In a age where technology is increasing and the increase all the natural resources have almost reached their limit. humans have found new ways to get resources like oil. one of these ways are creating a pipe to send oil through the alberta oil sands. but, at what cost does this new type of oil distribution come with. the Keystone pipeline XL has an impact on the environment, the aboriginal peoples of canada and even nearby countries like the united states. Throughout the world, environmental issues impact everyone in a negative way. Supporting an idea that will increase this impact is unjust and extremely tolling on our environment. The keystone pipeline is not safe for the environment. Furthermore the effects of this pipeline such as an impairment of fish habitat and a loss of various wildlife habitat. On top of that this pipelines increase our greenhouse emission. The quote, “From 1990 to 2011, Canada’s annual emissions of greenhouse gases increased from 591 million to 702 million tons” says Michael B. McElroy a Butler professor of environmental studies. According to this quote...
“Urge the Senate to Stop the Risky Keystone XL Pipeline”. Letter. League of Conservation of Voters. Change.org. Web. 10 December 2013
The Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL Pipeline are two pipeline projects that were suspended in the past. These pipelines were stopped because they could have a big impact of people and the environment. The making of these pipelines would cause a great amount of carbon pollution. Recently, President Trump signed the orders to approve the pipeline project. The projects have pros and cons, the people in favor of the pipelines think we would be able to rely less on foreign oil. The people against the pipeline believe that the pipelines would cause the release of gases into the air that could be harmful for other people.
In this essay we will be looking at why the Keystone XL Pipeline should not be built. This is a hot controversial issue that has been in the news for awhile. We will discuss the pros and cons of what will happen if the United States passes legislature to allow the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built. You have to ask yourself if destroying the environment is for our children is worth it to make a few billions richer or maybe little bit cheaper gas. If you agree with building the Keystone XL Pipeline you need to look your children in the eyes and tell them you’re sorry for destroying the environment for them and their children.
With our understanding that the pipeline is safe, and there are safety precautions in place if anything ever did happen. That it is the best economical way to transport this oil. And finally our need for this oil s huge and it will be huge for a long time unless we start the process of building nuclear power right now; even in that case we still have about 15 years before that is ready to take the work load of British Columbia. Even when we have a different sustained energy we will still have the need for oil due to the fact that’s cars are the main moat of transportation in the lower main land. That means we are far away from a province let alone a country that can run without the use of oil. And seeing how to transport it via pipe line is the safest spill wise and most economically friendly it seems to be the better choice.
The Alberta Oil Sands are large deposits of bitumen in north-eastern Alberta. Discovered in 1848, the first commercial operation was in 1967 with the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant opening, and today many companies have developments there. The Alberta Oil Sand development is very controversial, as there are severe environmental impacts and effects on the local Aboriginal peoples. This essay will discuss the need for changes that can be made for the maximum economic benefit for Canada, while reducing the impact on the environment and limiting expansion, as well as securing Alberta’s future. Changes need to be made to retain the maximum economic benefits of the Alberta Oil Sands while mitigating the environmental and geopolitical impact. This will be achieved by building pipelines that will increase the economic benefits, having stricter environmental regulation and expansion limitations, and improving the Alberta Heritage Fund or starting a new fund throu...
The reason for this report is to increase the reader’s knowledge on the Alberta Tar Sands, which will allow them to create their own opinions on the situation. It is a very pertinent issue in politics and will have a very large effect on the carbon emissions of Canada. Also, I wanted to further my understanding of the Alberta tar sands and learn the side effects of the tar sands. How the tar sands are different from other oil and energy procurement methods and which method is more energy efficient? Would the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States be an intelligent way for the US to involve itself in the tar sands? I wanted to answer these questions by knowing the real facts about the tar sands versus what the oil companies are telling the consumers. The ability to assess the entire situation will allow both the reader and I to formulate our own opinions about the tar sands and whether the extraction of oil at the tar sands should continue.
The Keystone XL Pipeline Imagine the world not as how it is now, but as how people wish it could be. There is no pollution, everyone has a job, the world is at peace and a safe place to live, and most importantly, everyone is happy. This is but a mere dream. Now open your eyes and look at it. See the reality of what the world truly is: we are intentionally hurting the environment, many people in the world are unemployed, many different countries are at war and people are dying because of it.
From the arguments, it is evident that the negative effects of the construction of Keystone XL Pipeline supersede its positive impacts, both on the United States of America’s economy and environment. Therefore, it is important that the country takes into consideration the negative effects that might be associated with the pipeline before embarking on its construction.
The Keystone XL pipeline continues dividing the opinion of the people and being a controversial issue. The precious “black gold”, represents one of the main factors that moves the economy, nationally and globally. This extra-long pipeline will transport oil all the way from Canada to Texas. Some experts and the private oil corporation, who is the one in charge of this project, point to the benefits of this project, for example, will make the USA more independent from foreign oil, will create thousands of jobs and improve the economy. Nevertheless, are experts revealing how the pipeline is an unnecessary risk and will be negative for the environment, dangerous for the population living close to the big pipes, and long-term negative for the
The Keystone Pipeline started construction in 2008 for the main purpose of connecting Canadian and American oil refineries to transport crude oil from the oil sands of Canada faster and more efficient. So far the first three phases of the pipeline have been completed but the proposed and most controversial is Phase IV. It connects Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Oklahoma which requires a presidential permit and it also connects the 485-mile southern leg known as the Gulf Coast Project between Steele City and Port Arthur, Texas, which is now operating (Eilperin). The benefits of the pipeline include an increase in jobs, contribute $3.4 billion to the U.S economy and also save time and money from transporting the oil by pipeline instead of tanks and rails. At the same time it would be a great harm to the environment, making the climate unstable, and could cause possible future oil spills. The articles covering the Keystone Pipeline generally list out the same points, covering the same benefits and consequences of building the pipeline. Sources like Fox News and CNS have more of an opposition towards the pipeline and narrow in on the risks and of the effects it would have on the people. Whereas news stations such as CNN and The Washington Post address both sides of the controversy but are subtle about being in favor of the pipeline. The international sources such as Al Jazeera and Reuters oppose the pipeline and are more open with supporting the environmentalists.
Projects like the Keystone Pipeline are important as they will allow us to transport more oil than we would be able to in train cars, and grants larger access to oil reserves in the United States and Canada. The Keystone Pipeline itself is an oil pipe line which runs from the western Canadian sedimentary basin in Alberta, Canada to refineries in the United States. These refineries are located in three different main locations: Steele City, Nebraska, Wood River and Patoka, Illinois and refineries located in the gulf coast of Texas.
Before researching this topic I had not known what the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP) was about or where it was located. The pipeline is not directly being built on the Standing Rock Reservation; however, it will be located on the Missouri river that borders the reservation. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) approved the DAP and so the disapproval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) didn’t stop The Corps from building the pipeline. This is why the topic has become a major controversy for those who favor and do not favor the building of the DAP. Researching the DAP it explains various pros and cons, here are a few of those facts from both sides of the issue.
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is a widespread practice in the United States. Fracking is a method used to extract oil and natural gas. Scientists and citizens report detrimental side effects of hydraulic drilling. New York and Vermont have banned fracking statewide. Maryland has set a two year moratorium on fracking, so that more research can be done to show the impacts of fracking on the environment. Nationwide, many other cities and counties have banned fracking as well. All states should look into finding alternative sources of energy, instead of using devastating practices like fracking to extract non-renewable resources.
These oil wells are great for the economic growth, inventing new jobs and fueling most of our vehicles. The Earth has literal oceans of oil stored in its soil waiting to be harvested. Meaning, crude oil isn’t renewable, and eventually it will run out. According to the British petroleum, the multinational gas and oil company headquarter, there is only enough to sustain the planet for roughly around 53.3 more years. The result of oil depletion will turn turbulent, and we will have to resort to renewable energy. The issue concerning this is that, renewable energies such as solar, water and wind have not been perfected and can be too expensive to use. In theory, renewable energy is still a stable and natural energy source that could potentially save the future. If the we invest in perfecting these energy sources instead of pipelines, oil companies could finally stop reaping the Earth of its oil and prevent a future crisis 50 years from now. We wouldn’t have the need to burn fossil fuels, and we could be one step closer to a cleaner Earth. Nonetheless, most people nowadays care only for shortcuts that will lead them to big money, even if it sacrifices our world’s interior, and the health of those that live upon
Fracking is a highly controversial practice that utilizes the injection of water, chemicals and abrasives to extract relatively inaccessible pockets of natural resources. Although fracking has the potential to benefit the economy, it may also pose a significant impact on the environment, the ecosystem and safety.