Keystone Pipeline

           The Keystone XL Pipeline is a future project that is expected to be 174 thousand square miles from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska to transport crude oil. This drastic decision has impact that can affect the U.S. socially, economically, and environmentally for better or worse. With the information and research so far for this project, I am against the idea of extending the pipeline; due to the fact that more research is needed to this severe situation.  It seem as if everything is on a base of let’s just do the project and see what happens, and whatever is going to happen, will happen. But let’s think about the pros and cons of the situation socially, economically, and environmentally.

           Looking at the social factors, it will lower the U.S. unemployment, which is very beneficial to the people because jobs are so scarce right now. In 2008, TransCanada’s Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL to the State Department indicated “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” to build the pipeline. Jobs estimates above those listed in its application draw from a 2011 report commissioned by TransCanada that estimates 20,000 “person-years” of employment based on a non-public forecast model using undisclosed inputs provided by TransCanada. According to TransCanada’s own data, just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor. There is always two sides to the story, knowing that the Keystone Pipeline will create a lot of jobs, it will only be for a certain amount of time because the it is built most of the workers will not have any reason to work. Therefore, after the pipeline is built most people will go back to not having a job again.

          Exploring the economic factors, A recent study by the Energy Policy Research Foundation, for example, concludes that “the Keystone expansion would provide net economic benefits from improved efficiencies in both the transportation and processing of crude oil of $100 million-$600 million annually, in addition to an immediate boost in construction employment.” The president and CEO of TransCanada, Russ Girling, publicized the positive impact of the project by "putting 20,000 US workers to work and spending $7 billion stimulating the US economy. But will happen if there was a leak, it would cost money for the leak to be fix even if it is fixable. These CERI estimates apply to the entire oil sands industry, however, not only the Keystone XL project, and they are derived from a proprietary economic analysis which has not been subject to external review. Some stakeholders point to State Department and other studies reporting much lower anticipated economic benefits. So, it is difficult to determine what specific economic impacts may ultimately be attributable to the Keystone XL pipeline. Nonetheless, given the physical scale of the project, it could be expected to increase investment at least during construction.

          Lastly, the environmental factors, opposes the use of tar sand, which is found in the deposits in Canada. The scientific name for tar sand is bitumen, a mixture of clay, sand, water, and oil that with modern technology can be refined into usable oil. Environmentalists say the process of refining tar sand will create large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, though the exact percentage increase is debated. It is, also, worries about the possibilities of leaks in the pipeline. A U.S. Department of State investigation shows that there have been 14 spills from TransCanada pipelines, though most relatively small. Environmentalists point to an event in May 2011, when 21,000 gallons of oil leaked in North Dakota due to a faulty valve. The State Department says the maximum amount of spillage in a worst-case-scenario of a Keystone Pipeline leak is 2.8 million gallons spread throughout a 1.7 mile area. TransCanada points out that this is significantly smaller than the amount that escaped during the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

          These are just some of the reasons I oppose the building of the Keystone pipeline. This is a project that will continue to create massive concerns until something come up and prove us differently.