Analysis Of Transcanada's Proposed 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.

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

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 Keystone XL pipeline also shouldn’t be encouraged because the Keystone XL causes pollution. Firstly, the Keystone XL could cause pollution because it adds to carbon pollution. The Keystone XL will add “1.3 million to 27.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year” (Jenkins, pg.1). The Keystone XL increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; potentially aiding in problems such as global warming, due to this, the Keystone XL should not be encouraged. Secondly, the Keystone XL pipeline adds to pollution because the Keystone XL adds to climate pollution. The Keystone XL adds to climate pollution because according to billionaire activist Tom Steyer, “Keystone XL fails his [Barack Obama] climate test” (Koring, pg.1). The Keystone XL failed Obama’s climate tests, changing the weather and potentially melting ice caps and causing floods, due to this; the Keystone XL should not be encouraged. Lastly The Keystone XL pipeline causes

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

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.

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

One of the reasons why, Environmental activist are trying to halt the building of the keystone pipeline (Denchak). Environmentalist are also trying to halt the pipeline because “One study found that between 2007 and 2010, pipelines moving tar sands oil in Midwestern states spilled three times more per mile than the U.S. national average pipelines carrying conventional crude (Denchak).” Additionally, TransCanada’s original keystone Pipeline System leaked 12 times (Denchak). One incident in North Dakota sent a 60 foot, 21,000-gallon geyser of tar sands oil spewing into the air (Denchak). This shows the pipelines could cause massive environmental

The environment is a very important thing to take care of and can be very fragile. In the recent years humanity hasn’t been doing much to take care of the earth, and instead is destroying it in the name of progress. One of the harmful things that could really impact the environment is the North Dakota Pipeline. Some facts about the pipeline is that it is owned by Energy Transfer Partners who are the owners of Sunoco. Sunoco has had multiple onshore pipeline leaks and disasters that have devastated many environments. The planned pipeline is going to be 1,134 miles long and will cut through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois, by doing that it crosses fifty counties in total. Pipelines in general aren’t really the most reliable things