The Pros And Cons Of The Keystone Pipeline

Introduction The Keystone Pipeline was a proposed idea of a pipeline that would run from the oil sands of Canada to Steele City, Nebraska. It would then connect to an existing pipeline that would administer it elsewhere. Since it is an oil pipeline that would cross international borders, it needed the President’s approval. The idea became such a controversial topic when President Obama stated that six days to decide the fate of this project was not a sufficient amount of time to make a decision. This opened doors to insecurities of the Canada- U.S. relationship as well as questioned the rhetoric of energy policy of the United States (Kalen 5). Many people were torn as to whether the risk of the pipeline would outweigh its potential benefits.

The existing portion of the pipeline carries in 550,000 barrels per day, while the proposal would raise that number to approximately 830,000 barrels (Kalen 5). This would aid the country’s rapid consumption of oil. The pipeline project would also provide an increase in the United States’ national security. Energy is a controlling factor in the economy as well as defense. Therefore, a surge in national security would come through the form of energy security. Because countries, especially the United States, rely immensely on a constant source of oil, maintaining that unceasing energy source is a form of national security (Slade 49). Instead of receiving oil from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, who are the second and third leading suppliers of oil for the U.S., the country would receive its major crude oil imports from their neighboring country (“Keystone” 1). The State Department concluded that it was in the interest of the country because it provided additional supplies which would make up for the decline of imports from the United States’ other key suppliers (Kalen 12). The building of the pipeline is also argued as extremely beneficial to economy. TransCanada stated that this project would create twenty thousand new jobs and seven billion dollars in economic incentive (“Keystone” 1). It is also widely encouraged due to the belief that it will decrease the cost of

Since nobody can correctly predict the exact outcome, many are just shutting down the concept all together. Environmentalists are especially against the building of the pipeline because they believe a dependence on oil and fossil fuels contributes to the looming problem of global warming and climate change (Slade 27). Protestors also argued that it would disturb the presence of vegetation and wildlife in the sandy regions of Nebraska. Opponents also point out that the Canadian sands emit more heat-trapping emissions than other oil sources because they have to work harder to extract the oil from the ground. They are also actively speaking out about the risks which include leaks that harm wildlife and contaminate drinking water (“Keystone” 1). Governor Chris Christie was known for advocating the Pipeline but his comments were called into question when just a month later forty thousand gallons of oil spilled into the Yellowstone River which contaminated water for thousands of people located in Glendive, Montana (Jones 17). In early 2015, almost 3 million gallons of wastewater that were produced by the oil production in North Dakota leaked through a damaged pipeline into a system of creeks causing major issues and a large spill (Jones 13). The substance that the pipeline would carry is very corrosive to steel pipes, which increases the risk of spills (Terry 75). They are especially worried about it