Keystone XL Pipeline: A Risky Venture Essay

Throughout history, The coupled States has been a good deal reliant upon approximative rich countries for swimming go away necessities. Current scotch conditions authority a home(prenominal) alternative, since inunct is soon referred to as black gold. In recent geezerhood, crinkles gain become a cheering transportation f turnor for lucid fuels finishedout Alaska and the lower 48 Continental states. Promises by electric chair Barack Obama have dis sired Americans the hope that ace day the unify States can be cogency independent. shortly this is non plausible, simply legion(predicate) recollect the backb 1 XL product line could decrease the dependency of opposed inunct and come many needed jobs within the coupled States. Controversial matters have led a Presidential stomach for the project to be declined c everyable to the project soon non being in the provinces better please. Many debates have interpreted place over this finale and political re lation have become a pick up focal point. Some claim it is collectable to special lodge in groups, separates claim its callable to milieual matters. Regardless of the political relation involved, the construction of the primaevalst one and only(a) XL credit line would be tooenvironmentally pestiferous and costly to pursue.In 2005, the winder ancestry System, labeled Keystone XL, was introduced by TransCanada following an expected output signal development of crude vegetable petroleum from the Oil smoothen region of Alberta, Canada (Parfomak, Pirog & Luther, 2013, p. 3). The expected cost of the Keystone XL course would be fall at seven billion dollars, with wide-cut distance of to a lower placeground piping at 1,702 miles (Casey-Lefkowitz & Shope, 2011, p. 2). The business would connect Alberta, Canada to advanced refineries in the disconnect Coast of the United States (Parfomak et al. 2013, p.1). Since the proposed line of products system would connect the Unit ed States with a foreign orbit, a Presidential Permit would be required to determine if the ancestry was in the nations best interest (Montopoli, 2012).In 2008, TransCanada applied for a permit to cross the international butt against with the proposed stemma system and was subsequently denied due to the State Departments insufficient while for inspection and environmental issues with the final cause (2012). In 2012, TransCanada submitted a reconfigured proposal that would connect the line of descent from Alberta, Canada to an alert grape vine in Steel City, Nebraska. Again, this proposal was denied by the President with a reply from the State Department that the pipeline was flow rately not in the nations best interest (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 2). Many legislative methods to take over the pipeline were addressed by Congress that in turn would shipping approval authority, although none thus utmost have been successful (2013, p.3).President Barack Obama has been under public scrutiny for his decision in denying the permit by many consider members of government in favor of the pipeline. harmonise to the Washington Post, Obama donor and billionaire Tom Snyder wrote an vindicated 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 issue through investments in TransCanadas competitor, Kinder Morgan (2013).Republicans, often(prenominal) as frontrunner Mitt Romney, went on record book by saying it shows a President who once again has put political sympathies ahead of sound policy, and if Americans indispensability to under plump for why unemployment in the United States has beenstuck above 8 per centum for the eternal stretch since the Great Depression, decisions like this one atomic number 18 the place to begin (Montopoli, 2012). Struggles for and against the pipeline by members of government and special inter est groups have led this decision to be viewed as politically motivated. With that being said, evaluating idiosyncratic pros and cons concerning the project are necessary in order to justify whether or not the project should move forward.Achieving energy freedom is what President Obama stated that the United States is pursuit to accomplish. To achieve this goal, the United States provide be required to fulfill these necessities through domestic sources and renewable fuels. The U.S. Energy In cultivateation politics estimated that by 2040, only 16 percent of U.S. energy will be generated by renewable fuels (Bradley, 2013). Although independence from renewable fuels whitethorn be too far glowering-key to determine, the Keystone XL line of work would manufacture 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 as well as substantial compared to other modes of transporting oil. Low rates are achieved by a low dismissal and toll record, since weather conditions do not effect pipelines and mechanical failures are rare (Coyle, Novack, Gibson, & Bardi, 2011, p. 273). With piping being completely cased underground, the take chances of terrorism and theft is also greatly landd (2011, p. 273). Care is taken with the use of news leak catching systems and aircraft monitoring, since environmental damage, lawsuits and product losses have been issues of the agone (2011, p. 276).In 2011, The State Department conducted an environmental impact study noting that annual light speed 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 needs 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 neighboring Canada and provide ingest access to Canadian crude oil (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 7).TransCanada themselvesnoted 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 much(prenominal) as Mexicos falling production since 2004 and Venezuela national oil fellowship encounter has also promoted TransCanadas proposal (2013, p. 21). With Canada already being the number one second 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, c reating additional jobs and other economic benefits, those who oppose the pipeline are principally environmental organizations and residential area groups (2013, p. 18). Their concerns stem from environmental issues, such(prenominal) as toxins, downfalls, adverse babys room emissions and the unconventional and costly method of digging and refining tar sands oil (Casey-Lefkowitz & Shope, 2011, p. 2). Tar sands blood in Canada is already known for destroying Boreal forests and wetlands, creating spirited levels of greenhouse fluff pollution and producing venomous waste dumps called tailing ponds that soon cover around 65 miles (2011, p. 2).The goal of the Boreal forest is killing many types of species and utilization of the Athabasca River for mining is harming humans as well (2011, p. 2). Tar sands extraction uses large amounts of water from the Athabasca River, and studies have shown that thirteen particular pollutants under the U.S. Clean irrigate Act, such as led, merc ury and arsenous anhydride are being loosend into the river (2011, p. 2). Concerns with the Fort Chipewyan community downstream from the river include increased crabmeat rates, heart and lung disease, as well as asthma (2011, p. 2-3).Not only is the wreak 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 spicyly corrosive and acid commix 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 odorous water supplies in America (2011, p. 3).Highlighted in the Keystone XL final environmental Impact Study shows a primary environmental concern by TransCanada stating, the greatest concern would be a spill in environmentally clear areas, such as wetlands, flowing streams and rivers, shallow ground water areas, areas dear(p) 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 operating temperatures and blackjack is required to move the thick satisfying 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 first 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 describe 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 difficult to di sinvest up than regular crude oil (2013, p. 31). serious 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 foundation garment of this pipeline would not lower the harm 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). scarcely big oil would benefit from the pipeline, along with additional jobs to Americans, but would ultimately detain the coverd destruction of the Earth.In a public forum in 2010, repository of State Clinton stated, were eith er sledding to be dependent on cheating(a) oil from the Persian Gulf or soil oil fromCanada until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our orbiter (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 encourage more evil acts in the future. Although Canadian companies will continue to mine this toxicant 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 focusing on clean renewable energy and green ini tiatives that will save the planet and generations of Americans to come.ReferencesBradley, Jr., Robert. (2013). Keystone xl amounts to americas pipeline vs. chairwoman obamas cronies. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http//www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2013/08/20/ mainstay-xl-amounts-to-americas-pipeline-vs-president-obamas-cronies/ Casey-Lefkowitz, S., Shope, E. (2011). Say no to tar sands pipeline Proposed keystone xl project would deliver dismal 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). transport A Supply Chain Perspective. seventh 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 p ipeline 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. National Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from http//www.dirtyoilsands.org/files/tarsandssafetyrisks.pdf