Case Study about Keystone XL Pipeline

A proposed oil pipeline project will have the capacity to transport thounsands of barrels of crude oil to refineries in Oklahoma, Illinois, and the Gulf Coast of Texas. The Keystone XL is a 1,711-mile pipeline delivering Canadian crude oil to United States oil markets. This project is a response to the market demand for heavy crude oil in the Unites States.

The pipeline will also be used to transport crude oil to the Cushing tank farm in the Midwest region. Many refineries in the Gulf Coast region provide millions of barrels per day, This region accounts for almost half of U. S. refining capacity.

The refineries produce large amounts of refined petroleum product, like gasoline and jet fuel. The negative impacts of the Keystone XL project are too immense to outweigh the need for heavy crude oil in the United States. The Keystone XL pipeline is a possible opportunity for the United States to bring oil to the country without relying on the Middle Eastern countries. The construction of this pipeline would be in response to strong demand of crude oil in out Gulf Coast region, as a result of declining oil feeds from foreign countries. The process of approving the pipeline, beginning in 2008, has been very controversial.

Those who approve of the pipeline tend to focus on its economic benefits, while those who oppose it are focusing on the ways it can be detrimental to our environment. TransCanada is the corporation who wants to build the pipeline, they are resposible for building and developing safe energy infrastructires thorughout North America. In addition to importing crude oil from Canada, TransCanada believes, “the Keystone XL Pipeline will also support the significant growth of crude oil production in the United States from producers in the Bakken region of Montana and North Dakota” (“About the”).The process for constructing this pipeline has been a long road, for both sides of the issue. The application was first submitted and 2008, five years later it is still an ongoing topic of debate.

The delay in construction has allowed the United States to make an informed decision on the pipeline since it affects so many states in our country. “The U. S. portion of the pipeline would begin near Morgan, Montana, at the international border of the United States and extend to delivery points in Nederland and Moore Junction, Texas.

There would also be a delivery point at Cushing, Oklahoma” (Environmental Impacts). With so many people being at risk as a result of this pipeline, those opposed to it are very concerned about the impact on our environment. The Keystone XL pipeline will have a global and local impact on the environment. Oil spills are just one of the possible negative impacts the pipeline can have on the environment.

According to the U. S. State Department, “two types of impacts can come from the result of crude oil spills: physical and toxicological” (“Environmental Impact”).The physical impacts are comprised of coating of sediments, soils, animals, and plants.

The U. S. State Department finds that if crude oil coats these organisms, it can have effects such as, “preventing them from feeding or obtaining oxygen, reducing the insulating ability of fir or feathers and adding weight to the organism so that it cannot move, naturally or maintain balance” (“Environmental Impact”). The toxicological impacts are dependent upon the composition and the sensitivity of the organism exposed.Communities with low-income could possibly be more vulnerable to the health impacts related to oil spills. The U.

S. State Department states that, “Direct contact with the crude oil, inhalation of airborne contaminants, or consumption of food or water contaminated by either the crude oil or components of the crude oil” (Environmental Impact). This is great point for discussion, because these areas more than likely cannot afford to deal with such great impacts on their community. The Ogallala Aquifer lies directly in the area in which the Keystone XL would be constructed.

The Ogallala accounts for approximately one-third of the groundwater used to irrigate the nation’s crops. A Nebraska farmer, Randy Thompson, is opposed to the construction of this pipeline because of the impact it would have on his crops. In an interview with Mother Jones, Thompson states that, “anytime it leaked, it would go directly into the water supply” (qtd in Sheppard “A Pipeline”). The Keystone XL and the environmental impacts that are associated with are something that U.

S. cannot afford to take in addition to the growing issue of global warming.While the state of our environment is such a strong issue, there are other concerns that arise with the construction of this pipeline. Friendly ties between a U. S.

diplomat and TransCanada, show possible corruption in the environmental review regrading the Keyston XL pipeline. Paul Elliot and TransCanada’s counselor for environmen, science, techonology, and health, Marja Verloop, exchanged emails that reveal possible corruption surrounding the Keystone pipeline. “In a September 2010 email, Verloop celebrates after Elliott informs her that he's secured support for the pipeline project from Sen.Max Baucus (D-Mont.

). "Go Paul! " she writes” (Emails Reveal). Furthermore, emails exchanged between Verloop and US Ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson show the companies plans to later increase the pressure used to generate oil throughout the Keystone pipeline. Robert Jones, the vice president of TransCanada's Keystone pipelines division, once said they planned to lower the pressure of the pipeline in response, “to the concerns of the public and various political leaders” (qtd in Sheppard “Emails Reveal”).Lowering the pipeline’s pressure would combat fear of the pipeline breaking, and it would also meet the United States’ standards. It seems that TransCanada is looking for ways to benefit themselves and those associated with their company, more so than those who may be affected by the construction of this pipeline.

While I agree, the Keystone XL pipeline should not be constructed; there are some benefits to it being created. The economic benefits are reasons why supporters believe the Keystone XL pipeline is key in boosting the United States’ economy. A recent study by the Energy Policy Research Foundation, for example, concludes, "the Keystone expansion would provide net economic benefits from improved efficiencies in both the transportation and processing of crude oil of $100 million to $600 million annually, in addition to an immediate boost in construction employment (“Keystone XL Overview”). Unemployment is a big issue in our country today, and this could possibly be a short-term answer to our ongoing problem.

Improved national security is also a benefit that could come with the creation of the Keystone XL pipeline. It could possibly be more beneficial for the American consumers to slow imports of oil from less friendly countries and substituting crude oil from Canada. “This will lower the vulnerability premium, reduce efficiency costs stemming from importing oil from unstable countries, save American consumers money, and provide Americans with a more stable supply of energy from Canada” (“The Keystone Pipeline”).I agree with this assertion, because I believe in reducing dependence upon countries that also serve as a threat to our national security. The Keystone XL pipeline is simply not in the best interest of the United States. The environmental impacts are very severe and the economic impacts are also immense.

While there are benefits that can arise from the construction of this pipeline, the negative impacts are something our country can’t afford to handle.