Recently, TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline has become a hot debate topic. Those who oppose the Western United States oil pipeline are misled and uniformed. The US Government should authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline that would import tar sand oil from Canada. The pipeline would generate jobs and help to remove foreign oil dependency, is the safest transportation option being considered and finally will not harm or affect the environment as opponents claim. In 2013 the US State Department (S.D.) recognized the public concern for the pipeline and so they undertook the task of drafting an environmental impact statement. According to an article titled “Should the United States Authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline to Import Tar Sand Oil from …show more content…
GtC is a measure of a fossil fuel’s potential pollution and tar sand oil contains 400 GtC, 100 more than regular crude (“Should the”). Both opponents and supporters understand tar sand oil burns hotter and dirtier, and such was published in the S.D. report. The US and its citizens cannot control whether Canada exports the oil; it is out of their jurisdiction. Canada will market the valuable oil by any means necessary and the dirtier emissions will undoubtedly enter the atmosphere. Stating that the pipeline must not be constructed to control tar sand oil emissions is invalid. Denying the pipeline will not keep the oil in the ground. Opponents must realize that the oil is going to be drilled and transported, and the Keystone XL Pipeline is the best and safest …show more content…
The US Government, with the backing of the American people, should authorize the pipeline that would import tar sand oil from Canada. The pipeline would generate jobs while helping to diminish foreign oil dependency, is the cleanest and safest transportation option and finally it will not harm the environment. As Mark J. Perry, PhD, MSA, Professor of Finance and Economics at the University of Michigan states “There are few more important tasks than ensuring the Keystone pipeline gets built. Obama should approve its construction, for the good of the country” (“Should
The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline are two pipeline projects that were suspended in the past. These pipelines were stopped because they could have a big impact on people and the environment. The making of these pipelines would cause a great amount of carbon pollution. Recently, President Trump signed the order to approve the pipeline project. The projects have pros and cons, the people in favor of the pipelines think we would be able to rely less on foreign oil.
On the 9th of February 2004 TransCanada Corporation, an energy company based in Alberta, Canada proposed a plan for the installation and use of a pipeline that would stretch from Alberta, Canada to oil refineries in the Gulf Coast of Texas in the United States. The pipeline, titled the Keystone Pipeline, would be installed in four separate phases and once completed would transport up to 1.1 million barrels of synthetic crude oil per day. Phases two through four of the pipeline encompass the parts of the pipeline that would be installed in the United States and would be located in the states of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, and Illinois. TransCanada is currently awaiting approval from the US government in order to begin the installation of the US portion of the pipeline.
With our understanding that the pipeline is safe, and there are safety precautions in place if anything ever did happen. That it is the best economical way to transport this oil. And finally our need for this oil s huge and it will be huge for a long time unless we start the process of building nuclear power right now; even in that case we still have about 15 years before that is ready to take the work load of British Columbia. Even when we have a different sustained energy we will still have the need for oil due to the fact that’s cars are the main moat of transportation in the lower main land. That means we are far away from a province let alone a country that can run without the use of oil. And seeing how to transport it via pipe line is the safest spill wise and most economically friendly it seems to be the better choice.
The Alberta Oil Sands are large deposits of bitumen in north-eastern Alberta. Discovered in 1848, the first commercial operation was in 1967 with the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant opening, and today many companies have developments there. The Alberta Oil Sand development is very controversial, as there are severe environmental impacts and effects on the local Aboriginal peoples. This essay will discuss the need for changes that can be made for the maximum economic benefit for Canada, while reducing the impact on the environment and limiting expansion, as well as securing Alberta’s future. Changes need to be made to retain the maximum economic benefits of the Alberta Oil Sands while mitigating the environmental and geopolitical impact. This will be achieved by building pipelines that will increase the economic benefits, having stricter environmental regulation and expansion limitations, and improving the Alberta Heritage Fund or starting a new fund throu...
The reason for this report is to increase the reader’s knowledge on the Alberta Tar Sands, which will allow them to create their own opinions on the situation. It is a very pertinent issue in politics and will have a very large effect on the carbon emissions of Canada. Also, I wanted to further my understanding of the Alberta tar sands and learn the side effects of the tar sands. How the tar sands are different from other oil and energy procurement methods and which method is more energy efficient? Would the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States be an intelligent way for the US to involve itself in the tar sands? I wanted to answer these questions by knowing the real facts about the tar sands versus what the oil companies are telling the consumers. The ability to assess the entire situation will allow both the reader and I to formulate our own opinions about the tar sands and whether the extraction of oil at the tar sands should continue.
The Keystone XL Pipeline Imagine the world not as how it is now, but as how people wish it could be. There is no pollution, everyone has a job, the world is at peace and a safe place to live, and most importantly, everyone is happy. This is but a mere dream. Now open your eyes and look at it. See the reality of what the world truly is: we are intentionally hurting the environment, many people in the world are unemployed, many different countries are at war and people are dying because of it.
This paper will discuss the effects of Keystone XL Pipeline project and how the findings of the research might be beneficial to the United States. The first point of argument will be the negative impact of the Keystone Pipeline to America’s economy and the environment. The second point of view will be the positive impact of Keystone Pipeline to America’s economy. Keystone XL Pipeline is TransCanada’s tar-sand transportation project. The pipeline is supposed to cut across America to be linked with Canada’s tar-sand mines. It is aimed at increasing energy security in America. However, the project has received a lot of criticism from both the citizens and environmentalists for climate reasons (Mendelsohn and Dinar 154). To understand the implications of Keystone XL Pipeline, it is important to look at its environmental and economic impacts to the United States.
The Keystone XL pipeline continues dividing the opinion of the people and being a controversial issue. The precious “black gold”, represents one of the main factors that moves the economy, nationally and globally. This extra-long pipeline will transport oil all the way from Canada to Texas. Some experts and the private oil corporation, who is the one in charge of this project, point to the benefits of this project, for example, will make the USA more independent from foreign oil, will create thousands of jobs and improve the economy. Nevertheless, are experts revealing how the pipeline is an unnecessary risk and will be negative for the environment, dangerous for the population living close to the big pipes, and long-term negative for the
The Keystone Pipeline started construction in 2008 for the main purpose of connecting Canadian and American oil refineries to transport crude oil from the oil sands of Canada faster and more efficient. So far the first three phases of the pipeline have been completed but the proposed and most controversial is Phase IV. It connects Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Oklahoma which requires a presidential permit and it also connects the 485-mile southern leg known as the Gulf Coast Project between Steele City and Port Arthur, Texas, which is now operating (Eilperin). The benefits of the pipeline include an increase in jobs, contribute $3.4 billion to the U.S economy and also save time and money from transporting the oil by pipeline instead of tanks and rails. At the same time it would be a great harm to the environment, making the climate unstable, and could cause possible future oil spills. The articles covering the Keystone Pipeline generally list out the same points, covering the same benefits and consequences of building the pipeline. Sources like Fox News and CNS have more of an opposition towards the pipeline and narrow in on the risks and of the effects it would have on the people. Whereas news stations such as CNN and The Washington Post address both sides of the controversy but are subtle about being in favor of the pipeline. The international sources such as Al Jazeera and Reuters oppose the pipeline and are more open with supporting the environmentalists.
... we may see a serious act in the near future to start the process of drilling. With a solid combination and profitability factor the U.S. could prevent the rising gasoline prices. We need to however, continue our search for other alternatives do to our limited resource of oil. For this reason, I am in favor of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and also the exploration of alternative fuel sources, as well as ways to conserve fuel. This combination should provide the United States with an energy policy that is both financially stable and environmentally sound.
The construction of the pipeline will allow to transport large amount of barrels of oil all throughout the United States each day. As Adam Kelsey states in his report a few viewpoints from President Trump. He said that the transportation of the oil barrels throughout the US is a “vital energy infrastructure”. On January 24, 2017 Trump said “great construction jobs”, this will increase jobs for many workers. In addition to the construction jobs, there will be an increase in job for steelworkers. “We build the pipelines, we want to build the pipe, going to put a lot of workers, lot of steelworkers back to work”, says
A burst water pipe can cause a lot of damage that is costly to fix. A homeowner needs to take special precautions to make sure that they are not going to have any pipes burst during the cold months of winter. The following are three ways that you can help to prevent a burst pipe in your home this winter:
A little back ground about the Keystone XL Pipeline. TransCanada located in Calgary, Alberta, Canada is proposing to build the Keystone XL Pipeline to carry primarily oil extracted from tar sands. The pipeline is a 36” wide and will be approximately 1,661 miles in length (Palliser 8). The proposed pipeline “will run from Hardisty, Alberta, to Nederland, Texas, and traverse Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas” (Palliser 8). The Keystone XL pipeline will carry up to 900,000 barrels a day of synthetic crude oil or diluted bitumen (Palliser 8).
One of the major reason is tar sand production. Tar sand is a fast growing of GHGs emission in Canada. It emits large amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and it would affect the environment. In 2014, the production of tar sand was about 2.2 million barrels per day and it estimated that the production of tar sand will increase to 4.0 million barrels per day in 2030, which is the double of the production in 2014. Tar sand can be the major problem of Canada’s GHGs emission by 2030.
The GHG (or greenhouse gas) emissions would extensively increase. In 2015, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency has said to “revisit” how much the pipelines would contribute to global warming. Oil sands crude produces 17 percent more emissions than crude oil. Also, tons of water will also be used to make oil from the crude oil. Do we need water to make oil?