Keystone Xl Pipeline Pros And Cons

In the U.S, the Keystone XL Pipeline is doing more harm than good to the environment.

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

Have you ever imagined a world without oil because almost everything around you is made with it like plastic, food, gas etc. For example plastic is absolutely everywhere about 4-5% of the total us petroleum consumption is dedicated to the manufacture of plastic products. If we do not build the keystone pipeline how will we get our oil? Even though rails are slightly faster at transporting oil does not mean they are safer. Transporting oil by rails is more likely to explode or spill and if we continue to do so we will be wasting a ton of oil that could be used for our community. This brings me to my last

“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

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.

This means the potential for leakage could be high, damaging the ecosystems surrounding the pipeline; therefore, the Keystone XL shouldn’t be encouraged. The Keystone XL pipeline negatively impacts the environment by potentially leaking oil, being too close to important aquifers, and not being regulated properly, this is why the Keystone XL pipeline shouldn’t be encouraged.

The next major environmental issue of the pipeline is the indigenous populations. “Northern Alberta’s, where the tar sands oil comes from, people are coming under attack because of their operation of the tar sands in their livelihoods and cultural traditions.”5 Other people affected by this project are the people who live in communities downstream from the tailing ponds, “they have seen spikes in rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism.” “In the lakeside village of Fort Chipewyan, for example, one hundred of the town’s one thousand-two hundred residents have died from cancer.”5 So not only will this pipeline affect the people living around it but it will also affect the people working on it and living around the tailing ponds, wherever those may be located. With it traversing six U.S. states that means a lot of people could get sick and even die from a project that has so many issues with it before it’s even began to be used for its intended purpose.

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

“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

These emissions are equivalent to 29.5 typical U.S. coal plants or the average emissions of 21.4 million U.S. passenger vehicles”( Lorne Stockman “Dakota Access Pipeline Would Lock in Emissions of 30 Coal Plants”). Lorne Stockman explains the science behind the pipelines. The amount of CO2e let out of the pipelines equals to about 30 coal plants and 21.4 million cars.This can put a huge impact on global warming. According to Bernie Sanders “We are already seeing the consequences of global climate change, including rising sea levels, drought, wildfires and extreme weather. We should be transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward sustainable sources of energy. This pipeline, if completed, will do the exact opposite. It will lock us into burning more and more fossil fuels for generations to come”Bernie Sanders sent this in his letter to Barack Obama when he was in office. He explains rather than pushing us forward in the fight against global warming the pipeline would push us back.According to Ecowatch “Ethane also contributes

Would you be willing to give up driving your car? How about the heat in your home? If you answered no to any of these you are not opposed to the building of the Keystone Pipeline. Oil is the cornerstone of American economy. The United States’ dependence on oil trumps any other country in the world.

Those portions were completed in 2010 and 2014. The pipeline in the midwest is capable of receiving nearly 600,00 barrels of oil per day, while the Texas refineries can receive almost 700,00 barrels a day. There are other options for shipping Canada's oil, energy companies are building/upgrading all sorts of other pipelines to transport oil-sands crude.There is Transcanada’s ‘Energy East project’, which would reconfigure a number of natural gas pipelines to carry crude all the way to Canada’s east coast. This project does not need US approval, although it’s running into heavy opposition in Quebec. If completed ,it would transport 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, more than the keystone project does. The 1,179 mile canada to texas pipeline is backed by 57% of the 1,011 Americans that were surveyed on the 18th of december saying that the cost is worth it but Just 28% oppose it as it could majorly affect the environment ,while 15% say they are unsure about the keystone XL

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