The State Of The Keystone Xl Pipeline

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.

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 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

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

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.

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

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

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.

The Keystone XL pipeline is needed for the transportation of petroleum products and to help the great demand of petroleum products in the economy

If we do build the Keystone Pipeline XL it will cause environmental issues. Many environmentalist say that it could leak and damage our water supply and that the project would just expand the extraction of oil sands a heavy dirty hard to clean oil that is not at all good for our environment. Research has said that extracting oil from the tar sands generates more greenhouse gases than extracting oil through more conventional methods and therefore contributes to a greater amount of greenhouse gas emissions over time. Environmentalists also fear that a leak from a pipeline carrying the heavy oil-sands petroleum

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