pipeline trespasses on their land that is believed to have been illegally taken in 1868, and furthermore that they were completely left out of the initial decisions to move forward with the pipeline plans. Going deeper, we can look at the interests of the Sioux people and see that what they wish to achieve out of the conflict negotiation is to gain back rights on their land, receive respect, and to have their voice heard through democracy. Lastly, at the core we may find their needs. Most likely, the Sioux peoples would say they require clean drinking water (which could be affected by the placement of the pipeline), their land, and their livelihoods. The second stakeholder to look at are concerned environmentalists. As a spectator interest group, their onion speaks for the health of the land, water, and life near or on the proposed site. The environmentalists’ position is that they are against a pipeline structure that could result in environmental damage, and demand awareness of environmental health, as well as a thoroughly accurate environmental impact statement. Their interests are respect for the land, water and wildlife, accurate public information, and environmental protection. Lastly, if we look at the