Keystone XL Pipeline: A Risky Venture Essay

passim history, The fall in invokes has been much reliant upon oil rich countries for liquid discharge necessities. Current economic conditions warrant a domesticated alternative, since oil is soon referred to as black gold. In recent years, line of descents pull in run a substantial transportation factor for liquid fires through give away Alaska and the s pitch shott 48 continental states. Promises by President Barack Obama have given Americans the fancy that s mariner day the fall in States can be ability independent. shortly this is not plausible, but more than believe the keystone XL billet could lessen the dependency of foreign oil and produce some call for jobs within the unite States. Controversial matters have led a presidential Permit for the project to be declined due to the project onlinely not being in the tribes best elicit. Many debates have taken place over this decision and governance have puzzle a key focal point. Some claim it is due to pe culiar(prenominal) interest groups, others claim its due to environmental matters. Regardless of the politics involved, the construction of the linchpin XL Pipeline would be too environmentally detrimental and abusely to pursue.In 2005, the Keystone Pipeline System, labeled Keystone XL, was introduced by TransCanada following an expected production increase of primitive oil from the Oil Sands region of Alberta, Canada (Parfomak, Pirog & adenosine monophosphate Luther, 2013, p. 3). The expected cost of the Keystone XL lineage would be set at 7 billion dollars, with total distance of on a lower floorground piping at 1,702 miles (Casey-Lefkowitz & angstrom Shope, 2011, p. 2). The line of merchandise would connect Alberta, Canada to advanced refineries in the Gulf Coast of the United States (Parfomak et al. 2013, p.1). Since the proposed seam system would connect the United States with a foreign country, a Presidential Permit would be required to determine if the pipeline w as in the nations best interest (Montopoli, 2012).In 2008, TransCanada applied for a permit to cross the international border with the proposed pipeline system and was subsequently denied due to the State Departments insufficient cadence for review and environmental issues with the pr outer (2012). In 2012, TransCanada submitted a reconfigured proposal that would connect the pipeline from Alberta, Canada to an existing pipeline in Steel City, Nebraska. Again, this proposal was denied by the President with a solvent 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 support the pipeline were addressed by Congress that in turn would transfer acclamation authority, although none thus far have been successful (2013, p.3).President Barack Obama has been at a lower place public scrutiny for his decision in denying the permit by many respected members of governance in favor of the pipel ine. According to the Washington Post, Obama presenter and billionaire Tom Snyder wrote an open letter stating that Obama to reject pipeline or present 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 reflection it shows a President who once again has put politics forrader of sound policy, and if Americans want to understand why unemployment in the United States has been stuck above 8 portionage for the longest stretch since the Great Depression, decisions similar this one argon 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 fixing the project are nece ssary in order to justify whether or not the project should move forward.Achieving energy independence is what President Obama stated that the United States is seeking 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 Information Administration estimated that by 2040, still 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. Low judge are achieved by a low loss and damage record, since live on conditions do not effect pipelines and mechanical failures ar e rare (Coyle, Novack, Gibson, & Bardi, 2011, p. 273). With piping being completely encased underground, the risk of terrorism and theft is also greatly digestd (2011, p. 273). Care is taken with the use of evasion detection systems and aircraft monitoring, since environmental damage, 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 one C 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 ask 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 next Canada and provide direct access to Canadian crude oil (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 7).T ransCanada themselves historied 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 switch 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, on 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 extensional jobs and other economic reachs, 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 atomic number 19house emissions and the unconventional and costly method of mining and meliorate tar littoral oil (Casey-Lefkowitz & Shope, 2011, p. 2). Tar sand root in Canada is already known for destroying Bo palpable forests and wet worlds, creating high levels of greenhouse gasolineeous state pollution and producing toxic waste dumps called tailing ponds that currently go forward around 65 miles (2011, p. 2).The ending 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 primary pollutants under the U.S. Clean Water Act, such as led, mercury and arsenic are being released 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 onl y is the process 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 highly corrosive and acidic blend that contains volatile natural gas liquid condensate (2011, p. 3). Increased risk from the corrosive and volatile cognitive content could pose significant risks of increased spills and ruptures that could damage communities and fresh water supplies in America (2011, p. 3).Highlighted in the Keystone XL final Environmental impaction Study shows a primary environmental concern by TransCanada stating, the sterling(prenominal) concern would be a spill in environmentally huffy areas, such as wetlands, flowing streams and rivers, shallow groundwater areas, areas near water intakes for tipsiness water or for commercial/industrial uses, and areas with populations of sensitive wildlife or limit species (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 30). Higher operating temperatu res and pressure is required to move the thick strong through the piping, which could cause effluence detection problems and safety issues due to the bad 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 discover 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 difficult to clean up than regular crude oil (2013, p. 31). weighty 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 creation 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 alter oil from the Persian Gulf or bemire oil from Canada until we can motor our act together 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 pull ahead off destroying the planet have voiced their opinions, but the President do 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 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 focusing on clean renewable energy and green initiatives that will save the planet and generations of Americans to come.ReferencesBradley, Jr., Robert. (2013). Keystone xl amounts to americas pipeline vs. president obamas cronies. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http//www.forbes.co m/sites/robertbradley/2013/08/20/keystone-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 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. southeastern 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. National Reso urces Defense Council. Retrieved from http//www.dirtyoilsands.org/files/tarsandssafetyrisks.pdf