PHY-100-002HY 21/10/15 Keystone XL Pipeline: A Step Backwards The debate regarding the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline is one that we must look at very carefully, as this proposed project not only affects the petroleum industry, but has greater far-reaching consequences that many people may not be aware of. Some of the primary concerns raised against the project are safety, effects on the climate, and the impact it will have on the economy in America and abroad. To discuss the safety of the pipelines, it is important to make the distinction between traditional crude oil and the tar sands that are to be transported using the pipeline. Tar sands, unlike oil, are composed of a mixture of different substances: clay, sand, water, and …show more content…
The condensate vaporizes from liquid to gas.” (cleanhouston.org) We know the risks involved in pumping crude oil and the potential damage it may cause if mishandled, but by comparison, the mixture of tar sands seems to be much more difficult to manage if the pipeline does experience spillage - it will be a lot more difficult to deal with the carcinogenic gas released into the atmosphere. As it stands, the potential for accidents to occur is greater with tar sands than with crude oil. Not only would the Keystone XL Pipeline pose a safety issue, it would also pose a threat to the issue of climate change. The aforementioned process of refining tar sands requires a large amount of energy - even more than the processes used for crude oil. It is also important to mention that processing tar sands will emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to the growing issue of climate change. According to The Environmental Protection Agency, the “tar sands greenhouse gas emissions are 81 percent greater than those of conventional oil.” (nrdc.org) The reasoning for this is all in the extraction method. While crude oil can be obtained by means of strip mining - removing layers of rock and soil, tar sands are obtained by even more harmful methods. In order for tar sands extraction to be profitable to these companies, they must use a technique involving injecting steam underground in order to efficiently
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.
Pollution is already a huge ongoing battle in the United States and if constructed the pipeline would send about 800,000 barrels of hazardous oil a day along with tons of greenhouse gases. The US Department of Environmental Protection estimates the greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian oil will be more than 80% greater than oil refined in the US. That is roughly equivalent to the same amount of emissions released by 5.7 million passenger vehicles. Unfortunately, when emissions are passed into the air, the air cannot be cleaned, and since oxygen is a vital component in keeping humans alive, adding an oil pipeline that would put that much emissions into the air is far too dangerous for the public’s health what it’s
The extraction of the bitumen rich tar sands usually entails heating the oil while in the ground so that it may be pumped up to the surface which can be dangerous and cause harm to the surrounding area. The refining of the oil can be even more dangerous to the environment because the tar sands requires a special process of refining that would create copious amounts of greenhouse gases. Many opposing the pipeline also believe that the pipeline would not be as safe as supporters say it would be. Looking at the Keystone 1 Pipeline, the “previous pipeline was said to be safe but leaked much more than anyone anticipated. ‘In its first year, the pipeline leaked 14 times, with the largest spill exceeding 21,000 gallons’” (Swift). TransCanada claimed that the first pipeline would be safe and that it would not leak for many years, yet the pipe still leaked and caused major damage to the surrounding area. This left those affected, as well as other concerned Americans, to wonder why they should trust the company with building another pipeline and why the company’s promises should be trusted again. Environmentalists and those against the Keystone XL Pipeline “also object
The Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has brought forth many conflicting arguments, thus resulting in some parties being for it and some against it. I believe however, the risks are far greater than the rewards. The controversies surrounding the oil pipeline have brought up significant reports regarding environmental safety and concern with also safety and concern of the public. Due to the fact that presently, there is one operational pipeline running from Alberta to the Pacific Coast, I believe the introduction of a new pipeline would have disastrous consequences if something were to happen whether being an oil spill or a fire. The NEB (National Energy Board) failed to mention significant situations in which this pipeline could significantly
It has been proven and stated by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that “Tar sands oil is the dirtiest oil on
Next comes the issues with the refining of the tar sands oil. This is where Texas comes into play and how the refining of such dirty oil will affect communities and people located in the state of Texas. “Refining tar sands oil is dirtier than refining conventional oil, and results in higher emissions of toxic sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. These emissions
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
The main issues are the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and 17% higher greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction of oil sands compared to extraction of conventional oil. The potential for oil spills could pollute air and critical water supplies and harm migratory birds and other wildlife. The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, providing drinking water for two million people and supports $20 billion in agriculture. Critics say a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate mid-western US economy. Pipeline industry spokesman have noted that thousands of miles of existing pipelines carrying crude oil have crossed the Ogallala Aquifer for years in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Portions of the pipeline would cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3 magnitude earthquake in 2002. TransCanada CEO described the Keystone Pipeline as “routine”, noting they have been building similar pipelines in North America for half a century the that there are 200,000 miles of similar oil pipelines in the US today. The Keystone Pipeline will include 57 improvements above standard requirements demanded by US regulations, making it the “safest pipeline ever
America is the largest oil consumer in the world followed by China. The building of the Keystone Pipeline is an opportunity to strengthen our nations economy and energy future. Wouldn’t it be nice if the petroleum obtained by the United States was cheaper and from a more secure part of the world rather than where America is buying it now? TransCanada has been pushing the building of the Keystone Pipeline XL project for six years, which is an eternity
Innovative thinkers and large minds of industry have decided that building a massive pipeline running through many rivers, cities, and one of the largest freshwater reserves in the United States is a good business idea. They will be able to transfer giant amounts of oil across a set distance very easily. This section from an informative website explains the project, "The Keystone XL Pipeline Project is a proposed 1,179-mile (1,897 km), 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline, beginning in Hardisty, Alta., and extending south to Steele City, Nebraska. It is intended to be a critical infrastructure project for the energy security of the United States and for strengthening the American economy."(TransCanada). These are factors of why building this pipeline will be useful. Many costs of transportation will be easily avoided and the time is takes will be shortened significantly.
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.
Its original route plan crossed the Sand Hills, say that a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy. After opposition for laying the pipeline in this area, TransCanada agreed to change the route and skip the Sand Hills. A university professor from the University of Nebraska claimed that from his independent investigation he found that at the Ogallala Aquifer it is to be expected that no fewer than 2 major spills per state during the 50-year projected lifetime of the pipeline. These spills could release as much as 180 thousand barrels of oil each, causing much
Advocates for the Keystone XL pipeline claim that it would permit the United States to upsurge energy security and diminish foreign oil as a necessity. The United States alone requires more than eight million barrels of imported oil per day and the dispute over the projected Keystone XL pipeline isn’t a dispute of fossil fuels against alternative resources. An ample percentage of the produced oil that will flow through the Keystone XL pipeline will most likely wind up being used up outside the U.S. This project will raise the weighty value of oil in the Central region of the U.S. by rerouting oil from the refineries located in the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico and other exporting
For every spill of oil or gas, it damages that ecosystem sometimes beyond repair or it takes it many many years to recover from it. That being said the North Dakota Pipeline is going to be one of the safest most technologically advanced pipelines in the world. Another controversy is that the Native Americans are claiming that the pipeline runs through some of their sacred lands and can possibly contaminate their water supply. The North Dakota Pipeline can be a very successful oil transporter but there also seems to be some drawbacks like it possibly running through sacred land, contaminating water, and the possibility of leaking or exploding and causing a major disaster for the people and animals that live