Keystone Pipeline Project Pros And Cons

The Keystone XL project is the laying of a 36-inch diameter crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska to transfer a huge amount of crude oil from tar sands in Canada in order to refine it at the Gulf Coast (“About the Project.”). The pipeline project was proposed in 2008 by the energy company TransCanada. The pipeline would connect to an already built section running from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas. The Keystone XL would give the crude oil a more direct pathway to the gulf coast. It is 1,179 miles long and is essentially a shortcut from the first Keystone pipeline project which runs from Canada into North Dakota to Cushing, Oklahoma. This new proposition would cut through Montana and go directly to

Cushing, Oklahoma.
The Keystone XL project is expected to provide a large amount of economic benefits to the U.S. It would contribute approximately $3.4 billion to the U.S. GDP and create thousands of jobs for Americans (“About the Project.”). The pipeline would be able to transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day down to the Gulf Coast (Davenport).
The Keystone XL project has also met a lot of opposition from environmental activists, politicians, and other groups that do not want the pipeline project to happen. One major reason the pipeline project has been stalled is after President Obama rejected the permit for the pipeline to be built. Opposition to the pipeline happened because of the area around where the crude oil is extracted too. The tar sands in Alberta are acidic, thick, and corrosive compared to normal crude oil extracted (Denchak). This leads to problems with the pipeline leaking because of the increased corrosive oil that is pulled from the tar sands. Leaks in the pipeline would create environmental issues because the oil is very volatile and can explode under the right conditions. The oil is also very hard to clean up because of its properties in water. Since the pipeline can be at risk of leaking out hazardous oil, many protestors do not want the pipeline to cross through some environmentally sensitive areas like rivers and aquifers. The tar sands oil is also said to emit 17% more carbon emissions than conventional crude oil (Denchak). The protestors argue that extracting tar sands oil contributes to more global warming.
Some supporters of the pipeline say that the pipeline will create jobs, help the economy, and bring positive trade relations with Canada. Another argument for the pipeline is that with or without the Keystone XL pipeline companies would continue to find ways to export the crude oil to the U.S. For example, crude oil companies could transport the crude oil to the U.S. through cargo trains or by using alternative pipelines already in place.
There are obviously pros and cons of building a pipeline that is over a thousand miles long through the U.S.

I think that the Keystone XL is a good project and the benefits of building it outweigh the potential negative effects. I will discuss the reasons I think that this pipeline project is a good idea. Firstly the U.S. economy would benefit from an increase in jobs and revenue that the pipeline would bring. Thousands of jobs would be created. Much of the taxes from the construction and property owned by the pipeline would contribute to the local areas that the pipeline runs through. Also transporting crude oil through pipeline is generally the safest option. Transportation by barge, rail, or trucker are the alternatives to pipeline transportation. These would generally cost more and harm the environment further, in terms of carbon emissions, than a pipeline would. People argue that the pipeline would result in more carbon emissions produced since more oil would be able to be transported down to the Gulf Coast refineries to be eventually burned by end users. This is not true because the oil from tar sands in Canada does not necessarily need a pipeline to transport the crude oil. They will use alternative transportation methods, such as listed above, to transport the crude to refineries. At least the transportation of crude oil through a pipeline would be more cost-effective, would emit fewer carbon emissions, and would benefit the U.S.

economy.
The project also faces much scrutiny because the pipeline would go through environmentally sensitive areas. Environmentally sensitive areas such as aquifers and rivers would be at risk with a pipeline that has the potential to leak into the nearby ground and contaminate the area around it. I think that this is a good point to look at because pipelines can leak and cause problems with the groundwater or other environmentally sensitive areas. This could potentially stop a pipeline from being installed because of the highly negative impacts of a pipe breaking either from an over pressurization or corrosion of the pipe. I think that these problems could be fixed from a few solutions. First, the pipe that is in more sensitive areas would need to be made of a stronger material. The pipelines should then be constantly monitored for leaks in this area using pressure gauges to make sure there is a constant high pressure and no signs of leaks (lower pressure).