Introduction
The $5.5-billion Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines project would consist of two pipelines: one transporting oil in a westerly direction from Bruderheim, Alta., to the port of Kitimat, B.C., from where it would be shipped to international markets in Asia and the northwestern United States; and another carrying imported natural-gas condensate in the opposite direction. The condensate is a toxic mix of liquid hydrocarbons that forms during the extraction of natural gas and is used as a thinning agent to dilute and help transport heavy oils like bitumen.. The Northern Gateway would have the capacity to transport 525,000 barrels of oil per day. The project would be developed by Enbridge Inc., a Canadian crude oil and liquids pipeline company.
The majority of the pipeline would be buried underground, with the exception of a few water crossings where it is deemed safer to run the pipes above water. Enbridge claims that the pipeline and terminal, if completed, would provide 104 permanent operating positions created within the company and 113 positions with the associated marine services.
First Nations groups, environmentalists and oil sands opponents, among others, denounce the project because of the environmental, economic, social and cultural risks posed by the pipeline. Proponents argue the pipeline would instead provide aboriginal groups with equity ownership, training, employment, Community Trust and stewardship programs.
The proposal has been heavily criticized by native groups. Groups like the Yinka Dene Alliance have been organized to campaign against the project. In December
2010, 66 First Nations bands in British Columbia, including many along the proposed pipeline route, signed the Save The ...
... middle of paper ...
...tected area.
Because bitumen can sink in water, a cleanup would be "very challenging," say the three environmental groups, and Canada's pipeline regulations do not specifically address shipping bitumen.
Other critics claim that exporting the petroleum from the oilsands rather than refining it in Canada amounts to exporting jobs, as well.
Project’ s Future
To build or not to build? With factors on both sides that reiterate the notion that this is no easy situation to address. Is it worth BC’s approval to build the pipeline, when it assumes 100 per cent of the port risk and 58 per cent of the land-based pipeline risk?
Can a dollar value be placed on BC’s integrity? How much money would it make alright to assume the unwarranted risk of oil spills and devastation of one of Earth’s most beautiful temperate rainforests? $1 billion? $5 billion? $100 billion?
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.
A utilitarian approach to this situation would be to not create the pipelines because there are more cons than pros.
“Pipeline debate heats up EthicalOil & Sierra Club CBC January 11, 2012.” Online video clip.
In this essay we will be looking at why the Keystone XL Pipeline should not be built. This is a hot controversial issue that has been in the news for awhile. We will discuss the pros and cons of what will happen if the United States passes legislature to allow the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built. You have to ask yourself if destroying the environment is for our children is worth it to make a few billions richer or maybe little bit cheaper gas. If you agree with building the Keystone XL Pipeline you need to look your children in the eyes and tell them you’re sorry for destroying the environment for them and their children.
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 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
From the arguments, it is evident that the negative effects of the construction of Keystone XL Pipeline supersede its positive impacts, both on the United States of America’s economy and environment. Therefore, it is important that the country takes into consideration the negative effects that might be associated with the pipeline before embarking on its construction.
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 opening stories on CNS and FOX on the topic of the pipeline are in support for Obama’s decision against the pipeline. The coverage over the controversy is very one sided and mainly talks about the negative effects of letting the pipeline pass through Montana, South D...
As a tribal member it is very important to care for nature and respect the land. With the recent problems Michigan has faced, including but not limited to, the Enbridge 5 pipeline that runs under the straights of mackinaw and the Flint water contamination, it is important to me that we do what we can to be a part of the solution verses the problem. No matter what the amount of recycling Bay Mills Community College accumulates, with no recycling plan set in place the tribal college of Bay Mills will remain a part of the problem.
The newest proposed phase has been met with mixed feelings. Many companies in industry wish to see the newest phase of the pipeline completed because many believe that it would be very beneficial to almost everyone. One of the biggest benefits that the construction of a new section of pipeline would provide is the large amount of jobs that it would create. The...
As with most complex issues where many competing rights are at odds the compromise is generally the best course of action. It is the right thing to do so the virtue ethic is obtained. Ethical examination of the pipeline going forward begins with my worldview. I personally have seen pipe installed in the ground with leak prevention and detection technologies to make it safe. Oil and gas is transported safely in pipelines throughout North America. I also have built tank cars and trailers that have transported products safely all over North America. My worldview supports this hybrid compromise. My intuition tells me the hybrid solution is correct. The compromise solution can be further supported by the 56% approval of the pipeline based on poles of Americans. Researching this issue yielded many issues that only clouded the ethical conflict. These included arguments for and against the pipeline based on its effect on the U.S. gross domestic product. U.S. energy security and North American energy independence was argued by proponents. The pipeline’s negative effect on alternative energy development was presented by opponents. A conflict of interest was suggested in that the consulting firm that performed the environmental impact study for the U. S State Department had oil industry clients, including TransCanada. One group proposed that it is more ethical to get oil from democratic states versus states with oppressive
Putting in the pipeline in the underground would be,” … designed to transport 470,000 barrels of crude oil per day (with a growth potential up to 570,000 barrels per day) “ (Energy Transfer) Companies makes more money by that but that leaves out the issues where they are going to put these pipelines. Of course these companies decided a place where a Native American’s reservation lies, destroying homes and historical places. “ The Dakota pipeline will create over 8,000 immediate jobs in the construction sector,’ (Blakeman) shows that going on with this plan will get people out of a job can go into this work field. Although creating jobs for thousands of people, but think about what the people who are living in the land feels. They’re going to be out of a job, house, and sense of security. The companies are picking up hundreds of families and making them move because they are destroying their drinking water.
A blessing or a curse, you deside. In the next 20 years British Columbia's population is expected to flourish by approximately 40% and the power use is expected to expand by 50%. With the expected demand in power many have turned to the Site C Dam as an easy out. This project would be built on the Peace River and it would be the third dam on the river. This project is so big it would cost 7.9 billion dollars. Many would benefit from the project, but the same breath many would have a great deficiency. Which would cause political parties to favour either sides of the deal, such as the Green Party and the New Democratic Party. (NDP) More then 619 million dollars would benefit the government, the province, and the tax payers. More energy is expected to come due to the WAC Benette Dam's 5% reservoir. Even thou this project comes with some great benefits, it has some big draw backs, which also causes many to favour against. This project would cause permanent damage to the environment, land and animals.