Keystone XL Pipeline: A Risky Venture Essay

Throughout history, The United States has been much reliant upon inunct rich countries for smooth-spoken fuel necessities. Current economic conditions warrant a internal alternative, since embrocate is flowingly referred to as black gold. In recent years, wrinkles shake up become a substantial transportation cipher for liquid fuels throughout Alaska and the lower 48 continental states. Promises by electric chair Barack Obama open given Ameri bathrooms the hope that integrity day the United States can be elan vital independent. Currently this is not plausible, but umteen count the tonality XL argument could lessen the dependency of extraneous inunct and produce many needed jobs within the United States. Contr all oversial matters have led a chairwomanial Permit for the project to be declined callable to the project currently not being in the nations best spare-time activity. Many debates have taken place over this ratiocination and governance have become a key f ocal point. rough claim it is due(p) to special interest groups, others claim its due to environmental matters. Regardless of the politics entangled, the structure of the tombstone XL cable would be tooenvironmentally detrimental and costly to pursue.In 2005, the Keystone wrinkle System, labeled Keystone XL, was introduced by TransCanada following an expect production increase of crude oil from the Oil Sands expanse of Alberta, Canada (Parfomak, Pirog & Luther, 2013, p. 3). The expected cost of the Keystone XL telephone circuit would be solidification at seven billion dollars, with total distance of underground hollo at 1,702 miles (Casey-Lefkowitz & Shope, 2011, p. 2). The channel would connect Alberta, Canada to advanced refineries in the disconnect sailplaning of the United States (Parfomak et al. 2013, p.1). Since the pro idiosyncrasyd pipeline arrangement would connect the United States with a foreign country, a Presidential Permit would be required to deter explo it if the pipeline was in the nations best interest (Montopoli, 2012).In 2008, TransCanada utilise for a permit to cross the foreign border with the proposed pipeline system and was subsequently denied due to the State Departments insufficient time for review and environmental issues with the proposal (2012). In 2012, TransCanada submitted a reconfigured proposal that would connect the pipeline from Alberta, Canada to an actual pipeline in Steel City, Nebraska. Again, this proposal was denied by the President with a response from the State Department that the pipeline was currently not in the nations best interest (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 2). Many legislative methods to run on the pipeline were addressed by Congress that in turn would change approval authority, although none thus far have been successful (2013, p.3).President Barack Obama has been under public scrutiny for his decision in denying the permit by many respected members of government in favor of the pipeline. Acc ording to the chapiter Post, Obama donor and billionaire Tom Snyder wrote an open letter stating that Obama to reject pipeline or face backlash (Bradley, 2013). Snyder, a self-proclaimed environmentalist has been linked to big oil by amassing a large portion of his fortune through investments in TransCanadas competitor, Kinder Morgan (2013).Republicans, such as frontrunner Mitt Romney, went on record by saying it shows a President who once again has put politics ahead of sound policy, and if the Statesns want to understand why unemployment in the United States has beenstuck above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the enceinte Depression, decisions like this one ar the place to begin (Montopoli, 2012). Struggles for and against the pipeline by members of government and special interest groups have led this decision to be viewed as politically motivated. With that being said, evaluating individual pros and cons hiting the project are demand in order to justify whether or not the project should gesture forward.Achieving energy license is what President Obama stated that the United States is seeking to accomplish. To gain this goal, the United States will be required to fulfill these necessities through domestic sources and renewable fuels. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that by 2040, only 16 percent of U.S. energy will be generated by renewable fuels (Bradley, 2013). Although independence from renewable fuels may be too far off to determine, the Keystone XL Pipeline would create a substantial growth in domestic oil production (2013). Along with increased production comes construction and manufacturing jobs for an estimated 20,000 American workers (2013).Safety advantages from pipelines are also substantial compared to other modes of transporting oil. belittled rates are achieved by a low loss and victimize record, since weather conditions do not effect pipelines and mechanical failures are disused (Coyle, Novack, Gibson, & Bardi, 2011, p. 273). With piping being completely encased underground, the risk of terrorism and thievery is also greatly compressd (2011, p. 273). Care is taken with the use of break undercover work systems and aircraft monitoring, since environmental toll, lawsuits and product losses have been issues of the past (2011, p. 276).In 2011, The State Department conducted an environmental impact study noting that annual ascorbic acid emissions would increase by only one third of one percent (Bradley, 2013). The American Petroleum Institute also estimated that American and Canadian reserves could provide all of Americas liquid fuel ineluctably within 12 years (2013). Of course this would depend on if current infrastructure could support the increase (2013). Those for the pipeline have argued their case by stating that the pipeline will also assist through stronger relations with attached Canada and provide direct access to Canadian crude oil (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 7).TransCan ada themselves say that it would be in the nations best interest to reduce current dependency on foreign crude oil from Mexico and Venezuela in the Gulf by maintaining adequate crude oil supplies by pipeline for domestic refineries (2013, p. 20). Key issues from major crude oil exporters such as Mexicos falling production since 2004 and Venezuela national oil company hook on has also promoted TransCanadas proposal (2013, p. 21). With Canada already being the number one import of crude oil in America, one would believe that furthering this relationship, along with lessoning the dependency on unreliable foreign oil would be a logical choice.While those who support the pipeline base their arguments on increase the U.S. petroleum supply, creating supererogatory jobs and other economic benefits, those who oppose the pipeline are mainly environmental organizations and community groups (2013, p. 18). Their concerns stem from environmental issues, such as toxins, spills, adverse greenhous e emissions and the unconventional and costly method of mining and civilisation tar littoral oil (Casey-Lefkowitz & Shope, 2011, p. 2). Tar sands stock in Canada is already known for destroying Boreal forests and wetlands, creating high levels of greenhouse hitman contaminant and producing toxic waste dumps called tailing ponds that currently cover around 65 miles (2011, p. 2).The destruction of the Boreal forest is killing many types of species and practice of the Athabasca River for mining is harming humans as well (2011, p. 2). Tar sands extraction uses large amounts of weewee from the Athabasca River, and studies have shown that thirteen primary pollutants under the U.S. jolly Water Act, such as led, mercury and arsenic are being write outd into the river (2011, p. 2). Concerns with the Fort Chipewyan community downstream from the river include increased cancer rates, bosom and lung disease, as well as asthma (2011, p. 2-3).Not only is the carry out more costly than extracting and refining crude oil, but tar sands oil also contains toxins such as bitumen (Swift, Casey-Lefkowitz, Shope, 2011, p. 3). Bitumen, or DilBit is a passing corrosive and acidic fit that contains volatile natural gas liquid condensate (2011, p. 3). Increased risk from the corrosive and volatile substance could pose significant risks of increased spills and ruptures thatcould damage communities and fresh water supplies in America (2011, p. 3).Highlighted in the Keystone XL final Environmental Impact show shows a primary environmental concern by TransCanada stating, the greatest concern would be a spill in environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, flowing streams and rivers, shallow groundwater areas, areas near water intakes for drinking water or for commercial/industrial uses, and areas with populations of sensitive wildlife or plant species (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 30). higher(prenominal) operating temperatures and pressure is required to move the thick mater ial through the piping, which could cause leak detection problems and safety issues due to the unstable blend (Swift et al. 2011, p. 3). In correlation, the Alberta pipeline has had approximately sixteen times as many spills than U.S. pipelines due to the corrosive issues of tar sands oil (2011, p. 3).In the jump year of the TransCanada Keystone pipeline, there were fourteen spills (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 31). Although technological leak detection is considered to be efficient, many spills were reported by witnesses and went undetected by release detection equipment (2013, p. 31). Incidence like this have caused much concern over spills since DilBit is a heavy crude mixture that is much more thorny to clean up than regular crude oil (2013, p. 31). Heavy damage to waterways and air pollutant such as benzene caused by spills from the Keystone Pipeline and other pipelines have already incurred (Swift et al. 2011, p. 7).With the proposed pipeline plotted in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Ogallala Aquifer, a pipeline leak would have devastating effects, not to mention immense cleanup cost, time involved and irreparable harm to the environment and communities (Casey-Lefkowitz & Shope, 2011, p. 3). In addition to these possible affects, the intromission of this pipeline would not lower the price of fuel to the consumer at the gas station, as fuel prices are based off the national and international market (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 23). Only big oil would benefit from the pipeline, along with additional jobs to Americans, but would ultimately secure the continued destruction of the Earth.In a public forum in 2010, Secretary of State Clinton stated, were either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Persian Gulf or dirty oil fromCanada until we can get our act in concert as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet (2013, p. 29). The real question is if this pipeline is in our nations best interest and the best interest of Mother Nature. Those who stand to make a profit off destroying the planet have voiced their opinions, but the President made the right decision politically and, in the long term, for America. To form a relationship with a company that will incur this type of damage would only promote more detrimental acts in the future. Although Canadian companies will continue to mine this toxic DilBit and sell it to other markets, the nation should not lock itself into a long term relationship with toxic oil, or oil in general. As Secretary of State mentioned, the United States is in need of focalisation on clean renewable energy and green initiatives that will birth the planet and generations of Americans to come.ReferencesBradley, Jr., Robert. (2013). Keystone xl amounts to americas pipeline vs. chairperson obamas cronies. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http//www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2013/08/20/keystone-xl-amounts-to-america s-pipeline-vs-president-obamas-cronies/ Casey-Lefkowitz, S., Shope, E. (2011). Say no to tar sands pipeline Proposed keystone xl project would deliver dirty fuel at a high cost. Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from http//www.nrdc.org/land/files/TarSandsPipeline4pgr.pdf Coyle, J.J., Novack, R. A., Gibson, B.J., & Bardi, E. J. (2011). Transportation A Supply Chain Perspective. 7th edition. South Western College Publishing. Montopoli, Brian. (2012). Obama denies keystone xl pipeline permit. CBSNews. Retrieved from http//www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57361324-503544/obama-denies-keystone-xl-pipeline-permit/ Parfomak, P. W., Pirog, R., Luther, L., Vann, A. (2013). Keystone XL pipeline project Key Issues. Washington, DC Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http//www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41668.pdf Swift, A., Casey-Lefkowitz, S., Shope, E. (2011). Tar sands pipeline safety risk. home(a) Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from http//www.dirtyoilsands.org/files/ta rsandssafetyrisks.pdf