The Pros And Cons Of The Keystone Pipeline

With rising gas prices and an increasing reliance on nonrenewable resources, finding a reliable source for extracting and transporting oil has become an issue. In 2010, the Keystone Pipeline project was proposed and commissioned by TransCanada. Essentially, this is a pipeline that transports oil sands bitumen across the Canada-US border and into several different reserves in the States. An additional extension to the Keystone Pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline, has also been proposed. Several issues arise when considering the consequences of this new proposal, including the potential for oil spills and habitat damage. However, while the Keystone XL Pipeline does pose a potential threat on the environment, the construction of the pipeline is

Opponents of the project argue that the negative effects of the pipeline on the environment would outweigh the economic benefits of the pipeline. Since the pipeline would be built over several important landmarks including the Ogallala Aquifer, the “most heavily used aquifer in the United States [which] supplies about 30 percent of the groundwater pumped for irrigation nationwide” as well as provide a major source of drinking water, the potential for leaks and spillages in the pipe could cause the water to become contaminated (Song). Nearby plants and animals would also be affected by the chemicals of the oil sands. The issue of greenhouse gas emissions also raises concerns. According to Janna Palliser’s, The Keystone XL Pipeline:

The amount of greenhouse gas emitted in the production of tar-sands oil is three times that of conventional oil and gas production. An increase in tar-sands development could increase U.S. green-house gas emissions from 27 to 125 million tons by 2015. The tar-sands fields in Alberta are Canada's largest source of carbon dioxide emissions. Tar-sands oil also creates emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, which contribute to acid rain