Pipeline Should not Be built - Essay Example

Pipeline should not be built Annotated bibliography Aldhous, Peter. "Fatal Train Wreck Fuels Debate over Oil Transport." New Scientist 219.2925 : 01. Academic Search Premier. Print. The article reports on a train explosion accident and identifies the incidence as a danger to the node of transport for oil. It achieves this by comparing nature of the accident with the scope of pipeline that appears is free from such explosions that arise from failure of vessels. The article supports building of the pipeline because it focuses on benefits of pipeline and weaknesses and dangers of railway transport for oil. Biello, David. "Greenhouse Goo." Scientific American 308.7 (2013): 56-61. Academic Search Premier. The article identifies the role of Alberta’s tar sand mines on the environment. it explains effects of mining on greenhouse gas emission, such as emission of carbon dioxide gas, and notes that these effects could have effects on whether the Keystone XL pipeline is constructed or not. It offers a basis for opposing the pipeline building by identifying harm that the pipeline can cause on the environment through increasing greenhouse gas emission. Congressional Digest. “Environmental Impact Of The Keystone XL Project." Congressional Digest 90.10 (2011): 296-320. Academic Search Premier. Print. The article explains potential effects of Keystone XL construction on the environment and also extends to other scopes of the construction such as review of the project, process of presidential approval, objective of the construction, transportation of oil in the nation, and alternatives to pipeline. Its identified risks of the pipeline construction explains possible adverse effects of the construction and adds to the opposing views. Russell, Pam Radtke. "TransCanada Line Pros, Cons Aired." ENR: Engineering News-Record 267.11 (2011): 12. Academic Search Premier. The author explains safety of the proposed pipeline construction and assumes the position that approval of pipeline will not have adverse effects on people. it offers direct support to the construction. Wendy, Koch. "Most Americans back Keystone XL pipeline." USA Today n.d.: Academic Search Premier. Print. The author reports on and analyzes data opinions on presidential approval application for construction of the CanadaPipeline. It however assumes a neutral approach and allows for critical analysis of popularity and associated risks of the proposed pipeline. Argument on the pipeline TransCanada Pipeline is a system of pipelines that facilitate transportation of gas in Canada. The pipeline system is specially designed to withstand pressure and has as thick as diameters of more than one peters. The system is widely spread through Canada and the organization that manages the pipeline, TransCanada Corp, has applied for permit to extend its system of pipelines into the United States. The application is currently waiting for the presidential approval after which operations can commence after two years. The decision on whether to approve the pipeline corporation or not has been a subject of speculation with some opinions supporting its approval while others have disapproved of it. This paper argues that he pipeline corporation should not be approved to extend its system into the United States. Pipeline is one of the available modes of transport for fluids and offers an alternative to transportation of oil gas. The United States’ reliance of oil from Canada identifies the need for a mode of transport that will be efficient and cost effective. Pipeline offers advantages in transportation and while these would influence a decision by the president of the United States to approve the application by CanadaPipeline Corp., a number of issues have been identified that shows net harm of constructing the system of pipeline in the United States. One of the major arguments against approving the construction is the effects of the pipeline on the environment through global warming effects. It is argued that efforts to pump materials along the pipeline leads to emission of greenhouse gases. This activity emits more than two hundred percent the volume of greenhouse gas that surface mining of oil emits. Data from evaluation of effects of pumping of bitumen at Christina Lake also shows that the level of greenhouse gas emission has increased in the region and the increase is attributed to the pipeline transportation that involves use of natural gas. The significance of greenhouse gas emission is also visible in the trend that has been observed and forecasted. The trend shows that emission of greenhouse gases from tar sand exhaust has increased and may double by the year 2020 and this means that all necessary measures must be taken to minimize associated greenhouse gas emission from mining and transportation of oil. Reducing transportation by pipeline is an alternative and the president of the United State must not approve the construction of the pipeline in the United States (Biello 59). Building the proposed pipeline, based on argument from scientists such as “Abraham, Caldeira, and Hansen,” will promote production and transportation of tar sands and the associated effects on greenhouse gas emission is undesirable (Biello 59). The scientists protested to the president and noted that approving construction of the pipeline will contradict the nation’s efforts to minimize its contribution to greenhouse gas emission. The United State has also made international commitment to reduction of level of greenhouse gas emission that it contribute to the environment and its approval of the line will undermine this commitment. The pipeline should also not be built because of the image that such an act will have on the president of the United States and the nation as a whole. The president, prior to the nation’s general elections indicated his unwillingness to approve the construction that the CanadaPipeline Corp. had applied for and this suggested the president’s position, to Americans, and the United States’ position to the world of commitment to prevent further preventable causes of greenhousegas emission. Changing this position to approve of the pipeline will therefore betray Americans and the world and will give the president and the nation a poor image, especially with the nation’s commitment to reducing levels of greenhouse gas emission. This is further because approving of the construction and the ultimate construction will increase the level of greenhouse gas emission instead of reducing it (Biello 59). The pipeline should also not be constructed because despite the relative safety in transportation of oil that it proposes over other means of transport, pipeline is not at all safe and the Arkansas incidence is an example the potential risk that the pipeline pose to Americans. While surveys that were conducted on perception of Americans on whether the pipeline should be built showed support for the construction, the respondent were not informed of such potential risks as the occurrence in Arkansas and this could have changed their opinions. The fact that the oil spill in Arkansas occurred on the same company’s pipeline means that its existence in the United State that is supposed to cover more than 1000 miles will expose Americans and their environments to oil leaks from to proposed pipeline. Environmental experts have particularly raised the concern and noted that while construction of the pipeline is not a necessity to the nation and its energy needs, it is likely to expose people to high-level risks of oil spill as have been reported among the Canadian oil pipeline (Wendy 1). The purpose of the construction also explains reasons why it should not be approved. Its main objective is to promote trade in crude oil between the United States and Canada and to diver the United States’ attention from its current trade ties. While Canada may have an alternative to the nation’s needs for oil, a massive approach that would break the nation’s trade ties with other countries and risk diplomatic strains. Approving the pipeline when the objective of sidelining other trade partners from the United States would also mean that the nation wishes to disadvantage other countries in its crude oil trade and this may have negative effects on the United States’ position in global trade. Secondary effects such as increased prices of imports because of trade barriers by exporting countries to the United States as well as lack of market for the nation’s exports because of restrictions by other countries will also be harmful to the nation’s micro and macro economic factors and leads to adverse factors on people’s quality of life (Congressional Digest 297). Congressional Digest also explains numerous risks that the nation should not take. Despite security measures that may be put in place to prevent and manage leaks along the pipeline, such measures cannot be efficient and this means that some leaks are bound to occur and Americans are the victims. Leaks during the pipeline’s transportation are also possible at “pump stations, or valve stations” and expected frequencies for such leaks are significantly high (Congressional Digest 299). A rate of more than one spill per year, with significant proportion being more that 2100 gallons also proves the threat that the construction is likely to offer to Americans is significant. Trend in spills among pipeline companies is also alarming and undermines the perception that the proposed construction will e safe and the general perception that pipeline is a safer mode of transporting petroleum as compared to other modes such as road and rail transport. Keystone Oil Pipeline System, for instance, experience more than ten spills in a period of less than a year and inferring this data to the proposed construction means people around the pipeline will be exposed to potential leaks. The leaks are further likely to have adverse effects on people through direct physical harm or through poisoning (Congressional Digest 299). There are however, arguments that suggest significant benefits that the construction may offer to the nation and its citizens and that sufficient measures will be taken to avert possible leaks and associated dangers. The structure of the pipeline is argued to be strong enough to prevent leaks that may arise from corrosion and even pressure of fluid in transit. “Epoxy-coated steel” is proposed for the pipeline construction because of its ability to withstand pressure. It is also argued that the pipeline with have thick diameters to facilitate resistance to pressure and therefore reduce chances of leaks. Frequent inspections for detection of potential leaks have also been proposed as a strategy to ensuring safety of the pipeline. It is further argued that existing regulatory measures and extra safety measures that the corporation has taken to ensure safety are sufficient to guarantee safety of the proposed construction. Rules by the ‘United States’ department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’ ensure people’s safety and will regulate usage of the pipeline. In addition, the corporation has proposed additional measures, more than 50 safety measures, for preventing risks such as leaks (Russell 12). Risks factors in other modes of transport are another reason for arguments in favor of construction of the pipeline. The Quebec town train accident is an example of instances that have identified greater risks in transportation of oil by other modes. In the incident, a train that was transporting oil missed on its brakes and the result was an explosion, an incidence that cannot occur under pipeline transportation (Aldhous 1). Even though proponents of the proposed construction identify existing regulations as measures towards safety from the pipeline, such measures and the regulatory agency has existed before but leaks still occurred. An incident in another mode of transport should also not be used to discredit the subject mode because even pipeline transport has experienced accidents. Arguments against construction of the pipeline are therefore stronger and this means that the pipeline should not be built. Works cited Aldhous, Peter. "Fatal Train Wreck Fuels Debate over Oil Transport." New Scientist 219.2925 (2013): 01. Academic Search Premier. Print. Biello, David. "Greenhouse Goo." Scientific American 308.7 (2013): 56-61. Academic Search Premier. Congressional Digest. “Environmental Impact Of The Keystone XL Project." Congressional Digest 90.10 (2011): 296-320. Academic Search Premier. Print. Russell, Pam Radtke. "TransCanada Line Pros, Cons Aired." ENR: Engineering News-Record 267.11 (2011): 12. Academic Search Premier. Wendy, Koch. "Most Americans back Keystone XL pipeline." USA Today n.d.: Academic Search Premier. Print. Read More