From the pipelines that I looked at the most economically and politically viable would be the keystone pipeline. This is because the United States of America and Canada are very close to each other, which creates less distance for the pipe to travel through, nor does it need to be built to withstand an underwater tunnel, such as the Poseidon Pipeline and the Nabucco pipeline. This means that the pipeline costs less to build, as less piping must be built, and it does not need any special materials: With a decrease in the cost, it means that there is more profit in the energy pathways. Furthermore, all three energy pathways that I researched showed that the pathway only went through countries with have positive geopolitical relationships. For …show more content…
One key example of this is in the Keystone Pipeline: America has the current largest need for oil, due to both its population size and their heavy dependence upon the consumer lifestyle. Furthermore, most of the USA economic activity comes from tourism, and the ability to travel through the large continent. Because of the pipeline, it ensures that there is enough oil to supply towards these elements, which creates a sustainable economic country and by consequence ensures that there are jobs for the American people (socially sustainable). In addition to managing the upkeep of the country, the building and maintenance of the pipeline supplied jobs for local people; with the extension of the XL Keystone Pipeline in the near future it secures jobs for those people again. By extension, this evokes the multiplier effect, which will help to build a more sustainable well-rounded …show more content…
Its original route plan crossed the Sand Hills, say that a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy. After opposition for laying the pipeline in this area, TransCanada agreed to change the route and skip the Sand Hills. A university professor from the University of Nebraska claimed that from his independent investigation he found that at the Ogallala Aquifer it is to be expected that no fewer than 2 major spills per state during the 50-year projected lifetime of the pipeline. These spills could release as much as 180 thousand barrels of oil each, causing much
Oil, gas, and fossil fuels have been recent controversial issues. There are cleaner forms of energy that could be used, but it is unclear what sources should be used and how to
One of the most controversial issues faced nowadays is the way we deal with the transport of oil. One of the proposed methods is The Keystone XL Pipeline. Although there are some pros associated with building the pipeline, the risk outweighs the benefits by far. Building the Keystone XL pipeline would negatively affect the environment, jeopardize the public health and is to no benefit to the American people.
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
From Canada down to Texas is an awful large amount of ground for a pipe to cover, but, organizations such as TransCanada insist that there is a wealth of benefits to be had with the construction of the pipeline, both during and after construction.
This means the potential for leakage could be high, damaging the ecosystems surrounding the pipeline; therefore, the Keystone XL shouldn’t be encouraged. The Keystone XL pipeline negatively impacts the environment by potentially leaking oil, being too close to important aquifers, and not being regulated properly, this is why the Keystone XL pipeline shouldn’t be encouraged.
The next major environmental issue of the pipeline is the indigenous populations. “Northern Alberta’s, where the tar sands oil comes from, people are coming under attack because of their operation of the tar sands in their livelihoods and cultural traditions.”5 Other people affected by this project are the people who live in communities downstream from the tailing ponds, “they have seen spikes in rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism.” “In the lakeside village of Fort Chipewyan, for example, one hundred of the town’s one thousand-two hundred residents have died from cancer.”5 So not only will this pipeline affect the people living around it but it will also affect the people working on it and living around the tailing ponds, wherever those may be located. With it traversing six U.S. states that means a lot of people could get sick and even die from a project that has so many issues with it before it’s even began to be used for its intended purpose.
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
Benefit number one is the are other routes the pipeline could take. Both cross a water source. One of the routes in near a town that is 90% caucasian people. The other route in near a reservation. I goes through supposed sacred land. The Native Americans who live on the reservation say it is on sacred land. I think they should go through the sacred land if they aren’t
The Keystone Pipeline system was first operational in the year 2010. And since then it has caused much controversy. Of the different phases in the Keystone Pipeline system, phase one, two, and three are complete. Phase four, also known as Keystone XL, has been put off due to the large amount of controversy it has caused. The Keystone XL pipeline segments will be used to allow American crude oil to enter the pipeline system in Montana, on their way to the storage and distribution plants located in Oklahoma. In 2015, the Obama administration rejected the building of Keystone XL, but with the election of Donald Trump as president, an executive order was signed to advance the project. The reason for such controversy with the Keystone XL pipeline is the effects it will have on native people, land located around the proposed pipeline course, and the wild life, as well as the many complexities due to the economic, social and political issues.
Those portions were completed in 2010 and 2014. The pipeline in the midwest is capable of receiving nearly 600,00 barrels of oil per day, while the Texas refineries can receive almost 700,00 barrels a day. There are other options for shipping Canada's oil, energy companies are building/upgrading all sorts of other pipelines to transport oil-sands crude.There is Transcanada’s ‘Energy East project’, which would reconfigure a number of natural gas pipelines to carry crude all the way to Canada’s east coast. This project does not need US approval, although it’s running into heavy opposition in Quebec. If completed ,it would transport 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, more than the keystone project does. The 1,179 mile canada to texas pipeline is backed by 57% of the 1,011 Americans that were surveyed on the 18th of december saying that the cost is worth it but Just 28% oppose it as it could majorly affect the environment ,while 15% say they are unsure about the keystone XL
For every spill of oil or gas, it damages that ecosystem sometimes beyond repair or it takes it many many years to recover from it. That being said the North Dakota Pipeline is going to be one of the safest most technologically advanced pipelines in the world. Another controversy is that the Native Americans are claiming that the pipeline runs through some of their sacred lands and can possibly contaminate their water supply. The North Dakota Pipeline can be a very successful oil transporter but there also seems to be some drawbacks like it possibly running through sacred land, contaminating water, and the possibility of leaking or exploding and causing a major disaster for the people and animals that live