Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada to Gulf Coast - Coursework Example

Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada to Gulf Coast  The Keystone XL Pipeline is an extension of Keystone Pipeline proposed in 2008. The decision regarding the Keystone XL pipeline has been a subject of foremost political debate. This report looks into the features of the proposed route under construction, challenges faced in the approval of the pipeline, the states supporting its construction and those opposing it. It provides documentation of the reasons why the states do not support this construction and a summary of key arguments for and against the pipeline presented by the pipeline’s developers, federal agencies, environmental groups, including other stakeholders’. Finally, this report points out the reasons why the remainder of this project has not been approved, how politics has influenced this approval and the likelihood of its approval after the just concluded November U S presidential election. Introduction The Keystone XL Pipeline was proposed in 2008 and approved on March 11, 2010 by the Canadian National Energy Board on March 11, 2010. However, the issue became politicized and has faced several lawsuits and rigorous criticism from American citizens and environmentalists groups. The development of the pipeline came to a standstill in November 2011 as an ultimate decision was postponed into 2013. Characteristic Features The proposed pipeline would start from Hardisty, Canada and connect to the existing network in Steele city, Nebraska until Cushing, Oklahoma, eventually heading into Texas. The 36 inch pipeline would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas delivering 830000 barrels daily when running at a maximum rate. Currently under construction, the Cushing MarketLink phase of this project would start from Cushing Oklahoma, expanding 435 miles to a delivery point close to terminals in Nederland, Texas serving Port Arthur, Texas marketplace. Another proposed 47 miles previous pipeline is to transport crude oil from the pipeline in Liberty County to Houston, Texas. 327 miles second phase of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would begin in Alberta, Canada entering the US at Morgan, Montana then travelling through Baker, South Dakota and Nebraska. The phase has generated serious controversy due to its routing over the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska. TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline is owned by TransCanada Pipeline- a Canadian energy company Founded in 1951 in Calgary. The company is a leading North American energy company developing and operating energy infrastructure in North America, with a pipeline network of approximately 59000km. TransCanada signed contracts with Bakken oil producers to carry oil from the keystone region through the Keystone XL Pipeline. This project seeking to double the capacity of the initial keystone pipeline system by connecting it with the US gulf coast would be operational by 2013 if it received regulatory approvals. This will enable the delivery of an estimated 1.1 million barrels of Canadian crude oil to the US market daily Influence of Politics on Keystone XL Pipeline Bill Mann has associated the keystone support to the Michigan senate’s refusal of Canadian funding for the proposed Detroit River International Crossing. He has also cited and the latest cases of US government actions that show little concerns regarding Canadian concerns. He drew attention to an article by MacLean’s about Canada/US relations after president Obama insulted Canada over the pipeline. In February 2011a report by Inside Climate News environmental journalist David Sassoon, reported that Koch industries were on the edge of obtaining huge profits from the pipeline. Consequently, Congressmen Waxman and rush wrote a letter to the energy and commerce committee in March 2011 citing this story. They advised the committee to request documents regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline from the Koch industries. Grievances related to threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land, and lawsuits allowing construction of the pipeline on their property without approval of the federal committee have also risen from landowners in the route of the pipeline. TransCanada had 34 annexation actions touching landowners in Texas and 22 in South Dakota. In May 2011, some landowners delivered testimonies to the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing. Senator Bernie and rep Steve Cohen demanded a new report on January 2012 on the environmental review process of the pipeline (Hedges et al, page 98). Challenges facing the approval of this project Advocators of keystone XL pipeline cite economic impacts, mainly job opportunities as reasons for their support. On the other hand, other states oppose this project, basing their argument on the harmful economic impacts it would bring. Jobs remain the most critical concern for most Americans especially considering the recent economic recession. Every prospect of creating these jobs is hugely supported. However, this pipeline poses a grave threat to both the environment and the future of petroleum use in America. States in favor of the pipeline such as Nebraska mainly cite economic benefits, which include an estimated 75000 jobs to be created yearly per person. The Chamber of Commerce argued that the project would support 250000 jobs. TransCanada estimates that Keystone XL Pipeline would bring 3 year provisional jobs for 1668 persons, a figure that could highly be viewed as objective due to the heavy ties between the oil industry and the chamber of commerce. However, a study conducted by Cornel University Global Labor Institute (Pipe dreams?, page 23) pronounced that current employees of TransCanada would be delegated most of the duties, and only a mere 4650 new jobs would be created. This report point out that increases in price that would result from diversion of oil to Texas will partly negate some of these jobs. Another argument put forward by supporters is that the pipeline would enable America to lower dependence on foreign oil and increase its energy security. The ‘Cornel University Global Labor Institute report highly disputes this case, saying the crude oil would bring no contribution to national security or energy independence. Instead, it points out that the crude oil would eventually be exported to Asia. TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has argued that the alternative oil carried by tanker if Canadian oil does not reach the gulf through an environmentally friendly method would pose a greater environmental threat. States opposing this project like Texas and Oklahoma cite both local and global environmental impacts of the pipeline as their foremost concerns. Locally, the proposed pipeline runs over the Ogallala aquifer, one of the world’s largest known aquifers which extend through eight states. The principle concern is that the aquifer is rather close to the surface thus oil spills from Keystone XL Pipeline might contaminate the aquifer. Specifically, benzene-an extremely problematic constituent of the tar sands, would combine with rainwater and leak into the aquifer particularly in the sand hills of Nebraska (Final environmental impact statement for the Keystone XL Project.). The aquifer supplies drinking water for more than two million Americans, also providing irrigation water. Along with this threat, the pipeline could also spill into some of the rivers over which it passes Probable oil spills from the pipeline would pollute the drinking water serving thousands of people, critically destroying sensitive ecological areas that are habitat to endangered species as anticipated, TransCanada’s estimate of the pipeline spill frequency, at 0.00013 spills per mile annually is relatively low compared to independent estimates. The estimate overlooks other factors such as the corrosive nature of the oil and high temperatures and pressures involved in pumping. Globally, the pipeline further propels the US addiction to oil, which brings severe repercussions for climate change and global carbon emissions. This comes at a period when the global scientific community is striving to adopt renewable energy sources seeking to reduce carbon emissions and tackle the inevitable outcomes of climate change. The United States is a key contributor of greenhouse gases. Permitting the pipeline to be constructed would reinforce US addiction to fuel sources that it needs to cut down and set an admirable example to the rest of the world. Other Factors Undermining Approval of the Project Corruption associated with TransCanada, the state department and the environmental review required before its approval has also delayed the approval of this project. Part of corruption in the Keystone XL Pipeline project is evidenced by emails between TransCanada lobbyists and the US state department. This corruption prompted non-violent action by protestors who argued that the Keystone XL Pipeline project is not in America’s national interest leading to adamant rejection of the pipeline. Another serious challenge facing approval of the project is the protest by the general public, evidenced by over 1200+ arrests and10000+ protestors (Hedges et al, page 128). The Uncertain Future of Keystone XL A new proposal from TransCanada re-routes the U.S. section to evade the Ogallala Aquifer and the Sandhills of Nebraska. However, environmentalists concerns still stand even with this proposed re-routing. The environmental implications of Keystone XL Pipeline are especially significant and should be taken into account. If the approval of this project fails to succeed, Canada may be forced to ship the oil to eastern Canada or export it to China. There exist a variety of prospects of the Keystone XL Pipeline being approved after the just concluded US presidential elections. The president might approve the pipeline because he would otherwise have to find a reason why it is against the interest of the nation. A decision fruitfully aligning with the national interests of the country requires the pipeline project to be ideally examined. Works cited Final environmental impact statement for the Keystone XL Project. Washington, DC: United Hedges, Chris, and Joe Sacco. Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. New York: Nation Books, 2012. Print. Pipe dreams? A report by Cornell university Global Labor institute Read More