The Balance Between Environmental Risk And Economic Benefit

Canada is composed of many different regions, each with their own individual characteristic and form of government. There is always a chance of issues potentially rising when provinces have to come together to agree on controversies. One matter arising interprovincial conflict is the Alberta pipeline. Alberta needs to move their stranded oil either to the east or west coast which unfolds many tensions. Going west up brings a major conflict with British Columbia and the coast, where as going east involves passing through multiple provinces each with their own opinion of the pipeline. Most of these provinces also include crossing aboriginal land which is a whole other problem along with the premiers of each province. Reason to believe the pipeline has disadvantages include; the aboriginals protest about their land, the environmental contract with quebec, along with other provinces and transportation, a common dispute. The alberta pipeline causes conflict across the country as it affects its citizens and causes political disagreement. While the pipeline hinders national stability with the aboriginals, and between premiers it does benefit the oil and transportation industry.

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

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

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

“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.

The Canadian Keystone XL Pipeline is harmful and should not be encouraged by anyone, especially the Canadian government. The Keystone XL is harmful to the environment that surrounds the Keystone XL pipeline. Also shouldn’t be encouraged because the Keystone XL may cause pollution. Lastly, the Keystone XL Pipeline shouldn’t be encouraged because the Keystone XL pipeline negatively affects the health of citizens. The Canadian Keystone XL pipeline shouldn’t be encouraged because it negatively impacts the surrounding environment, it causes pollution, and it negatively affects the health of citizens.

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

TransCanada position in the need to build the Keystone XL Pipeline is that the increase capacity and route will allow it to supply crude to more refineries and ability to export for currently the pipeline has no direct access to a port. In addition, the pipelines shorter route to Steel City will shorten the delivery time. TransCanada position is that these reasons are justification of eminent domain. Eminent domain has been used for the building of pipelines for years and this pipeline should not be different.

The question that has arisen from this shift is whether or not the Canadian oil and gas industry inclusive of the upstream, and midstream sectors, has a net positive benefit to Canada. This essay will explore and seek to understand the myriad of issues that this industry faces daily.

The environmental risks that come with such a massive pipeline to transport “tar sands” pose a threat on many levels. As a matter of fact the tar sands they are trying to transport are required to

Firstly, Canada itself is a foreign nation. In the attempt to close our doors to foreign dependency on oil, we are actually becoming even more dependent on solely one foreign nation. The amount of oil we will receive from Canada is a substantial amount since it will replace overseas imports on foreign oil. Instead of being more reliant on our own oil, we are only shifting focus to rely on another nation that is not in economic or political turmoil. Secondly, the Keystone Pipeline itself is an export pipeline. Canada will be using the pipeline in order to transport crude oil to refineries in the Gulf Coast. Once the crude oil reaches the Gulf Coast, refineries will refine the crude oil into diesel and export it to Europe and Latin America. We will not be dependent on these countries anymore for their oil, but we will be involved in the importing and exporting of oil. In fact, this will actually pull the U.S. into a greater involvement with these nations. According to Oil Change International, the only way that we can actually reduce our dependency on foreign oil is to reduce our dependency on all oil as a whole. Throughout history, our energy sources have been constantly changing, from steam, to coal, and now to oil. We are in need of a new energy source and one that is actually reliable. Once we attain it, we will no longer be dependent on oil.

By reducing oil imports it helps the U.S. become more energy depended. This is shown in a statistic done by an activist group, their research shows that since 2010 there has been a 25% increase for oil demand, by putting in the pipeline it will cut back on billions of dollars leaving the United States for imports. Along with cutting back on imports, the pipeline will annually bring in 50 million dollars in property taxes, 129 million annual tax revenue. Along with property taxes and annual tax revenue, both North and South Dakota will receive 13 million dollars after the completion of the pipeline, and a 5.5 million