Keystone Pipeline Pros And Cons

By now, many Americans have been made aware of the construction of the Keystone Pipeline XL. It has been seven years since the pipeline was first proposed by the TransCanada Corporation with the intent to “allow crude oil from Canadian oil sands to reach U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast” (Mantel par. 2 on Chronology timeline). Some Americans are in favor of the construction of the Keystone Pipeline XL and others are strongly opposed to it. On Feb. 17, 2013, thousands of protestors gathered at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. in the hopes that President Barack Obama would reject the construction of the $53 billion oil pipeline (Snyder par. 1). The rally attracted 35,000 people making it the largest climate-change protest in U.S. history,

which ended up marking the rise of a national movement demanding to take action on global warming (par. 2).
Currently, there are two existing phases of the Keystone Pipeline with two additional phases being proposed as an extension to the current system. If the remaining extension is approved from the existing pipeline, it will start in Canada between Alberta and Steele City, where the refineries will process Alberta’s oil sands into gasoline and other fuels. The existing pipeline carries an average of 500,000 barrels per day compared to the proposed “XL” extension that if completed, will transfer an additional 800,000 barrels per day of crude from Canada's oil sands south to the U.S. Gulf Coast (Davenport par. 2). TransCanada depends on these additional barrels to boost the economic activity by billions of dollars, which makes the construction of the pipeline important for the company to achieve. The stakeholders include farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, and people living along the route it is being built on. The longer the topic gets drawn-out, the more questionable the building of the pipeline becomes in terms of economic necessity and environmental impact for the United States. So what exactly are the potential drawbacks to building the Keystone Pipeline XL?
The building of Keystone Pipeline XL has dominated American politics ever since it became a proxy for a much bigger debate about the negative effects on the environment. There is pressure put on President Barrack Obama to stop the project due to the recent discovery that carbon emissions would increase up to 110 million tonnes per year if constructed (Hodson par 1). Even though polls found that the public was overwhelmingly in favor of Keystone XL, President Obama still refused to approve it in fear of loosing the support of his environmentally minded supporters. He backed up his supporters by saying it could be built only if it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution” (par. 4). This has affected the final approval release by President Obama to provide a permit by holding back the building of the pipeline and therefore, increasing its controversy. So far, he has vetoed every attempt Congress has tried to pass the bill in order to fast-track approval because he does not want to be pressured into making the wrong decision. President Obama will have to make a possible, final decision by the month of November 2015.
The diluted bitumen, or also known as acidic crude oil, carried by the pipeline is one of the most significant drawbacks for approval.

The diluted bitumen found in tar sands, turns out to be the heaviest, thickest crude oil used today. The reason is so uncommon and concerning to environmentalists is because of the extra amount of energy needed to extract the oil-sands crude compared to regular oil. In summary about the use of diluted bitumen, “The U.S. refineries that process it will produce higher levels of pollutants that damage human health and lead to more smog, haze and acid rain” (Weeks par. 24). Even though the acidic crude oil that comes from tar sands allows the resulting combination to flow more easily through the pipeline, it can result in pipeline corrosion, making it more vulnerable to leaks (Guarino 3). Another concern with leaks affecting other areas, is that it will create a high concern of a potential diluted bitumen oil spill faster than average crude oil, which will sink quicker into the porous soil along its route and contaminate the state’s vital groundwater aquifer (Clayton

2).
The pipeline extension will travel through six states that include Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The inhabitants of the state of Nebraska will be the most affected by the route since it travels directly through their aquifer. This aquifer is important since it significantly covers sixty-five percent of their home state (Guarino 3). Nebraska governor, Dave Heineman, asked President Obama to reroute the pipeline for the reason that it puts at risk the quality of the Ogalla aquifer, “A major source of fresh drinking water for the people in the region as well as for the livestock and agriculture” (3).
The potential leaks of the pipeline will also greatly affect the interests of farmers, ranchers, and environmental groups. These stakeholders have also developed a negative interest about the use of diluted bitumen from the tar sands deposits in Canada. Environmentalists argue, “That developing tar sand deposits is harming Canadian forests and rivers and generating unusually high levels of carbon emissions” (Weeks par 7). The concern of what impact the chemicals in the diluted bitumen would have if the pipeline leaks, is what critics say will be the most impactful on the environment. According to TransCanada’s safety record since June 2010, the existing pipeline has experienced fourteen minor spills, which has made environmentalists lose trust that the company will be able to handle the necessary safety percussions for the future extension (Guarino 3). Not only will the leaks generate high levels of carbon emissions, but it will impact the climate change as well.
There has been many analyses done to try to review the damage the extracting of the Canadian oil sands could produce to the environment.

According to one government analysis, the crude from Canada’s oil sands will emit seventeen percent more greenhouse gas pollution than there processes used for conventional oil, making it even more controversial against environmentalists (Davenport par. 6). The concerns are reflected in great quantity of carbon in the tar sands, “Ensure that they will play an important role in whether or not climate change gets out of hand” (Clayton 2). In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) noticed the impact it would have on greenhouse gas emissions. According to the E.P.A., “The recent drop in global oil prices might mean that contraction of the pipeline vault spur increased development of Canadian oil sands—and thus increase planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions” (Davenport par

1).
Despite the critics of environmentalists, pipeline proponents argue a good point on why it should be built. Pipeline proponents have come to the conclusion that whether the pipeline is built or not, Canadian crude from oil sands would be developed at the same rate, worsening the greenhouse gas emissions regardless of its construction (Mantel 31). This statement was also made by the State Department’s environmental review of the pipeline construction, which concluded, “That the oil was likely to be produced, extracted and brought to market with or without construction of the pipeline” (Davenport par. 6). Regardless of the environmental risks, building the pipeline would also result to be less dangerous and less expensive. Rejecting the pipeline would also result in the use of rail and ship which would increase the transportation costs (Mantel par. 32).
The extension of the Keystone Pipeline promises more jobs, property tax revenues, and oil imports than the existing pipeline. TransCanada predicts 200,000 jobs over its two year construction period and 118,00 indirect jobs following its completion for subsidiary support in the business (Guarino 2). The company also promises the six states in which the pipeline will travel through, $5 billion in property taxes each year (2). In terms of the security of U.S. energy, it would provide “more oil from a more friendly, stable, and reliable neighbor” (2). This will reduce the need to import oil from less reliable countries. According to TransCanada, the construction would be unquestionably beneficial because, “It 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 par. 24). Despite the addition of promising jobs and $34 billion to the economy, it still has not been determined whether it actually serves a national interest.
As recent as November 6, 2015, President Barrack Obama, came to a decision based upon that, “The project would not have lowered gas prices, improved energy security or made a meaningful long-term contribution to the economy” (Harder and Nelson par. 5). President Obama and his administration stated the following about the decision:
The Obama administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline ends a seven year saga with a declaration that the project is not in the national interest and would undermine U.S. global leadership in fighting climate change.
(Harder and Nelson par. 1).
In conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming: the environmental risks the construction could cause outweigh the benefits. The fact that the environment would be affected weather the construction is made or not is also something to take into consideration. But, people do not want to be responsible for something that is so destructive of the environment which is why President Obama finally came to his decision to decline it.