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. 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). The tar sands are located under boreal forest in northern Alberta which is the …show more content…
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
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.
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.
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.
In 1958 Alberta gas finally reached Toronto and imports of Texas gas ended. Canada 's population was booming during the 1950s, and energy scarcities were becoming challenging. Canadian company TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. was incorporated in 1951 to undertake the creation of a natural gas pipeline across Canada. The financing of the project was split 50-50 between American and Canadian interests. This was a substantial operation in Canada because extra work was temporarily available to be able to create the pipeline. Canada has now become a self-sufficient country and stopped relying so much on other countries for oil. This was the activation of not only the Alberta oil industry booming and thriving, but also a nation as a
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
According to Brendan Smith, in his article “5 Reasons Why the Keystone Pipeline is bad for the Economy”, the project will have negative effects on the country’s economy. He argues that, building the pipeline will harm the economy because its impacts on the environment are costly and it will force the citizens and the government to pay the price. He continues by stating that the project will reduce jobs in the country because the fossil fuel industry had slashed its workforce. Smith points out that the effects of the project will be felt mostly by the poor people because they will not manage to cope with the adverse climate brought about by the increased use of fossil fuel. Moving on, he argues that the Keystone Pipeline will not sustain the economy because it cannot create more jobs in the country (Smith n.p). This is because a sustainable economy is one that creates more jobs...
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.
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 grants larger access to oil reserves in the United States and Canada. The Keystone Pipeline itself is an oil pipe line which runs from the western Canadian sedimentary basin in Alberta, Canada to refineries in the United States. These refineries are located in three different main locations: Steele City, Nebraska, Wood River and Patoka, Illinois and refineries located in the gulf coast of Texas.
In today's global economy, energy is one of the most crucial and sought after commodities. Who supplies it and how much they supply determines how much influence they have over other countries as well as the global economy. This is why hydraulic fracturing is currently such an important and controversial topic in the United States. Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as "fracking" or hydrofracturing, is the process of using pressurized liquids to fracture rocks and release hydrocarbons such as shale gas, which burns more efficiently than coal. This booming process of energy production provides a much needed economic boost, creating jobs and providing gas energy for Americans. The efficiently burning shale gas reduces carbon emission from electricity production plants, reducing carbon footprints on the environment. However, the process of hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of pressurized liquid, which contains toxic chemicals, and some of this water is left over undealt with. The air near fracking sites is often also polluted and unsafe for nearby community residents. Injecting millions of gallons of water laced with toxic chemicals into the rock thousands of feet deep can cause earthquakes, causing a safety hazards for all nearby areas. Hydraulic Fracturing makes rare natural gases easily attainable, boosting the economy and reducing carbon emissions. However, the negative side effects such as contaminated water and air, make hydraulic fracturing a process that may not be worth the benefits.
The Athabasca oil sands are the second largest producer of crude oil in the world, with a surface area of approximately 100 000 square kilometres (Anderson, Giesy & Wiseman, 2010). The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board estimates that the oil sands contains approximately 1.7 trillion barrels of crude bitumen, however only 19% can be ultimately recovered (Raynolds, Severson-Baker & Woynillowicz, 2005; Humphries, 2008). The availability of recoverable bitumen makes Canada’s oil sands deposit larger even than that of Saudi Arabia (Czarnecki, Hamza, Masliyah, Xu & Zhou, 2004).The process of surface and in situ mining of the Athabasca oil sands is causing rapid and significant degradation of the regional environment surrounding Fort McMurray and the Athabasca River. Production is expected to increase to three million barrels per day by 2015 from approximately 2 million currently (Humphries, 2008). This increase will further exacerbate the existing environmental impacts of crude oil production. The Canadian oil and natural gas industry is extremely lucrative, but despite the short-term economic benefits of the mining of the Athabasca oil sands, the remediation of the negative environmental impacts of the extraction of oil on terrestrial and aquatic environments, biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions are a priority.
When we look at Enbridge’s Line 9 and the pipeline carrying oil substance that it was not initially designed for we can apply the discipline of environmental sociology and dismember the different aspects and analyze them individually to understand how outcomes are produced. Environmental sociology, in regards to Line 9 addresses the social relations between some of the major towns and cities that the pipe runs through and explains how capitalism forms the base of environmental deterioration as financial income and wealth accumulation are often factors that receive more recognition. The familiar understanding of the Line 9 is that the government and city officials declare that it is safely distributing oil, when in reality, when we as sociologists observe and record that it is providing more societal concerns than it is claiming. This can be obtained through an examination of the numerous health affects that are presented through documentaries, such as residents suffering from seizures, and the arrest of a gentlemen who displayed signs of insanity and madness (Line 9, Film). It is at this point where it can be understood that environmental sociology helps us recognize human diversity and the challenges of living in a diverse world through the examination of human behavior and action towards environmental concerns. In the documentary, This Changes Everything, we are shown that fossil fuels are a growing concern that is attracting the attention of local residents who acknowledge that we are all sharing a common atmospheric space that needs attention from all individuals on all different social and economic levels (This Changes Everything, Film). When environmental