Download file to see previous pages...
Despite the probable environmental impact it acts as the best safe alternative for shipping oil sands crude. Apart from its probable impact on the environment, the project bears major impact on the economy thereby making it a subject to economic debaters. Major economic impacts include effect on the cash flows and job claims. An analysis on the economic and environmental impacts of the project makes it less feasible for implementation. The following are the pros and cons associated.
The Keystone XL provides a safer alternative for transporting sands crude thereby making the proposers to conclude on the environmental friendliness. Even though many environmentalist have argued against the environmental friendliness of the project, the study done by the State Department shows that it is better to have the project that the environmental significance of the project are far more valuable than when it is rejected. Whether in the absence or presence of the Keystone XL, there still will be higher production of the oil sands. This implies that there would be need for a railway to transport the crude oil in case the Keystone pipeline is not built. Considering the far much impacts which could transpire because of the recent high profile crude-by-rail accidents, Keystone XL is the most suitable alternative for transporting oils sands with lesser impacts on the environment. Intuitively, there is need to build the pipeline since it assures of reducing the environmental impacts which could result from use of railway (Chang, 9).
Economically, the project proves viable in increasing the cash flows of the national economy and the overall number of investors in the country. Usually, pipeline is a source of steady and stable cash flows as compare to any other means of transport. In this case, a country has to consider the volume of oil to be transported and the immediate returns from the project. For the TRP, the owners of the
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
As the report states the economic crisis that surfaced in 2008 caused a great damage to the economy of the USA and hundreds of thousands of people were fired as the companies downsized to minimize their expenses and maximize their profits. There is a lot of literature that supports the need to take measures to reduce global warming and preserve nature.
Therefore they filed a form with the Department of State along with the aspiration that it would have a total capacity to move 830,000 barrels per day and delivering oil further, to Texas as well. The pipeline would also carry oil from North Dakota and Montana, forming the Bakkan formation.
Phase III of the system is currently under construction. This section of pipeline will connect the terminus at Cushing, Oklahoma with refining facilities in Houston, Texas and Port Arthur, Louisiana. Once this section is completed, Canadian petroleum produces will have their long sought-after pipeline terminus in a tidewater location as well as direct access to Gulf region refining facilities.
What are the physical parameters of the pipeline? The report also analyses the 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
The article supports building of the pipeline because it focuses on benefits of pipeline and weaknesses and dangers of railway transport for oil.
The article identifies the role of Alberta’s tar sand mines on the environment. it explains effects of mining on greenhouse gas