The Keystone Pipeline System is an oil pipeline system in Canada and the United States. It runs from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the United States in Steele City, Nebraska; Wood River and Patoka, Illinois; and the Gulf Coast of Texas.

The Keystone XL pipeline (Phase IV) is a proposed route, similar to the Phase I pipeline – between Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska – but shorter and with a larger-diameter pipe. It would run through Baker, Montana, where American-produced light crude oil from the Williston Basin (Bakken formation) of Montana and North Dakota would be added to the Keystone's current throughput of synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the oil sands of Canada. However, after more than six years of review, the United States President Barack Obama announced on November 6, 2015, his administration's rejection of the fourth phase. More: en.wikipedia.org.

I support the idea of building the Keystone XL pipeline I oppose the idea of building the Keystone XL pipeline see voting resultssaving...
3 opinions, 15 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
0
0 votes
Dec 30, 2015

I'm interested in the rationale of people opposing this.The reasons I often hear opposition are environmental concerns, but does anyone seriously think a pipeline is a higher risk to the environment than tanker trucks hauling oil across America one load at a time? Not to mention the fuel consumed taking it over the roads.

Sure Pipelines can leak, but highway accidents happen much more frequently and would likely be remediated by local emergency services of varying quality rather than a coordinated central company responsible for it with an action plan.

I get the feeling the opposition to this pipeline has an incorrect notion that stopping its construction would prevent the oil from being transported at all via other means. I am, however, with you if this is an imminent domain issue. I am not happy with the Supreme Court's recent interpretations on use of imminent domain for commercial interests.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
2 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

I used to before this but I am now opposed. The real reason for this pipeline is for the Canadian bitumen to be exported to China. The USA takes much of the environmental risk and gets less of a permanent payroll out of it than a Wal Mart super center creates. All the profit will be made by US and internationally owned companies but none of the profits will ever be taxed in the USA or Canada. They are in a rush to build this as the US and Canada becoming jointly energy independent will free up a huge amount of other oil onto the world markets. What will the Chinese prefer. Thick bitumen or light sweet Nigerian and Iranian crude?

The pipeline operator will ship as much as they can and after a big spill, will declare bankruptcy and leave the mess. The money to build it will be borrowed and the investors will get stiffed.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

Oil from the US, Canada, Mexico etc is routinely shipped overseas. Even when the US is importing oil, it's exporting it also. Nobody want to pay for shipping so they buy oil from the closest source. So the real question is what is the safest way to transport oil, and that is a pipeline.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

Two things for my opposition : 1. It IS an abuse of the eminent domain . Rich people think their money can over ride property rights . 2. In the end the US ( except for Koch Industries ) gets NOTHING but the pollution .

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

Yes, I agree that it is an abuse of eminent domain, seeing that it is a private company building and operating the pipeline. If this was a government project then I wouldn't see it as an abuse of eminent domain, but I have a huge problem with they government at any level taking private propriety to give or sell to someone else.

That said the pipeline itself is a good idea, given that shipping by rail or truck causes far more pollution and more accidents than the pipeline, because like it or not the oil is coming.

subscribe
load further replies (2)
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

My question is why are we not just building a refinery right there and we would not need that much of a pipe line. Yes I see the pipe line being built, because these people who believe we are killing the environment will never let a refinery be built and yet they still drive, use the AC and heat in the winter.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Dec 30, 2015

Yes and no . Yes if they follow the right - of - way of the pipeline they are replacing . NO , if they want to use the new proposed route . The new route is just a short cut to save Koch a few million dollars and the people of Nebraska have the right to say no .

subscribe
load further replies (7)
0
0 votes
Dec 30, 2015

No. It would bring a danger to everything living (including humans). Tar sands that are not fluid are too dangerous for example for boreal forests. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to transport their product through the "lungs" of the planet.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Dec 30, 2015

People are not informed. The pipeline will sell Canadian Oil to China with no benefit to America. The Koch Bros are heavily invested in Canadian Tar Sands. This is extra-dirty oil, is hard to clean up and is bad for the environment. Check on what an oil spill would do to the Ogallala Aquifer. Also Eminent Domain in for-profit instances is immoral.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: