Keystone Pipeline Pros And Cons

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

Keystone XL is a oil pipeline system in Canada and the United States, this system was commissioned in 2010 and now owned by TransCanada Corporation. An increased amount of oil from Canada would mean a decreased dependency on Middle Eastern supplies. According to market principles, if availability of oil is increased, that means lower price for consumers. This will create almost 28,000 more construction jobs. The prospect of the Keystone XL pipeline being approved by the incoming Donald Trump administration will have little effect on Justin Trudeau's plans to get the oil to market. Keystone XL is a controversial issue because the different political parties have different opinions, the Conservatives and the Liberals both agree that yes, Keystone

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.

The history of oil pipelines in the U.S. supports both sides of the argument, but in the end one must not rely on history to decide whether or not to implement such a controversial pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline could be beneficial to the US economy but the dangers to the environment must be weighed in order to decide if the new oil pipeline is necessary. We live in a world that is trying to switch over to renewable energy and help reduce global warming. The increased production of oil in the United States might not be needed even though it might be beneficial to economic

“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

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.

This bill is very well written, and I find no major issue that would cause me not to support it. Our country needs the Keystone XL Pipeline, and so the sooner, the better. While some people may argue that the Keystone XL will be used to transport Canadian oil to the United States to only then be exported to China and other countries. In fact, it’s really a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, which will refine the received oil into gasoline, aviation fuels, and diesel fuels for U.S. consumption. The fact of the matter is, our country will still need to import oil to meet our own domestic demand for years in the future, despite its growing oil production. Using Canadian Oil will displace more expensive crude oils that are coming from less

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

One of these is that this pipeline will be among the largest in America. Yet the oil that flows through it will not be used in the US, but sent to Asia to compete with our own exports. The next is the accident rate in North Dakota is extremely high. There have been massive leaks, and spills all throughout the state, yet the companies are in bed with the politicians, and end up pay fractions of what they should. The most disturbing is that OSHA only has 9 inspectors between North and South Dakota. This lack of supervision and accountability contribute helps to one death once every six weeks. Since the big oil companies use subcontractors they cannot easily be sued for injuries, or deaths. As usual legalized corruption has a massive effect on policy, and regulation. The politicians turn a blind eye, while everyone else is

“If completed and once processed, transported, burned, it would release 101.4 million metric tons of CO2 each year. Equivalent to the emissions from 29.5 coal plants or 21.4 million cars per year” (Dakota Access Pipeline: Top 3 Pros and Cons). Adding more greenhouse gasses is definitely something we shouldn’t do. This pipeline would worsen our climate once it begins to pump oil. The use of alternative energies could benefit our country through being energy efficient, cost effective, and people friendly. Furthermore, the use of trails to transport crude oil is another concern because explosions can occur, killing people and damaging habitats nearby. “Pipeline supporters cite the 2013 disaster in Quebec, Canada, where a train carrying crude oil derailed and destroyed downtown Lac-Mégantic” (Yan). Many support the use of alternative energy sources that would allow people to keep their lands as well as save the Earth. Help the

TransCanada, when asked about possible benefits of construction, stated on their website that, “Keystone XL is the definition of shovel-ready infrastructure project”. TransCanada went on to say that over 9000 hard-working Americans could be put directly to work with good-paying jobs because of the construction of the KeyStone XL Pipeline. Furthermore, while the pipeline is being created, it was estimated by TransCanada that “Over Seven million hours of labor and more than 13,000 new jobs for American workers will be created”. TransCanada goes on further, stating that “Pipelines are safe and environmentally favorable” and that they are committed to minimizing its environmental impact along the proposed route. But, TransCanada is only making these tantalizing promises in order to keep currently neutral noses out of the matter in an effort to reduce the number of naysayers of the project. In truth, the creation of the XL Pipeline is terrible damaging the environment while also hurting the proposed workers of the project.

The Keystone XL pipeline would do little in reducing the United States dependency on Middle Eastern oil, which is actually goal established by president Obama for the sake of national security and economic growth. Another issue is that the out of the 42,000 jobs TransCanada has claimed the new pipeline will create, an analysis done by the State Department disagrees and claims “The proposed Project would generate approximately 50 jobs during operations.” All the harmful effects that the pipeline would have on the environment and the public health is not worth the creation of merely 50 permanent

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,

The Keystone XL Pipeline has divided North America because it is an enormous environmental issue. It has divided us due to our opinions. Many Americans see the potential it could bring to our country and economy, but there are several environmental problems to consider and health issues to think about before deciding which side to take. Not only do those factors matter but also how it could affect the lives of many Americans. There are two sides to this issue, to either approve or disapprove the Keystone Pipeline project, and by researching I will form an opinion.

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