The Keystone Pipeline Project - Research Paper Example

? The Keystone Pipeline Project The keystone project consists of a pipeline system for transporting tar and sands oilfrom the northern U.S and parts of southern Canada to refineries in Texas. Already, two phases of the keystone pipeline system are in operation while the third phase of the pipeline running from Oklahoma to the Texas refineries is under construction. The fourth phase of the Keystone pipeline project is in the process of awaiting approval from the United States government. Upon successful completion, the Keystone project will be composed of phases one and two which will consist of the completed pipeline while phases three and four will be made up of the expanded coast project. Apart from the above phases, there is the fourth controversial phase, dubbed the Keystone XL pipeline project which is supposed to start at Hardisty, an oil distribution center in Alberta and extend from there to Nebraska, Steele city. The fully operational pipeline system will have a huge capacity, able to transport 590,000 barrels daily of tar and sands oil from Canada to refineries in Texas in the mid-west. Phase one of the project was finished in 2010, while phase two was completed in February in the year 2011. The proposed XL portion of the keystone project comprises of phases 3 and 4 and has face many lawsuits from the refineries as well as environmentalists who and members of the US congress. President Obama in January 2012 rejected the application on Keystone XL following ongoing protest on the project by stakeholders fearing for a negative impact of the project on the environmentally sensitive nature of Nebraska’s Sand Hills region. The originally intended route for XL was changed by TransCanada; in an effort the company claimed was aimed at minimizing any harmful outcomes the project could have on water, land and other natural resources along its originally intended route. The new route was consecutively approved by the Governor for Nebraska State and endorsed by president Obama. Assessment of the project by the state department of bureau proposed a number of alterations to the original plans for keystone XL, but the report of the assessment neither endorsed nor rejected the project (Ruchti, 2010). Meanwhile, activists have continuously urged president Obama to reject the project, counting on his track record of acknowledging the impact of climate change on humanity. The activists classify the project as among the biggest challenges world faces today. Objections to projects of huge magnitude are always necessary (Ruchti, 2010) Case against Implementation of Keystone Pipeline Project White House officials and numerous other state departmental staff have continuously insisted that a ruling by the Obama administration on the keystone XL will be entirely based upon environmental, security and economic factors. Activists have been using the project to test the president’s commitment towards environmental protection efforts, and while the intended economic benefits are huge, the projects negative impact on the environment pits environmental conservation efforts versus economic gains (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). White house officials have stated that the project is neither a component of the country’s policy on climate, nor a means for bargaining on trade issues with other countries, especially Canada as the case on Keystone in this case Canada (Kadrmas, 2009). (i). Negative impact of keystone pipeline on the environment Research suggests that the Keystone Pipeline Project’s negative impact on the environment and climate especially along the proposed route far out weight the intended economic benefits that might be derived from the project (Kadrmas, 2009). Profits gained from investment in the pipeline system might be immediate and worth the cause, but the long term degradation of the environment will negatively influence every aspect of the lives of Americans living along the pipeline, from current to future generations. The project is harmful to the ecosystem and the individuals living along the proposed route. Its implementation will do more harm than good to the economy and environment. Economic gain should not outweigh the harmful effects of environmental degradation. This type of projects should have the best of interest of the environment first before implementation (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). The reasons against the implementation of Keystone XL pipeline include oil spills that occur regularly along oil pipelines. The impact of the spills is devastating to the environment and reversing the damage is often near impossible, especially where lives are lost or property destroyed (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). The pipeline project will also not create so many jobs, with analysts capping it at 35 jobs maximum, as a result of the intended automation of the pipeline system (Kadrmas, 2009). Potential fires on the pipeline will also render the lands adjacent to the pipeline a hazardous zone to live in while the gases released to the atmosphere imply that smoke and fires will be common, toxic and detrimental to human health and welfare. Families will have to be evacuated from the land s adjacent to the pipeline. This displacement will have to include compensation measures by TransCanada to the displaced families. Compensation measures have time and again proved not to be sufficient enough to justify displacement of the affected families from their ancestral land. Reviews on the XL project have done little to encompass economics and the environmental degradation the project poses (Ruchti, 2010). The reviews focus mainly on the economic impact of the project, leaving the reviews shallow and limited in scope and measure. This reasoning on the economic potential of the project is wrong as the project will have an impact on almost all aspect of the US economy, including health and environment (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). The analysis done on the reviews is narrow and only intended to hide the environmental degradation risk the project poses. The tar sands in Alberta contain carbon quantities double of what oil contains. According to research, a minimal fraction of the carbon is recoverable (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). Once TransCanada starts to exploit the sand oils, more and more extraction will take place; basically due to the ever inquisitive nature of man and his sense of drive in getting to develop better ways of extracting the carbon and making the process become commercially viable. The draft reviews have gone to the extent of acknowledging the fact that the sand oils present a fuel that is of poor quality and hugely destructive to the environment (Kadrmas, 2009). Tar sands contain toxic and harmful chemical composition. Global warning continues to rise every day as toxic gas emissions such as carbon dioxide continue to harm the environments (Kadrmas, 2009). Arguments for the Keystone project insist that the impact of the project on the ecosystem should be of little concern to policy makers. Some advocate for stronger trade and economic relations with respect to the project’s intended effect on the economy wholly ignoring the risk it poses to the environment. If the XL project finally gets approval from the government, the Canadian firm, TransCanada will get a permit to build a pipeline across America for carrying toxic sands oil. (ii). Case against the Economy The reviews on the pipeline by the state department only vouch for Keystone XL because the oils from tar sands will have a ready market to sell. This in itself is not in the best of national interest (Ruchti, 2010). Trade and economy measured against and compared to the future well-being of the environment becomes a complicated issue (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). While preservation of the environment is in itself a means preservation of human life, protagonists for the project insist that human life cannot be sustained without resources like energy to fuel industries that produce goods and services, whether needs or wants, for consumption by humans (Ruchti, 2010). Trade and economy should seamlessly work towards preservation of the natural environment, avoiding destruction and depletion of resources, at least for the sake of sustaining the environment. The Keystone’s project support results from the fact that job opportunities need to be created. Policies aimed at creation of structures that govern and ensure stronger regulation of the operations of multinational firms should be put in place (Kadrmas, 2009). Projects similar to Keystone will always come up and therefore the solution lies in ensuring that environmental degradation is avoided at all cost. This will ensure that for example, Keystone XL is implemented successfully with the goodwill of the government, the citizens and all other stakeholders involved. Current calls for stronger regulations with reference to the Keystone pipeline project are insincere, and only work to ensure the implementation of Keystone XL project while disguising concern for the environment in the form of calls for regulation (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). Regulatory frameworks rarely work and are often abused by firms, especially rich multinationals, whose main goals and objectives are profit maximization at whatever cost that maybe realized (Roode &Ruchti, 2010). Some individuals argue that not building the pipeline will only result in the tar sands being shipped to overseas refineries. While this is true, it could also lead to a great reduction of environmental destruction. Since the poor quality of oil is not justified to be sold in the American markets, exporting the sands oils to be manufactured abroad and the final product sold in the foreign markets will ensure that the substandard product does not enter into the American market. This will also ensure reduced greenhouse emissions on the atmosphere, contributing greatly to a worldwide reduction in global warming (Ruchti, 2010). Most of the problems inflicting the Keystone XL project however seem to be self-inflicted. Many residents who were affected by the pipeline say that land agents for TransCanada are intransigent and quickly threaten those that opt to resist eviction taking advantage of the fact that claiming the land for construction of the pipeline is court approved (Ruchti, 2010). TransCanada and indeed many multinational firms have time and again proved to be dishonest and only offer evictees as little money as possible for compensating purposes, instead opting to make as much savings as possible (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). The firms ignore the plight of the landowners as well as the attachment the land owners have for their land, for the simple fact that land owners do not form groups to bargain on their behalf for the compensation. TransCanada has time and again refused to engage in dialogue and accommodate suggestions regarding the location of pump stations as well as housing units for the oil workers. Most land owners do not freely consent to their land being taken over by firms such as TransCanada. The landowners only sign the land transfer documents knowing full well that refusal to do so will result to forceful eviction (Ruchti, 2010). TransCanada itself explains that it embraces a policy of handsomely rewarding the land owners. Talking to the landowner’s one gets the understanding that the firm only forcefully takes over peoples land, where need be, through the taking advantage of court approved transaction system (Kadrmas, 2009). Industrialization and pollution go hand in hand. In a fast growing economy like India, the high speed of industrialization comes at a cost (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). This is in the form of 70,000-120,000 death cases as well as 20 million asthma related illness every year, here in this in the form of new infections, largely due to air pollution and toxic gas emissions from power and energy industry onto the environment (Ruchti, 2010). With the case of the toxic sand oils being extracted and transported to refineries, the future health of American’s looks dim if this project is to be implemented without following due process in the creation of checks and balances to regulate safe extraction and processing of the sand oils. Safety of the environment as well as humans should be the number one priority. Debate on the Keystone project has led to the argument of whether or not climate change and energy poverty can be tackled with simultaneously (Kadrmas, 2009). Global warming continues to cause negative changes in the climate, with reports indicating that the Arctic is becoming more and more like the earth’s southern regions. Global warming might become the world’s biggest worry in due time if projects like keystone are implemented without care on the environment being emphasized on. The greater goal of industrialization comes at the price of destruction on the environment. The question on the subject is whether profit realization supersedes destruction of the environment (Kadrmas, 2009). Just nearly two years after the nuclear incident in Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, reports by the Union of Concerned scientists in the US suggest that one in every six US nuclear power plants experience safety breaches yearly (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). This, according to the report, is caused mostly by the weak structures and laws that are in existence that fail to provide for oversight on the operations of such plants. The same weak oversight structures exist in all the major industries such as energy (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). These weak structures caused by lack of adequate policies are the cause for concern on whether firms like TransCanada will have the nation’s interest at heart for the environment and apply best practices in processing the oil or whether safety concerns are not amongst their concerns. The government of the state of Alberta explains that the Keystone project involves more than just environmental concerns. The government goes further to advocate for implementation of the project, saying the grater goal should be implementing a balance between clean technology, minimizing energy poverty and creation of as many job opportunities as possible (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). While the concerns of the Albertan government are genuine, the greater concern with regard to Keystone should be the health implications of a toxic polluted ecosystem and the preservation of the environment for the future generations to come (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). Conclusion The project itself is worthwhile and of great economic implications. Jobs will be created as well as energy. If the Obama administration approves implementation of the keystone pipeline project, the resultant effect of job creation and economic gain aside, there will also be a tremendous increase in greenhouse emissions on the atmosphere. Pollution of land, air and water will be one of the major implications of the project. Because of its magnitude, the world climate will be affected by this single pipeline project in terms of global warming (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). The government should instead resolve on how clean energy can be produced and recycled since appetite for oil will always exist if not increase with the ever growing population. Structures to check operations of such plants should be put in place and reviewed regularly before projects such as Keystone pipeline are implemented. Compensation for land should be concerned with satisfactorily paying land owners the equivalent of the value of their land and additional costs of eviction (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). The concern for the environment should be the top priority for projects such as Keystone since reversing the effects of environmental degradation is nearly impossible. Economic gain and development is essential for humanity, but then again it cannot come at the cost of destruction of the ecosystem (Roode & Ruchti, 2010). Similar projects to Keystone continue to be implemented worldwide without due precaution and inclusion of concerns by environmentalist and other stakeholders. References Kadrmas, L. (2009). Crude oil pipe pipeline feasibility study Bakken to Keystone pipeline system. Bismarck, N.D.: North Dakota Industrial Commission. Roode, T. J., & Ruchti, G. F. (2010). Pipelines 2010 climbing new peaks to infrastructure reliability : renew, rehab, and reinvest : proceedings of the Pipelines 2010 Conference : August 28-September 1, 2010, Keystone, Colorado. Reston, Va.: American Society of Civil Engineers. Ruchti, G. (2010). Pipelines 2010 climbing new peaks to infrastructure reliability--renew, rehab, and reinvest : proceedings of the 2010 Pipeline Division Specialty Congress, August 28-September 1, 2010, Keystone Colorado. Reston, Va.: American Society of Civil Engineers. Read More