Sample Issue-Analysis Report
Note to reader: This draft is re-printed here with the author's permission. These student drafts are provided for a couple of reasons: first, to give you a taste of the variety of topics and approaches students have taken, and second, to provide instructors with readings that might be used in class discussions and activities. These samples are not perfect and represent final grades from across the grade scale (A through F), so please be forgiving, understanding, and respectful if you find errors or problems.
***
Preston Nielsen
Professor Peterson
ENGL 1010-50
July 14, 2015
The Economic Lifeline
There have always been certain political issues that cause the heaviest political debates. Some might be economic issues, and others might be social issues. Some individuals or groups are usually making or losing money on the issue depending on the outcome. Not to say any one individual, or group, is wrong for profiting off of that particular issue. That is simply the nature of the economy. With the movement or production of any goods or commodities, there is also the movement of money. When considering the Keystone XL oil pipeline, we need to consider how it will affect the United States economy and the dependence we have on other countries. The construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada to the United States, will provide great benefits to the U.S. in the future. This is why President Obama should approve the bill to build the pipeline.
There are some major advantages that come with the pipeline. These advantages are outweigh the risks. One of the issues that has contributed to preventing the construction from taking place is the overall emissions produced when extracting the crude oil from Canada’s Oil Sands. The production of Canadian Oil Sands does produce up to 17% more emissions per barrel of oil than other production methods (Magill). I completely agree with any attempt to lower our emissions and our footprint on the atmosphere, and I would hope most people would also agree. The problem is, there is no realistic immediate solution to eliminate emissions. A long term goal to decrease emissions over time by developing and utilizing alternative energy sources is realistic and is currently taking place. This could take many decades to reach goals of emissions reduction. An interesting question to this debate would be, if the United States indefinitely denies the bill to build the pipeline due to emissions created during production, will the production of Canadian Oil Sands slow down or be eliminated? The answer is no. The United States cannot tell Canada to stop producing the Oil Sands just because it produces, depending on different studies, anywhere from 10%-17% more emissions than the crude oil produced elsewhere in the world. Canada has larger oil reserves than any country, other than Saudi Arabia. Of their large oil reserves, 97% consists of Oil Sands. Canada will not stop production of the Oil Sands just because the United States does not build the pipeline. Instead, they will simply export it to other countries while the United States buys the same type of oil from other countries such as Venezuela. On a global scale the production of oil will not change. Each country will still maintain their projected oil demands. The only change will be that we buy our oil from somewhere else. That being said, it seems more beneficial to buy our oil from Canada which will create many jobs in the US through pipeline construction and refineries.
The pipeline will immediately create thousands of jobs and is estimated to total 20.931 billion dollars in expenditures by TransCanada, the company to oversee its construction. It will also provide a more stable supply of heavy crude oil to the refineries in the United States. During recent decades, the delivery of crude oil by Venezuela and Mexico has been inconsistent, leaving a void in the production and refining of some U.S. facilities. As a result, inconsistent jobs and a reduction in the overall utilization of these refineries took place. This dependable supply would not only provide a healthier economy in the areas of these refineries, but also in our entire nation by raising production of petroleum products in the U.S. (Terry 81).
Another concern with the pipeline is the possibility of oil spills in our country. Large oil spills are not a joke and I believe any possibilities should not be taken lightly. Many people either don’t know the facts, or intentionally exaggerate the possibility of this happening. Studies have been done which state there is a high probability of large oil spills in the future due to the corrosive nature of the oil being transported through the pipeline. The studies were based on statistics that should not have been included because they did not pertain to oil spills. One study by the Natural Resources Defense Council included pipeline leaks in Canada compared to leaks in the United States. This report indicated a much higher amount of leaks in Canada than the United States due to the type of oil Canada produces. The assumption is that the oil produced in Canada is more corrosive than others, but the pipelines in Canada that were included in the study were broader than the pipelines included in the United States. This study only included pipelines in the U.S. that were classified as transport pipes for hazardous liquids, petroleum, petroleum products, or anhydrous ammonia. The Canada report, on the other hand, includes water and multiphase pipelines in addition to petroleum product pipelines, which account for over 62% of the incidents. The U.S. report only included oil spills in excess of five barrels, 210 gallons, while Canada includes a leak that could be a half gallon (Terry 75-76). Comparing water pipeline spills to oil pipeline spills is pointless due to completely different regulations involved with them.
Added to this misleading piece of data is the precautionary measures that will be required in order to build the pipeline. TransCanada will need to implement multiple state-of-the-art technologies to prevent the possibility of spills. Automatic pressure monitoring equipment will monitor the pressure in the pipeline at all times, and if a minor pressure drop occurred because of a leak, the pipeline could be immediately closed and repaired. Every twenty miles there will be a shut off valve, which can be remotely controlled or automatically programed to shut during any pressure drop or other issue. In the case of a leak in the pipeline, the nearest upstream and downstream valve can be closed, then the pressure can easily be drained into a tanker through one of the pressure relief valves located in every section. After the pressure is neutral, the pipe can be repaired. All of the monitoring equipment will be run by backup generators in the case of any power interruptions. The EPA has a strict and effective process for cleaning up oil spills.
Canada will spend a large amount of money in the United States while building this pipeline, which will stimulate our economy and provide a much needed reliable supply of oil to the U.S. With all of the precautionary measures, which will be required to prevent oil spills, it would be safe to say that the pipeline is just as environmentally sound as oil tankers on highways, oceans, or trains. Considering these benefits, and the knowledge that if the U.S. doesn’t build the pipeline it will not slow down oil production in Canada, the United States should do what is best for our citizens and build this pipeline.
Works Cited
Magill, Bobby. “For Canada, Tar Sands Are Bigger Than Keystone XL.” Climate Central. Climate Central, 8 Aug. 2014. Web. 18 July 2015.
Terry, Lee. "Keystone Xl: The Pipeline to Energy Security." Creighton Law Review 46.1 (2012): 61-88. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 July 2015.