Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Keystone XL US-Canada oil pipeline
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 16:23, 2 September 2011 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Pro) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 16:25, 2 September 2011 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Pro) Next diff → |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*'''US pipeline strategically taps huge Canadian oil reserves.''' Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "It is now estimated that Canada has the world’s second largest oil reserves, only after Saudi Arabia. So, from purely the perspective of the oil market, Canada’s role and the United States’ interests in those tar sands is a very important one - a very important public policy issue for this nation."[http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00023&segmentID=4] | *'''US pipeline strategically taps huge Canadian oil reserves.''' Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "It is now estimated that Canada has the world’s second largest oil reserves, only after Saudi Arabia. So, from purely the perspective of the oil market, Canada’s role and the United States’ interests in those tar sands is a very important one - a very important public policy issue for this nation."[http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00023&segmentID=4] | ||
- | *'''Keystone XL helps US avoid buying oil from volatile regions.''' Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "the dynamics of the oil market are important to remember here. Because right now, we are sending trillions of dollars a year to often hostile regimes, or regimes that are ambivalent toward the United States."[http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00023&segmentID=4] | + | *'''[[Argument: Keystone XL helps US avoid buying oil from volatile regions| Keystone XL helps US avoid buying oil from volatile regions]]''' Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "the dynamics of the oil market are important to remember here. Because right now, we are sending trillions of dollars a year to often hostile regimes, or regimes that are ambivalent toward the United States."[http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00023&segmentID=4] |
- | :[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/the-keystone-xl-pipeline-the-canadian-envoys-view.html "The Keystone XL Pipeline." Letter to the Editor by the Canadian Envoy. August 29th, 2011]: "The study found that the pipeline would substantially reduce American dependency on oil from volatile regions, including the Middle East. Keystone XL will also carry stranded Bakken crude from North Dakota and Montana to major American refineries." | + | |
*'''Climate targets could still be met with oil sands.''' Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "I have no doubt that if you look at the amount of resources that are talked about with the tar sands, or around the world, if we were simply to burn all of these oil reserves, we could probably still meet some of the climate targets of two degrees or three degrees Celsius. You know, scientists say that we can release only another 500 billion tons of carbon, and if you look at natural gas or oil, we can probably burn through most of that and still meet those numbers. We can’t do that plus burn all the coal in the world, of course."[http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00023&segmentID=4] | *'''Climate targets could still be met with oil sands.''' Brad Carson, the director of the National Energy Policy Institute, said to Living on Earth in June of 2011: "I have no doubt that if you look at the amount of resources that are talked about with the tar sands, or around the world, if we were simply to burn all of these oil reserves, we could probably still meet some of the climate targets of two degrees or three degrees Celsius. You know, scientists say that we can release only another 500 billion tons of carbon, and if you look at natural gas or oil, we can probably burn through most of that and still meet those numbers. We can’t do that plus burn all the coal in the world, of course."[http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00023&segmentID=4] |
Revision as of 16:25, 2 September 2011
Background and contextTransCanada Keystone Pipeline filed an application in 2008 for a Presidential Permit with the Department of State to build and operate the Keystone XL Project. The proposed Keystone XL Project would consist of a 1,700-mile crude oil pipeline and related facilities that would be used largely to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin crude oil from an oil supply hub in Alberta, Canada to delivery points in Oklahoma and Texas. The project would also be capable of transporting U.S. crude from places like North Dakota and Montana to those delivery points. The project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion. If permitted, it would begin operation in 2013, with the actual date dependant on the necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations.[1] The project has generated significant debate in the United States regarding the extraction and use of oil from Alberta's tar sands, which generally results in greater environmental issues and greenhouse gas emissions than conventional reservoir extraction. Pipelines are also fairly vulnerable to spills. But, supporters argue it will create 100,000 jobs and strengthen US energy independence from sources in unstable and unfriendly regions of the world. The pros and cons are considered below. |
Arguments | |
Pro
|
Con
|
Safety: | |
Pro
|
Con |
Economics | |
Pro
|
Con
|
Pro/con sources | |
Pro
|
Con
|
External links
|