Sunday, January 22, 2012
Trans-Canada XL Pipeline
Providing money, the effects on the environment and reducing the United States dependence on foreign oil are some key points when looking at whether or not the pipeline should proceed as planned. (http://www.concordy.com/article/obamas-decision-on-keystone-xl-pipeline-will-seal-the-fate-of-2012/). The precedents that provide the framework for the current keystone pipeline development don’t hold up when looking at the aspect of the current route. Not only will the impact on the environment become astronomical if any sort of failure or problem occurs in the pipeline infrastructure itself, but impact skyrockets when the contaminants can potentially pollute the Ogallala aquifer, which is the largest underground fresh water source Nebraska can tap into. Cleanup for the BP oil spill was hard enough when the oil was just in the water that we can actually see. Water underneath the ground will be virtually impossible to clean up and the repercussions will be felt for generations to come.
Some Scientific facts that are being provided that are against the XL pipeline is the fact on what it will do to our climate. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/23/tar-sands-keystone-xl-climate). Just because the Tar sand pits are an excellent source of carbon, the way that it must be extracted is ridiculous. The process requires far too much time and energy, which in turn churn out even more climate harming emissions. Natural gases are needed for the refinement of the oil, these practices produce far more greenhouse gasses per barrel than conventional oil.
Mining of the pits is also very destructive to the environment. The plan calls for the removal of the entire tree’s surrounding the area and also for the large amount of topsoil that is on top of the deposit itself. Included in the creation of oil from the tar sand pits is the need for large amounts of water. Although a great quantity of the used water will be recycled, the suspicion arises that the effects of the non-recycled water will have adverse effects on the wildlife downstream from the project. One of the worries is that harmful deformities will occur in the native fish from the pollutants.
Luckily President Obama has rejected the Trans Canadian Pipeline due to the various facts. One, that the XL pipeline was projected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, which if true, would have been extremely helpful in the currently trouble economy, but unfortunately the pipeline will realistically only create 4 – 6 thousand jobs according to http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/01/18/why-obama-decided-against-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/. The pipeline would also not impact the economy as was recently believed. The United States is already refining most the crude oil that is possible.
In the end, President Obama made the right decision to deny the Trans-Canadian Pipeline. The risks to the environment vastly outweighed the potential short-term increase in the availability of jobs and minimal boost to the economy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You make your case effectively, and the sources you cite are especially useful, particularly the one presented by State Impact/NPR on the President's reasons for rejecting the proposal at this time. Another point of note is that the pipeline itself would be for exporting refined crude oil. U.S. citizens would not be getting access to the Canadian crude directly. That's a point I have yet to hear brought up in discussions. Also, rather than focusing on a short-term solution to our "energy crisis," I would think it a better idea to invest more in alternative methods. There is a finite supply of oil on this planet. Someday, whether it's within a few generations or not, we will run out of the stuff, and then what will the world do? I can't help but wonder what future generations will think of our behavior now. Rather than try and treat the problem, which is a limited (and destructive) power source fast running out, we are seemingly opting for addressing only the symptoms. It won't be easy. I don't think anyone is arguing that. But, are temporary jobs really worth the potential risk of this pipeline?
ReplyDelete~Arielle
The pipeline has brought about much controversy in the United States and more specifically Nebraska. By running the pipeline through the sand hills and the Ogallala Aquifer, there is a big risk in greatly impacting the environment in a negative way. Ryan pointed out that besides the environment being at risk for destruction, wildlife and the health and safety of the American people will be affected as well.
ReplyDeleteOn the positive side, there would be thousands of job opportunities available for people in the down economy. We would be getting our oil from inland and we would not have to rely on other places in the world for our oil that are not too fond of the United States.
I’m on the fence about the pipeline but I tend to side more with not running the pipeline. There are too many risks involved. At least until a different route can be discussed that will be less harmful to the environment and less risk of ruining the Ogallala Aquifer. In this case I believe the negatives outweigh the positives.
Their are many great points against the Keystone XL pipeline brought up in this article. I disagree with many of them but I am going to focus on another issue with the pipeline. Their seems to be one problem which i feel deserves more attention and consideration by Americans. There are very few oil refineries in America, and the majority of the refineries producing gasoline are in Texas. The high price of oil and gas would incredibly decrease if their were not so many restrictions by the government. Environmental policies are killing the American economy when it comes to energy. The oil refineries in America are maxed out which means the price of oil is higher than it should be. With more refineries the price of oil would drop significantly. It does not make sense on any levels as to why we should be shipping oil from Canada and Alaska to Texas. Oil refineries built in North or South Dakota would almost solve this debate completely. In the best interest of our country, some of these ridiculous environmental policies need to stop.
ReplyDelete