The Keystone Xl Proposal : Its Complexity And Controversy

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.

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed oil system that expands from Hardisty, Alberta to Port Arthur, Texas. Stretching 1,661 miles long and 36 inches’ wide the TransCanada pipeline would carry tar sands oil, one of the world's dirtiest fuels. The Keystone XL Pipeline would nearly double the amount of the amount of

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

The Keystone Pipeline will provide jobs for the U.S. Since the Keystone Pipeline requires a lot of help and work to be done, that means it will require a lot of workers to help build it. If we do complete the keystone pipeline xl there is an estimated 138.4 million in annual property tax. That money can be used for schools churches and activity centers which therefore will create more jobs. Another advantage to building the pipeline to help create more jobs is that many companies have decided to make the

“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.

Northern Gateway pipeline proposal heading toward showdown over First Nations rights. Dene Moore. The Canadian Press. December 14, 2012. http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Northern+Gateway+pipeline+proposal+heading+toward+showdown/7699792/story.html. Retrieved on March 10, 2013.

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

What is the keystone pipeline and what does it do? The keystone pipeline is an oil pipeline that was commissioned in 2010. It runs from Alberta, Canada and then into refineries in Illinois and Texas and also to an oil pipeline center in Oklahoma. This pipeline is a critical project for the United States. The Pipeline consists of four phases. The first three phases have already been completed. The fourth phase failed to receive permits from the United States government in 2015. The project proposal for Phase IV from 2012 will be new 36-inch pipeline from Alberta and into Montana and then South Dakota to Nebraska. It will transport 830,000 barrels per day of crude oil to refineries in the Gulf Coast and other areas.

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 origination of this case study begins on one brisk morning back on the 19th of September in 2008 when TransCanada first submitted their application to the U.S. State Department to build the Keystone XL pipeline. The Canadian based energy infrastructure company proposed a 1,179-mile, 36-inch diameter pipeline that would transport crude oil from Canada, through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Along with transporting oil from producers in Texas, Oklahoma, Montana and North Dakota (Figure 1).

“For years, the Keystone pipeline has occupied what I frankly consider an over-inflated role in our political discourse,” said Obama (Article 2, Pg. 2). The Keystone and the Dakota pipeline one of two rejected by government administration. Protest still till this day are being held by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, other Native American tribes, and other supporters, to put a stop to the building of the pipeline which carries crude oil through: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois.

It is a given that one should recognize the fact that it is uncertain as to how the DAPL controversy will inevitably be dealt with; considering both sides of the debate have strong points. The importance the Sioux place on the land they were given after decades of unfair treatment is a key part of knowing why the DAPL controversy is being dealt with the way it is. However, deciding to get rid of the pipeline entirely might prove to be a negative alternative, considering railway transportation is most likely the other option. Ultimately, it can be assumed that both parties would hope for a compromise to be made, ensuring the safety and financial aid of everyone involved. The risk is not yet present, but that should not stop one from weighing out their options. The decision not being concrete should enable those who wish to know more about their country to look into the issue and stay informed, considering information from both sides before making decisions about what they