Case Study: The Keystone XL Pipeline

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed pipeline project, by TransCanada Pipelines Limited, involving the transportation of up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico area in Texas. “The United States 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 5). The delivery points would grant access to multiple other pipelines and refineries located all around the United States. “The Keystone XL pipeline would consist of approximately 1,711 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline, with approximately 327 miles of pipeline

in Canada and 1,384 miles in the United States” (Environmental 5). The Keystone XL pipeline wouldn’t be the first border crossing pipeline that would be put into place and it wouldn’t be the first pipeline to transport Canadian oil to the United States. But, many American citizens harbor an issue with this pipeline being constructed. In order for the pipeline to be approved for construction it must go through the federal government as it is a border crossing project. Even though the Keystone XL Pipeline agreement could strengthen our relationship with Canada and generate more jobs for Americans, the Keystone XL Pipeline should not be built because it presents environmental dangers, such as water contamination, and more greenhouse gas emissions, and increase our dependency on fossil fuels.
Despite the Keystone XL Pipeline having the possibility of strengthening our relationship with Canada, the United States is hesitant to concur with the pipeline agreement. One reason for this is due to the fact that the oil coming from Alberta is believed to be “dirty” oil. This label stems from the way that the oil is being retrieved. Almost all of Alberta’s oil reserves are in the form of bitumen, which is a sticky molasses-like substance. Bitumen that is located closer to the surface is generally removed by surface mining. “Alternatively, if it is located deeper underground, it is removed by a variety of techniques involving the drilling of wells and the use of pressurized steam and solvents” (Harper). These techniques generate more greenhouse gas emissions rather than the conventional way of oil recovery, thus is the reasoning behind the label “dirty” oil. Rejecting the proposal “may provide incentive for Canada to look beyond the United States to export Alberta Oil” (Harper). But, approximately 97 percent of Canada’s oil exports already go to the United States so adding the Keystone XL pipeline would be attempting to fix something that is already working for both Canada and the United States. Going beyond the possible strengthening this pipeline presents, multiple environmental dangers are presented if this pipeline is put into place.
Many United States advocates say the pipeline would generate jobs and increase oil exports from a friendly ally. On the Republican side, Senate Majority Leader McConnell has said Keystone XL is just common sense. "It's a shovel-ready jobs project that would help thousands of Americans find work” (Keystone: BBC) In contrast, Jane Fleming Kleeb, stated during a House Committee meeting on Energy and Commerce in 2011, “Our state has been bombarded with misleading ads about the amount of jobs and money this pipeline would bring to our state” (Weeks). Although this construction will present the US with an estimated amount of 2,000 jobs, it will only last between a year or two, then deplete to about 50-100 jobs, leaving more than 90% of its former workers in the dust (Savage). Basically, this proposal has a strong job outlook for the duration the pipeline is going to be built. Once it’s built, TransCanada is only going to need a handful of employees to keep everything in check.
If the Keystone XL Pipeline were to be constructed, numerous environmental dangers are presented to environments the pipeline comes into contact with. “Primarily, environmental groups and affected communities along the route object to the project” (Keystone 292). The biggest concern with the Keystone XL Pipeline would be a spill in an environmentally sensitive area, such as the sand hills in Nebraska. Other examples of sensitive areas would be wetlands, flowing streams and rivers, and areas near water intake for aquifers. The proposed pipeline is believed to be a safer way to transport oil in contrast to truck or train, but a break in the pipeline can lead to water contamination in the Ogallala aquifer. The Ogallala aquifer encompasses nearly all of the state of Nebraska. With the construction of this pipeline going right over the Ogallala aquifer, this puts Nebraska landowners at risk of not only contaminating their drinking water, but their irrigation water for their crops, too. The Ogallala aquifer is “one of the world’s largest known aquifers and the primary source of groundwater for approximately 20 percent of United Sates agricultural production” (Keystone 295). This puts Nebraska land owners at risk of not only contaminating their drinking water, but also “jeopardizing its use for farming” (Keystone 295).
Beyond farming, harvesting the tar sands, that turn into oil, from Alberta, generate more greenhouse gas emissions. The pipeline itself will not create greenhouse gas emissions, but the pipeline will create an easier procedure for transporting oil so, the demand for oil will skyrocket, resulting in a bigger release in greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere. This means that the oil reserves in Alberta will need to produce more tar sands. Environmentalists are strongly against the pipeline project considering this complication. They argue that, “developing tar sand deposits is harming Canadian forests and rivers and generating unusually high levels of carbon emissions” (Weeks). The National Wildlife Federation comments that “Over its entire life cycle the synthetic crude oil from tar sands emits at least 20 percent more global warming pollution than conventional oil” (Weeks). Since tar sand oil is a heavier crude, when trying to go through the refinery process, which create fuel oil, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, and other nonfuel products, more pollutants will be put into the air. This can lead to more damage to human health, along with more smog and haze in the atmosphere. Building this pipeline would be “detrimental to our country's national interests in building a clean-energy economy, curbing climate change and reducing national reliance on oil” (Weeks).
If the Keystone XL Pipeline is constructed, it will perpetuate our nation’s dependency on fossil fuels. Secretary of State, Clinton, was acknowledging this concern in a forum in October of 2010. He stated that, “we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Persian Gulf or dirty oil from Canada until we can get our act together as a country and figure out clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and interests of our planet” (Keystone 295). Several options exist to begin the transition away from harmful fossil fuels in our economy. Improving the energy efficiency of appliances, vehicles, buildings, and equipment is the most immediate and cost effective way to reduce energy use. There are also a variety of alternative resources that can replace fossil fuels such as hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar energy.
This seven year dispute over the Keystone XL Pipeline controversy should be put to rest with the conclusion being denying any start of construction. Obama has the power to agree or reject this project because TransCanada needs approval to build the pipeline from the federal government since it is a border crossing project. In November of 2015 Obama announced the rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline. “The state Department formally rejected a request by TransCanada for a “pause “in the pipeline’s approval process” (Warrick). Bill Mckibben, founder of the activist group 350.org, which led the campaign against the pipeline stated, “President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate” (Davenport). Obama’s vast concern about climate and climate change is a satisfying thought to possess. He is aware of the fact that, as a nation, we need to create a more sustainable environment and constructing a pipeline that makes importing oil at higher amounts is not going to do that. In the interest of this, I propose that we install more renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro-, wind, and geothermal power systems.
Solar power can be in the form of passive or active heating systems or photovoltaic cells. If a passive heating system is installed into a home, it would capture heat from the sun during the day and store it for when the sun goes down at night. In an active solar heating system, you would use fluids that can absorb heat, which in turn can be used to heat water. For photovoltaic cells, or solar cells, you’d attach solar panels onto your roof. These solar panels would capture solar energy and convert it to electricity. This is a very efficient method and this method has greatly increased in popularity (Sambu). With solar cell panels’ increased popularity, installing the panels onto homes can become a more widely accepted norm. “The main benefit of solar energy is that it does not produce any pollutants and is one of the cleanest sources of energy. It is a renewable source of energy, requires low maintenance and are easy to install” (Rinkesh). Along with that, the sunlight is 100 percent free and is an ideal abundant source. It would make sense to take advantage of how great sunlight is.
Wind power is an indirect form of solar energy.

Its most known process of generating electricity would be movement of air through wind turbines. Wind power has two parts, mechanical and electrical systems. Mechanical systems are low speed and are used for mechanical tasks such as pumping water or grinding grain. Electrical systems are high speed and are used to generate electricity to power homes or schools. Many people feel that wind farms full of turbines, are aesthetically unpleasing, but wind power is a clean energy source and does not generate greenhouse gas emissions. It is a very abundant resource throughout the United States. Wind power is simple, relatively cheap, and low maintenance (Sambu). Wind power is again, free and very abundant so no matter how much we use now, we will still obtain enough in the

future.
Hydropower is another form of indirect solar energy.

It uses flowing water to generate electricity. It does this by using dams and reservoirs for storage. This method gives us the most electricity rather than any other renewable energy source. Not only do the dams and reservoirs create electricity, they also control flooding (Sambu). Hydropower is the least expensive procedure to generate electricity. This is true because “once a dam has been built and the equipment installed, the energy source—flowing water—is free. It's a clean fuel source that is renewable yearly by snow and rainfall. Hydropower is also readily available; engineers can control the flow of water through the turbines to produce electricity on demand”

(Hydropower).
Geothermal energy is the heat from the Earth. It gives off low emissions of greenhouse gases so it provides us a clean and sustainable source of energy. Geothermal energy can range from shallow ground to hot water, hot rock found miles beneath the Earth's surface, and down even deeper to the extremely high temperatures of molten rock called magma (Sambu). There are many advantages of geothermal energy. Geothermal energy is renewable because once water or steam is used, it can be pumped back into the ground. It is also clean energy. Geothermal power plants, unlike plants that burn fossil fuels, do not produce greenhouse gases that can be harmful to the atmosphere. Geothermal energy is easy on the local environment because the power plants do not require clearing of large areas of land, damming of rivers, or mining like other energy sources. It is inexpensive to use. Once the geothermal system is installed, the source of energy is free to use and since the plants hold very few parts, there are generally low maintenance costs involved. It also reduces our dependency on fossil fuels.
A magnitude of people believe that the Keystone XL Pipeline will bring thousands of people employment and that the pipeline will not put the environment in danger. After looking at what renewable energy resources can do for us and how the pipeline can affect us, it is a no brainer to begin implementing renewable energy resources into our everyday lives. If we do indeed, use more environmentally friendly, renewable energy resources, plenty of jobs will be created for a longer amount of time than the pipeline projected. Installing renewable energy systems will not deplete after a short amount of time. If you look at how many homes, schools, businesses, and anything else in between, there will be plenty of jobs available for those seeking them. The Keystone XL Pipeline could have a break or leak and cause water contamination and increase greenhouse gas emissions, and increase our dependency on fossil fuels. Investing in renewable energy resources can curb all of these problems. It is also clear that renewable resources are clean, free, and abundant in the United States. Increasing our use of renewable resources will decrease our dependency on fossil fuels. We will know how to serve without needing oil to generate electricity or heat our homes.
In conclusion, the Keystone XL Pipeline agreement has the possibility to strengthen our relationship with Canada and generate more jobs for Americans, but the Keystone XL Pipeline should not be built because it presents environmental dangers, such as water contamination, and more greenhouse gas emissions, and an increase in our dependency on fossil fuels. Instead, we should use more renewable resources such as solar, wind, hydro-, and geothermal energy systems and resources. As you can tell, each of these systems provides us with numerous benefits such as a cheap, if not free, resource, extremely abundant, and all clean processes of retrieving the resources. Not only do renewable energy resources supply us with these environmentally friendly benefits, installing these systems will create plenty of jobs all across the United States. Renewable energy resources is the way to go and requiring that these systems get put into place is more suitable than agreeing to the Keystone XL Pipeline being constructed.