The oil sands is a valuable resource collected in the province of Alberta, and are found underground in a mixture of sand and water. The oil is mined in a heavy, sticky form, called bitumen, which requires more challenging extraction techniques than “conventional” oil drilling. Bitumen must be separated from the sand and water. Environmentalists see the oil sands as a major threat to our Earth, due to the destruction that the separation process leaves behind. CO2 emissions are also emitted when upgrading the bitumen into the common form of crude oil. Contaminated water bodies called ‘tailings ponds’ are the result of the bitumen separation process, and substances from these toxic ponds have been found in a nearby river, the Athabasca. Local fisherman and citizens claim that fish in the area are now deformed, and many say it is due to the toxic waste from the oil sands. On the other hand, the economic benefits of the oil sands are important to Canada; a projected 168 billion barrels of oil is waiting to be extracted at three different sites. With decreased amounts of conventional oil available around the globe, experts, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, see the oil sands as becoming a legitimate global source of oil, thus in Harper’s mind, turning Canada into an “energy superpower”. This paper is designed to promote that the economic benefits are vitally important to Alberta, and are significant to Canada’s economy. To further justify this side of the debate, three principal arguments will be presented. To begin, the advantages to Canada’s economy will be outlined. This argument will be followed by an explanation of the technologies that will be put into effect to improve the oil sands’ impact on the environment. Lastl...
... middle of paper ...
...to their respective problems, and as companies that profit off these projects earn money, they are able to reinvest their revenue into advancing research to minimalize the impact on the environment. To summarize, the s could provide Canada with enough oil to become an “energy superpower”, to greatly benefit Canada’s economy, and to supply the world with enough oil to decrease gas prices. Significant environmental obstacles lie in the way. The pipelines, as well as contaminated water ecosystems, such as Base Mine Lake, would help with the mitigation of this on-going problem, but environmentalists believe that the use of these pipelines would further speed the production of the oil sands, making the problem worse. The oil sands impacts the population as a whole, and all people should be aware and be able to express their opinion on this controversial global issue.
few water crossings where it is deemed safer to run the pipes above water. Enbridge
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.
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 of people and the environment. The making of these pipelines would cause a great amount of carbon pollution. Recently, President Trump signed the orders 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. The people against the pipeline believe that the pipelines would cause the release of gases into the air that could be harmful for other people.
“Pipeline debate heats up EthicalOil & Sierra Club CBC January 11, 2012.” Online video clip.
Oil sands crude is more corrosive to pipeline and more difficult to clean up when there is a oil spill (Palliser 9). Traditional clean up techniques used will not work and some are concerned that the federal agency that oversees the United States pipelines are not equipped to handle such a massive project (Palliser 9). Search for how many oil spills in the united states. In the event of a structural failure of the Keystone XL pipeline the maximium spill volume could be 2.8 million gallons (Palliser 9). This would be devastating to wetland, rivers, ground water and drinking water
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 oil companies, the customers, and the average employee will not benefit from the construction of this pipeline. If the pipeline does its job, it will take the whole load of oil from Canada to the United States. The other companies which are already responsible for transporting oil will not be required to do their jobs, as it is being done for them. All of these companies will go out of business. With 3 more pipeline plans in place for Canada, people are wondering whether they will ever need to build a new one again. With all of these companies going out of business, many employees will have to be laid off. This will cause insufficient manual labor, thereafter causing a lack of jobs. All the former employees are going to have to find another job. Since they won't have time to prepare in advance, for that time being, they also won’t have any source of income. "In our view, Trans Mountain plus the Keystone pipeline would make the Energy East pipeline less needed," said Divya Reddy, a global energy analyst with the Eurasia Group. "In terms of the production outlook for the oil sands over the next 10 years, it doesn't seem like that extra capacity is actually needed." Nothing is going to happen right away or very fast. So, in the instance that the pipeline doesn’t work, the other companies will still be running. This means both things will still be used. This will cause competition for attention and/or tasks between the pipeline and existing companies. This may draw attention away from the task at hand. “While we forecast continued growth in Canadian oil production, there might be too much pipe if Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 replacement and Keystone XL all start up by 2020” said Afolbi Ogunnaike, a senior analyst at Wood Mackenzie, in a note. Because of this pipeline, people are going to lose their
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.
Almost every single nation in our world today, the United States included, is extremely reliant on oil and how much of it we can obtain. Wars have started between countries vying for control of this valuable natural resource. The United States as a whole has been trying to reduce its reliance on foreign oil and has had some success, especially with the discovery of the Bakken formation and projects like the Keystone Pipeline. Projects like the Keystone Pipeline are important as they will allow us to transport more oil than we would be able to in train cars, and grant larger access to oil reserves in the United States and Canada. The Keystone Pipeline itself is an oil pipeline which runs from the western Canadian sedimentary basin in Alberta, Canada to refineries in the United States.
Since the rise of the Alberta oil sands, the contribution of greenhouses gas emissions has been increasing dramatically. Alberta has only 10% of Canada’s population but emits the most greenhouse gases than any province. Also, the oil sands are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in Canada ("Oil Sands Truth." Para 4). Additionally, although it takes a lot of energy going into producing the bitumen from the oil sands, the energy output is relatively low. A about three times water is needed for one portion of bitumen when it is being processed after being accessed from the oil sands. Not only is water wasted, but the water supply n the area is heavily polluted. There is more than three million gallons of toxic run off from the plants every day. To contain this, majority of polluted water and tar is segregated and turned into toxic pools which are deposits of a combination of chemicals and polluted water. These pools now cover about fifty square miles in the oil sands location ("Tar Sands Oil: Pros and Cons." Para 1). To make room for the industry, the boreal forest is being cut down at a rapid pace. This not only depleted forest cover but the boreal forest counters the carbon emissions from the sands but with less forests, there will be an even greater rise in carbon emissions. The land is also being harmed due to the construction of large pipelines to access consumers far away. Not only do the oil sands harm the inorganic aspects of the environment in the location but animals are harmed due to their habitats being destroyed both on land and in the water ("Pros and Cons: Alberta Oil Sands." Para 4). The rivers and streams near the oil sands are being polluted and more fish and other aquatic animals are getting sick and dying. This in turn affects the individuals who fish for a living or acquire the fish as a main dietary source. With less fish to obtain,
Lee, P., and Timoney, K.P. (2009). Does the Alberta tar sands industry pollute? The scientific