Free Essay

Keystone Xl Pipeline

In: Business and Management

Submitted By Drapeac
Words 1985
Pages 8
Permitting the Keystone XL Pipeline To Be Built
Anthony Draper
EN 1420

The Keystone Xl pipeline which is a proposed pipeline line that would run from Alberta Canada down through the US to the Gulf Coast should be permitted to be built. It would have a huge positive benefit on the country as a whole. It will provide America with more permanent jobs, economic growth; reduce our dependency on overseas energy, reduce emissions from trucks on the road transporting oil as well as train cars carrying oil. In a country hurting for jobs and some kind of positive economic relief this project can help ease some pains. If our government can waste millions upon millions on failed energy efforts than it can support one that will actually provide jobs and money to this country instead of taking money and not being worth the effort as many of the green initiatives have proven to be.
The main opponents to the pipeline being built are on the environmental side. Their main reasoning is that it will have huge negative impacts on the environment and the areas in which the pipeline will cross through. Now while there is always the possibility of this pipeline having negative impacts on the areas around it but the way those on the environmental side would have attacked it are unjust. They claim it will leave a big carbon footprint and cause too much pollution in the environment. President Obama even made it a point not to permit this from being built until the dangers can be assessed. The State Department investigated and surveyed the probable impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline built and it discovered that the impact from building the pipeline would not be significant because the Canadians will extract the oil either way and find other means to transport the oil (Walsh 2014). Those in the environmental community still were not satisfied and claimed the numbers were wrong. The State department did yet another survey and came up with similar results. Now that the carbon footprint debate has been proven wrong there still has not been a decision made on permitting it being built. There are other arguments made against the pipeline though.
One of these arguments being made is that the oil that is being extracted and transported is extremely corrosive and could corrode the piping and cause leaks and spills that could be detrimental to the environment. The oil being extracted is known as tar sands oil or bitumen which is considered a more dirty type of oil and has to be made into synthetic crude oil in order for it to be considered safe enough to transport. This type of substance is corrosive but only at temperatures over 450 degrees and the oil transported through the pipes will be well below 150 degrees so it will be below the temperature point at which it would be considered corrosive. Plus TransCanada, the company that owns the pipeline, has committed to taking the necessary precautions and following the guidelines that have been presented to them. They will use state of the art procedures and manufacturing techniques and computer programs to ensure that all safety preparations are in place and to ensure they are in compliance with the regulations that have been put in place. The fact that TransCanada has been willing and able to meet these pre requisites that have been placed before them shows me that they are committed to safety and protecting the environment as much as they can. To me that should put the environmentalist naysayers to rest and they should be more willing to accept factual proof and consider the companies willingness to abide by these regulations as a show of good will towards the environment.
The corrosiveness of the oil is being brought up mainly because the pipelines proposed path was going to take it over what is known as the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska which is a large fresh groundwater area where the state and farmers get a majority of their fresh water. Environmentalists believe that a spill would seep into the ground and ruin the water source even though Bitumen, or the sand oil, has less gravity than water so it would float on the top and can be cleaned. Also ground water has natural characteristics that prevent the spread of petroleum type from spreading (Creighton 2012). TransCanada even submitted proposed paperwork to have the pipeline go along another area as to completely bypass the Ogallala Aquifer and still no permit to be built was issued. That’s unfortunate seeing as there is no reason not to issue one.
Transporting oil thru the pipeline to me seems like the most logical way of moving it from point A to point B. It keeps it off our roads traveling by truck and off of train cars. I would much rather it travel via pipeline away from human contact then have it barreling down a highway on a semi-truck or going through neighborhoods on rail car where the risks for human causalities exist. Not to mention the catastrophe if a train derailed full of oil. The amount of damage in a populated area could be reprehensible. Human life is worth more than animal life and we have to treat it as such. Cleaning and containing a spill in an unpopulated area will be far easier than having to do so in a neighborhood. With the pipeline being delayed it is causing more semi-trucks on the road and more trains running oil on tracks which cause more pollution than if it were just transported through the pipeline. In North Dakota alone it has increased truck traffic by 300-500 additional semi-trucks on the road and train transport has gone up more than 46% (Easton 2013). That’s a lot of exhaust being put into the air not to mention all of the gas and energy being used to power those vehicles. How can environmentalist argue that the pipeline will increase the carbon footprint when the pipeline by itself does produce emissions? By them fighting to delay the pipeline they are actually causing more problems for the environment because the oil is just getting transported by other means that are far more deadly to the environment that the pipeline. In a sense they are just contradicting themselves in their effort to help the planet.
Getting past the environmental issues we see that the Keystone XL pipeline will bring in jobs. Not temporary part time jobs that have been plaguing the country but actual permanent jobs that will be here to stay. Above all else I believe this country needs to invest in job growth. The economy has not been in good shape for years and this project has the potential to bring in what is estimated at 42,000 permanent jobs, directly and indirectly to the pipeline, and contribute approximately 3.4 billion to U.S. GDP if implemented (PR, N 2013). That’s a lot of job growth and economic firepower. Something like that can jump start the economy, especially in that area of the country. I’m willing to bet that the unemployed people in that industry would love to be able to get back to work and supporting their families. We have an opportunity to get jobs in this country but the President feels the need to fold under political pressure and delay the permit for the pipeline to be finished. He can dole out millions to green companies that provide no jobs and most have failed leaving tax payers with the bill costing us millions. Even if it were proven to have a bigger negative impact on the environment we should still move ahead on building it because we have a growing population and there is no alternative to oil right now that will support us. We need the oil now and in the foreseeable future and if building this is going to bring in jobs to help support the people of this country then it really is something we need to move forward on. It seems as if there is another reason on why the government won’t go ahead with the permit to build. I don’t see how in a country desperate for jobs and economic growth the government would want to step in and sideline that project. Maybe those in the government have an agenda against this project being built.
I believe government should not be in the middle of letting projects like this that are trying to be built and provide jobs to be halted. A lot of time it seems those in the government are more concerned about appeasing lobbyers than actual American citizens. The president has the sole power to issue trans-border permit that allows projects like this pipeline to be built over our borders. Why does the president have that authority? Shouldn’t that be left up to panel or another agency that actually deals with those types of issues? The president has too many people lobbying in favor of one thing over the other and this is proven when he decided not to issue the permit due to environmentalists concerns that have been debunked and he still hasn’t issued a statement on it. There is even proof that some of the opponents to the pipeline being built have connections to other companies vying to build their own pipeline. Two democratic senators from Virginia and California who are opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline being built because of environmental issues and they actually have money invested in another company that wants to build a similar pipeline (Investors Business 2014). This to me shows that the policies surrounding projects like this need to be reworked to allow a more fair assessment, unlike how it is now that allows those in government who have the power to lobby in congress for something because they have money invested in it. It’s just more corruption that’s robing the people of more access to energy that’s closer to home and will help the economy and help bring in jobs.
In closing the Keystone XL pipeline should be permitted to be built. It’s been proven that it will not leave a significant increase in the carbon footprint and it will bring in jobs that this country needs. I understand the need for cleaner energy but at a time when gas prices are ever increasing and breaking our banks we need to provide ourselves with some kind of relief until we can find that clean energy. Even without this pipeline being built the oil will still be extracted but instead of coming into our country benefitting us it will make its way to other markets leaving us with less energy sources and still relying on overseas energy with no end in sight. We need to force the government to keep their hands out of projects like this that can help the country by limited their power to delay individuals and companies permits to build projects like this will benefit the whole country. In the end this project will not impact the environment like the environmentalist had hope it would and it will bring in a mass amount of jobs and help the struggling economy. If there is a better option it hasn’t been brought to the table or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Walsh, B. (2014). Report Raises No Major Climate Objections to Keystone Pipeline, But the Choice Is Obama's. Time.Com, 1
PR, N. (2013, March 5). McGarvey Praises State Department's Draft Environmental Impact Statement As Positive Step Toward Keystone XL Approval. PR Newswire US.
Investor's Business, D. (2014, February 21). A Keystone Conflict Of Interest. Investors Business Daily. p. A14
Easton, N. (2013). KEYSTONE XL AND THE DARK SIDE OF GREEN. Fortune, 168(7), 92.
(NE-2), C. (2012). KEYSTONE XL: THE PIPELINE TO ENERGY SECURITY. Creighton Law Review, 4661

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Keystone Pipeline Xl

...The Keystone XL Pipeline: It’s a Good Thing By: Samantha Prewitt The Keystone XL Pipeline: It’s a Good Thing The Keystone XL Pipeline Project is a proposed crude oil pipeline that begins in Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, crosses through an international border and ends in Steele City, Nebraska. From here it connects with existing pipelines, which will allow American oil producers more access to the large refining areas located in the Midwest and along the US Gulf Coast. It has been six years since TransCanada has applied for approval for this project and the project itself has gone through three revisions, including two reroutes of the pipeline itself. This article will attempt to dissect the benefits of the Keystone XL project and what it could mean to the American people if construction is approved. The implementation and construction of any project having to do with dangerous chemicals and oil is a frightening thought for any environmentally concerned person. These feeling are usually amplified when the construction site includes the Gulf Coast, being that the last spill is still wrecking havoc on our environment. But these feeling can all be set aside because according to Russ Girling, the president and CEO of TransCanada, “The environmental analysis of Keystone XL once again supports the science that this pipeline would have minimal impact on the environment” (Triplett, 2014). If and when President Obama grants the approval for construction, TransCanada is......

Words: 823 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Keystone Xl Pipeline

...Introduction: Throughout history, The United States has been heavily reliant on oil and oil-rich countries. The present economic situation summons a domestic alternative, considering oil is addressed as “black gold”. Recently, pipelines have grown into a considerable means of transportation for fuels in various states, specifically throughout Alaska. While President Obama envisions that one day the United States will be energy independent, we have yet to attain this. However, some believe the Keystone XL pipeline could reduce our dependency on foreign oil, while others believe this project is a step in the wrong direction, putting us further away from energy independence. The Keystone XL pipeline is presented as safe and reliable, creating various jobs for our economy, while environmental groups argue this pipeline could be detrimental to the environment. These clashing arguments cause a question to arise: Should the United States Government authorize the Keystone XL pipeline to import tar sand oil from Canada? Various citizens, environmental groups, and politicians have outlined their concerns regarding the Keystone XL pipeline. Some of the social problems that arise from the proposed pipeline is environmental damage, including greenhouse gas emissions and potential oil spills. Tar sands are notorious for being one of the dirtiest types of oil in the industry and far more polluting than conventional oil with more than 1,400 known pollutants emitted by oil sands operations...

Words: 570 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Keystone Xl Pipeline

...Alberta Oil – Keystone XL pipeline The high demand for oil in the U.S. is continuously increasing. In 2010, the United-States, on average, consumed 19.15 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) (Index Mundi 1). Due to the high demand and the proximity to the U.S., Canada is a major supplier of their oil. The Alberta Tar Sands are the 2nd largest oil reservoir in the world and are a major source of Canada’s oil exports to the States and to the world. The high demand is being met with extreme dislike from environmentalists. It also creates thousands of jobs. Bureaucrats are pushing for its construction; they do it for the economical growth and the capital benefits. The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (KXL) is a controversial issue which has lead President Obama to deny the permit for TransCanada to continue building in the United-States. Sending crude oil down to the United-States would be a sensitive issue and could hurt Canada’s economic development in the future if not handled correctly. The Keystone XL pipeline would primarily perform the job of bringing oil down from Alberta to the large refineries in Texas. The pipeline will provide millions of new jobs in North America. The quick job increase is due to the fact that government of Alberta assigns permits to extract oil from the Tar Sands and not one has been denied. Robert Rampton, a reporter for the Financial Post, wrote, “Canadian production is surging on expanding output from the oil sands. With exports to...

Words: 1747 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Keystone Xl Pipeline Expansion

...11/13/13 Geology 100 Keystone XL Pipeline The presentation on the Observation’s on Geology, Society, and the Nebraska Geological Survey where very interesting, and explained in multiple different ways. I observed many different points of views from Dr. Joechel and also the community. He started by the concept of, “Environmental literacy requires an appreciation of the solid Earth!” This meant a lot to him and he mentioned he wish’s everyone could understand it. He then went into talking about the aspects of mineral resource availability, and how many factors play into it. These include technical, environmental, social, political, and economic factors. People do not know the difference between hazard and risk he explained, “the pipeline is a potential hazard.” A significant hazard may or may not mean significant risk. Risk cannot exist in the absence of hazard. He had a lot of backup knowledge and understanding slides leading up to the main topic, which is when he introduced the Keystone pipeline expansion. I learned that the pipeline expansion allows for the shorter route for the transfer of heavy crude oil (crude bitumen) from tank farms in Alberta storing product derived from Athabasca Tar Sands. It would also carry oil from the Bakken and Three Froks Formations in Williston Basin of Montana and North Dakota. It would generate about 20,000 jobs in the U.S. Some of the pros of the pipeline would be that it’s an efficient mean of transport and will lead to......

Words: 654 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Organisation Behavior

...Risk No Reward Coalition | GOALGoal 1- To oppose the Keystone Pipeline Project and create awareness among the public about the negative impact that it can have on the environmentGoal2 – To persuade President Obama and Secretary Kerry to reject the proposal of the project | TACTICTactic 1 – Forming a unique blend of various state and national groups to strengthen the coalition Tactic 2- Creating awareness using paid media such as newspaper and television advertisementTactic3- Establishing a youth centered mobilization effort to boost the movement | Coalition 2 – Multistate coalition of general attorneys | Goal 1 – To highlight the benefits that the project will have on the nation’s economyGoal 2- To urge President Obama and Secretary Kerry to approve and pass the Keystone Pipeline Project | Tactic 1- Writing a petition to Secretary Kerry to issue a permit for the project by emphasizing its benefits such as increased employment and energy independence. | Coalition 3- Group of Oklahomans tribe members including Camp Horinek and Whitman | Goal 1 – To draw national attention to the negative impact the project would have on the environmentGoal 2- To preserve the sacred lands of the tribes that may be destroyed due to the commencement of the project. | Tactic 1 – Initiating a national rally starting from Canada and extending all the way to Oklahoma for climate justice and expressing opposition to the keystone pipeline project. | Coalition 4 – Tar Sands Blockade | Goal...

Words: 419 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Keystone Pipeline Pros And Cons

...Keystone XL Pipeline Do you think you would want a pipeline to go through your property and put lives at risk? No, people don’t want the pipeline to happen because of the horrible things that could end up happening. Many believe the pipeline will create more jobs, but many think otherwise. A life could be taken away in a second. The pipeline would put the wildlife at risk from toxic oil spills, polluted water, and more. The people and animals in the way of the pipeline will end up having to move when the construction begins. In the U.S, the Keystone Pipeline is doing more harm than good. Trans Canada is a large public company that operates diverse energy-related investments (McElroy). They are also the leader in the development and reliable and safe operation of North American energy infrastructure. Trans Canada owns and has interests in over 10,500 megawatts and is one of the continent’s largest...

Words: 1261 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Persuasive Paper

...Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Approved Christopher Passey COMM/215 September 22, 2014 Chris Goodrich University of Phoenix Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Approved The United States Congress is currently debating a controversial topic, the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline’s construction, between Hardisty, Alberta Canada to Houston Texas. Both sides of the debate are deeply rooted and are split across political party lines which are making it difficult for the legislative branch to come to an agreement on the issue. Supporters reference the positive economic benefits the pipeline will create, whereas its objectors are concerned about the environmental impact the pipeline could cause. Even though there is a perceived environmental risk in importing Alberta (oil sands) crude oil to the United States, it should be approved because it will provide our country with a secure supply of oil and well-paying jobs that will help our economy. To begin with, let’s discuss some of the environmental concerns that those whom are against the approval are referencing. According to Janna Palliser (2012), “Oil sands crude is more corrosive to pipelines than normal crude oil and difficult to clean up if spilled.” (Palliser, 2012). Janna’s statement is a typical concern, however, many of the world’s top leading and respected research organizations have tested this claim and have all come to the same conclusion. “Diluted Bitumen (also known as oil sands) do......

Words: 997 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Keystone Xl

...The highly controversial, and much disputed issues surrounding the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline project have been under the scrutiny of American politics in recent months. A debate has ensued around national calls for the construction of infrastructure that would transport a crude oil alternative from Canada to the United States, and has rapidly gained increased exposure. This exposure can be attributed to a number of factors, but in large part rising gasoline prices and political pressures are the driving factors. Increased demand for more reliable and stable supplies of crude oil in the United States has been driven by an ailing supply of traditional heavy oil. TransCanada Corporation is a Canadian based energy company which develops and operates energy infrastructure throughout North America. The corporation finds itself at the focal point of the oil sands debate. The transnational corporation has applied for a permit to carry out a $7 billion project by the name of Keystone XL, which would allow TransCanada to construct and manage an oil transport pipeline between the United States-Canada border. The pipeline would transport crude oil produced from oil sands in Canada to oil refineries in the Texas Gulf Coast. Since the pipeline would cross international borders, the project requires the approval of the State Department in accord with Executive Order 13337. It is over this crucial point that much of the discussion has been centered. Time Magazine has dubbed oil sands......

Words: 4360 - Pages: 18

Premium Essay

Keystone Pipeline

...The Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline system is a 1,000 mile pipeline proposed to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from Alberto, Canada to the United States. It would bring 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The oil will be transported to oil refinies located in Illinois, Oklahoma and The Gulf Coast of Texas. Like all other pipelines, the project must secure permits, land rights and other commercial contracts in the United States and Canada to proceed. Environmental organizations have been lobbying against the pipeline due to the potential negative impact it can have on air, water and wildlife. President Obama postponed any decision until 2013. The Keystone XL Pipeline will have a enormous positive impact of The United States. Today, about half of the oil used in The United States is imported for foreign countries and will increase as we use up domestic resources. Reducing our dependency foreign oil would help stimulate the economy, reduce ever increasing oil prices and our obligation in the Middle East would be lessened. The project will create 20,000 high wage jobs and 118,000 spin off jobs from the construction. Independent studies find during the life span of the pipeline it will contribute $5.2 billion in property taxes to communities along the route. Pipelines are the safest methods for the transportation of petroleum products compared to other methods. According to The International Tanker Owners Pollution the......

Words: 346 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay


...Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil, and See no Evil TransCanada Keystone XL “Alberta's tar sands” are being proposed to cross six states in the U.S. via a pipeline carrying as much as 830,000 barrels a day of a particularly dirty form of oil, expected to reach refineries in Port Arthur, Texas on the Gulf of Mexico. I hear the sound of disaster headed to us faster than a locomotive. Montana is full of pristine water ways and unspoiled lands. The greekgroke web site says sending bitumen down a pipeline is especially problematic and damaging: it’s a more acidic form of petroleum that requires more heat and pressure than conventional oil, which increase pipeline stress to keep it moving. (Chameides) How can this create anything but a hazard to the communities and environments of the states the pipeline is proposed to cross? The Environmental Defense website says Canada’s own environment commissioner says there is a lot the federal government doesn't know about the environmental effects of the oil sands, despite having spent close to $10 billion over the last three decades on climate-change programs. (Staff) Canada’s environmental record has been given a double blow, from a scathing federal audit and a European Commissions assertion to blacklist oil sands products. (Staff) Why would our government even consider putting toxic oil sands across the United States? Canada should use its own refineries and ports that are already established, especially in view of Canada not......

Words: 1296 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay


...sand marinated with bitumen. In 2008, TransCanada, an oil company, proposed the largest construction project on the planet, a pipeline that would transport tar sands oil from Alberta, Western Canada to the sixth largest refinery ever built located in the Gulf Coast of Mexico. The project faced a great number of criticisms from environmentalists, citizens, and some members of the U.S. government; however, as Canada’s tar sands oil industry grew, American and Canadian oilmen and politicians could not help but turn their eyes to Canada’s oil industry, a market that both countries cannot afford to lose, and so, as of 2010, the Keystone Pipeline made it through three phases of its construction. Nevertheless, the last and largest phase of the pipeline's construction is still on hold, as it will go through one of the greatest and richest aquifers on Earth, the Ogallala Aquifers. Tar sands oil is one of the dirtiest and most harmful fuels on Earth, and the 5,200 kilometer long Keystone XL Pipeline is boosting and promoting its industry in many parts of the world, therefore; its phase four construction permit must not be issued and the operating phases must be shutdown. Bush’s statement does not fall appropriate for America only anymore, for Canada is trying to build the biggest construction job in the world, the Keystone XL Pipeline, a 5,200 kilometer long pipeline that will transport one of the dirtiest oils on Earth, tar sands oil, to the 6th largest refinery in the world......

Words: 372 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Keystone Essay

...Keystone XL Pipeline Project It is said that Canadian and American people cannot agree on the same thing, but the Keystone XL Pipeline Project has made that argument incorrect. As of today Americans and Canadians have fully committed to the construction of the Pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska. Although both sides of the boarder agree to the fullest on the pipeline. The president of the United States of America does not agree. TransCanada who is the lead producer of the pipeline has applied for a Presidential Permit (which is required as the pipeline will cross the Canada/U.S. border) in the past which in 2010 was passed as the same in 2011, but now in 2012 it has been declined. TransCanada has re-applied on May 4th 2012 and is anticipating approval within the first quarter of 2013. There are two current pipelines coming from Alberta, Canada to the United States. Keystone phase 1 was built in 2010 and put in a 1900 mile pipeline from Hardisity Alberta to America’s Midwest. Connecting about 35 hundred barrels of oil per day in Patoka and Woodland in Illinois. Keystone phase 2 was built in 2011 added 300 miles to Oklahoma increasing to 590,000 barrels of oil per day. TransCanada is already looking into the future with Keystone phase 3 hoping to be built off the Gulf Coast Increasing to 1.1 million barrels of oil per day. The reason for the Pipelines is to meet the needs of the American consumers. As the rate of the American population increases, the......

Words: 557 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Hurrican Sandy

...The Political Scene The President and the Pipeline The campaign to make the Keystone XL the test of Obama’s resolve on climate change. by Ryan Lizza September 16, 2013 After meeting with Obama, one activist felt challenged to make the case “why this pipeline is not On the day of his second Inauguration, in January, Barack Obama delivered an address of unabashed liberal ambition and promise. As recently as early April, before the realities of the world and the House of Representatives made themselves painfully evident, the President retained the confidence of a leader on the brink of enormous achievements. It seemed possible, even probable, that he would win modest gun-control legislation, an immigration-reform law, and the elusive grand bargain with Republicans to resolve the serial crises over the federal budget. And he seemed determined to take on even the most complicated and ominous problem of all: climate change. The President, who had a mixed environmental record after his first term, vowed that he would commit his Administration to combatting global warming, saying that “failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” The President flew to San Francisco on April 3rd for a series of fund-raisers. He stopped in first at a cocktail reception hosted by Tom Steyer, a fifty-six-year-old billionaire, former hedge-fund manager, and major donor to the Democratic Party. Steyer lives in the city’s Sea Cliff neighborhood, in a house overlooking the......

Words: 632 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Canada's Oil Sands

...has been extracting and processing heavy Canadian crude [18] oil for years. Transportation of the oil is heavily reliant on pipelines, especially since some of the oil extracted in Canada is sent to other countries. The Keystone XL oil pipeline [5] is a proposed pipeline that will transport natural resources from Alberta to Gulf coast refineries. The pipeline is heavily opposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council [24], mainly arguing the pipeline will have negative long term economic and environmental impacts. One of the areas the pipeline will pose a threat to is the Ogallala Aquifer [10]. The Ogallala Aquifer is a shallow water table beneath the Great Plains of the United States. It provides about 30% of the ground water used to irrigation in the United States. If the Keystone XL pipeline is built, there is the risk of an oil spill, which would contaminate the Ogallala Aquifer. Another proposed pipeline is the Northern Gateway pipeline [32], which will stretch from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. The eastbound pipeline will transport natural gas condesate, while the westbound pipeline will transport diluted bitumen [22]. The pipeline is heavily opposed by the B.C. First Nations communities [33] located in the potential path of the pipeline. There have been numerous formal declarations against the intrusion of a pipeline into aboriginal land, including the Yinka Dene Alliance, the Heilksuk Nation, and the Coastal First Nations. Many first......

Words: 498 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Pro Side Debate Summary

...Ector BCOM/275 2/23/2015 Michael Frank Introduction The Keystone XL Pipeline is a massive 875 mile pipe that goes across the United States from the lands of Alberta, Canada to the lands of Nebraska to connect to and exsisting pipeline and go on to the Texas Gulf Coast. It further is a costly project where numbers have totaled the values of trillions of dollars and years of work to complete this project. Pro’s When looking at this project of building a pipeline we have to look at all the things this project would do for the economy within the United States. A con to this project allows us to produce more energy and gives us the opportunity to compete in the world by moving oil at its lowest cost. Now, with all that we have been going through in these last few years of high gas prices, that bring good news to have a hope of lower prices. Then when looking at the massive size of this project through the length of time it will take to build through 1 country, and 3 states, allows you to see the vast ability to create jobs. According to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in a 2014 article they were in agreement because it would produce 2,500 jobs for workers closer to the project and support 42,100 jobs. This would really aid the gross domestic product in a large way and help the United States in becoming major player within the market. The pipeline is one that will allow us as a Nation to become less depend on other Nations......

Words: 391 - Pages: 2