Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros cons of alaskan pipeline
Pros cons of alaskan pipeline
Pros cons of alaskan pipeline
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros cons of alaskan pipeline
Pros cons of alaskan pipeline
Pros cons of alaskan pipeline
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Keystone XL Pipeline is a transmitter for Canadian oil to be sold across the world. Land and nearly all risks lie within the U.S. yet there is no significant benefit to the economy. There is too little to gain and too much to economically risk by allowing the construction of the XL
Canada should not allow The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline to go through as it poses to many environmental and ecological risks. Pristine areas across central and northern BC, including the Great Bear Rainforest, are under threat if the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline is put into service. In the end, the concerns over the BC pipeline outweigh the possible benefits the pipeline may result in. The Canadian oil and gas company Enbridge, proposed the Northern Gateway project as a solution to transport 525,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
Controversy Surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline To build or not to build, this choice will impact the relationship between the US and Canada and determine the level of dependence the US will have on countries that are not so friendly. “TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day” (Parfomak, Pirog, Luther and Vann 4). The construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would strengthen the United States economy, provide energy security and have minimal environmental impact. “The Keystone XL project would create $1.1 trillion in private capital investment at no
In my opinion I am against the pipeline. The negative effects out way the positives of the pipeline. To begin with, there isn't a real need for the pipeline, so why spend billions of dollars on a pipeline that isn't needed. The cost of the pipeline is extremely high whereas the pipeline might not actually be worth that much to the residents here. There would be taxes and fees that the residents and the business owners would have to pay to pay for the pipeline that could be avoided.
Two main political issues today are the economy and the environment, a recent topic that involves these issues is the decision or lack thereof to go through with the Keystone pipeline XL. The pipeline stretches from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, via Texas and can provide immediate jobs and oil economic stimulation as well as economic stimulation for future generations. The problem is that while this project can mean a brighter future economically, it can also mean a darker future environmentally. Despite the possible environmental risks, the keystone pipeline XL project needs to be approved as it can provide energy security and a major economical stimulation for this generation and the next.
“The oil spills are most likely and could result from corrosion, defects in materials or construction, pressure, ground movements and flooding.” That would affect low-income family lives around the pipeline and they will have higher chances of environmental hazards. Wilder acknowledges that U.S. needs to find other ways to get clean and sustainable sources of energy because Keystone XL pipeline is not a solution. After reading Wilder’s essay, I consider the health and communities’ safety and the rising threats of climate change the first priority rather than building the XL
Although the USACE claims this pipeline will be beneficial, it is clear that the pipeline will be detrimental to water supply, cause an increase in earthquake potential, and invade sacred Sioux lands. The Dakota Access Pipeline is one of thousands of pipelines which uses a drilling technology called hydraulic fracturing otherwise known as fracking (TuftsUniversity 1). This processes starts by drilling a hole approximately 6,000 feet below ground
The Keystone pipeline should not be built because it endangers the environment and has the ability to create catastrophic damages through pollution and habitat desecration. Though many see benefits to the addition of a national pipeline, the effects and dangers must outweigh any slight economic gain. A small gain in government currency should never endanger the future loss of an environment, which is something than can cannot be
The Dakota Access Pipeline, has sparked quite the controversy. The oil pipeline would stretch over four states, and has many positive and negative possible effects. Many can debate whether or not this pipeline is ethically correct, but no one can debate the few positive economic effects on the nation. One such effect, “1,500 jobs total per year in Iowa for the course of construction.” (Sammon)
Within recent months, the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline has gained enough national attention to divide the country. Many Americans believe it would be a good investment that could bring a galore of oil, money, and jobs for the country, boosting the economy and having lasting positive effects on Americans. However, others argue that the pipeline would bring harm to the Native American culture and the environment. Nevertheless, the surrounding area of the 1,170 mile pipeline would be affected by this pipeline. The Dakota Access Pipeline puts habitats, animals, and hundreds of thousands of lives and the culture of these lives at risk of being tarnished.
According to the official Dakota Access Pipeline website, “The DAPL is a 1,172-mile underground pipeline that will be used to transport crude oil from the Three Forks, North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois.” (Dakota Access Pipeline Facts, n.d.). While this pipeline is seen as a huge benefit for those in the oil and energy business, numerous controversies have been sparked ever since construction was approved back in early 2016. This is because both environmentalists and indigenous tribes alike were concerned as to how the pipeline would damage sacred tribal lands and cause water contamination, as the construction of the pipeline would be crossing through hundreds of miles of untouched tribal land as well as being built underneath the Missouri River. In response, thousands of individuals, both indigenous and non-indigenous, in person and online, gathered to support the movement and protest the halt construction of the pipeline, resulting in one of the largest Native American protests in recent years.
The Dakota Access Pipeline has been a Hot topic for about the past year. It sparked attention with the public because of the unethical practices that were being used to construct the pipeline. Many people were upset with how the government decided to handle the issue. With that being said, many protests had broken out over the past several months. Those who supported pipeline argued it would be better the American People and economy.
The environmental argument is coming from a clash over the fact they are basically stripping the canadian boreal forest, the path of the pipeline extends across major aquifers, and pipelines tend to leak and destroy surrounding environments. In addition ccording to The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions State, “epartment’s draft SEIS found that oil from the Canadian oil sands is 17 percent more carbon-intensive than the average oil consumed in the United States... It is estimated that the U.S. greenhouse gas footprint would increase by 3 million to 21 million metric tons per year, or around 0.04 percent to 0.3 percent of the 2010 levels, if Keystone is built. Fortunately on November 6, 2015, President Barack Obama’s administration rejected the Keystone Pipeline XL after 7 years of dispute. As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Obama stated “the project would not have lowered gas prices, improved energy security or made a meaningful long-term contribution to the economy
“Benefits of Governmental Compromise Regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline” Nations all have unique governments and differences necessary for demonstrating successful leadership. Every country needs different assistance from their leadership, such as Rio requiring infrastructure or Somalia lacking political power. Some governments concern themselves with their politicians’ well-being more so than the people they lead, which creates a relevant problem in America. The United States Government can easily forget about Native American Reservations, or even ignore the people living on them. Recently, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has worked on the Dakota Access Pipeline project, which would cross over Native American ancestral lands,
TAPS transports 17% of the United State’s domestic petroleum. If the pipeline were to stop, “A loss of that production would increase prices by at least 10 to 16 percent” (Balan). This is very important, as the majority of the American population is in constant need of these resources. A shift this dramatic in the economy would lead to outrage and possible changes in economic inflation. All in all, the Trans Alaska pipeline has provided for a great number of people and has not failed to let them down.