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 Issue Analysis
July 3, 2015
The Keystone Pipeline Agenda
On February 24, 2015 President Barack Obama issued the third veto since he became President in 2009. He denied the bill that was approved by Congress to build the Keystone Pipeline XL project. This is the final phase of the pipeline that would import crude oil from Canada, through Montana and South Dakota, then down to Steele City, Nebraska and to various refineries. There are two distinct opposing sides to this proposed pipeline. The biggest opposing group to the pipeline construction are the environmentalists who protest that oil spills, global warming, and water contamination are too big of risks to justify the pipeline. The severity of the negative impacts involved with the pipeline are less obviously proven, than the benefits. On the other side are the groups that argue any environmental risks that may exist are far outweighed by the benefits provided by the pipeline. One of the most significant advantages expressed, are the thousands of jobs and the large overall boost to the economy of the United States over the next few decades. This is a very large issue because of the potential lucrative benefits to the U.S. The debate is, should the United States approve the construction of the Keystone Pipeline?
What Are Canadian Oil Sands
The main purpose of the pipeline is to export a heavy crude oil from the Canadian oil sands project to refineries in the Gulf States. The oil sands production in Canada is the unconventional method of extracting oil from the surface sand rather than the conventional method of drilling a well and pumping it out of the ground from below the surface. This requires a separation method to get the oil out of the sand and uses natural gas and steam to accomplish this. Environmentalists claim this method takes more energy to produce oil than the conventional method which results in a higher amount of greenhouse gases and is one reason why we should not support the pipeline. Studies do show that this is currently true, but the studies are debatable because it is hard to measure the exact amount of greenhouse gases that are contributed to the atmosphere from the conventional oil drilling process. There are many different stages involved with pumping oil out of the ground, and turning it into fuel. The efficiency of the tar sands method has been consistently improving with the latest technology over recent years.
An author named Fareed Zakaria, along with many others, believe if the United States does not make the deal with Canada to finish the pipeline, this will not likely slow the production of tar sands in Alberta. It would be an expensive project at first, but they could transport the oil by train or pipeline to British Columbia and Asia, where oil demand is greatly increasing. Fareed is confident that business officials in Canada are determined to expand oil exports and are seriously considering Asian Markets because of the uncertainty of our politicized energy policies.
Current Phases
There are four phases to the Keystone Pipeline. The first phase is the initial section of the pipeline which starts in Alberta, Canada and runs south across the states to Wood River, Illinois and Patoka, Illinois. The total length of this phase is 2,147 miles. This phase has been moving crude oil from Canada to United States refineries since 2010. The second phase runs 291 miles from Steel City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing is a centralized oil hub for the south. From there oil is distributed to many different areas. The third phase is actually split into an A and B section. The A section is completed and runs from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Louisiana. The B section is scheduled to be completed sometime in 2015. The fourth phase, or the proposed XL pipeline, would come from the same area in Alberta and take a more direct route straight to Steel City, Nebraska where it would connect to the rest of the pipeline. This section would run through Baker, Montana and the Bakken Oil Field. Not only would this create jobs for more refineries in the United States, It would also give domestic oil producers more opportunity to transport oil throughout the US (General Overview).
Negative Impacts
Merle Patchett is a cultural geographer who has researched the impacts of mining in the controversial tar sands project. He considers The Oil Sands Capital Project to be one of the world’s most environmentally destructive industrial projects. According to him, large swathes of Canada’s Boreal Forest are destroyed in order to mine the bitumen, the type of oil produced. This deforestation is such a major operation that it is said to have the second fastest rate of deforestation in the world, next to the Amazon Rainforest Basin. Patchett explains, “Turning oil sand into actual crude oil produces numerous byproducts. The water used to separate the oil from the sand becomes contaminated and is then discharged into tailing ponds. The leftover ‘tailings’ are a mixture of dirty water, clay, silt and sand but can also contain copper, zinc, iron, residual bitumen, mercury, arsenic, naphthenic acids and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons” (142). He also says that the amount of Alberta’s tailings ponds are growing tremendously and that deforesting should be stopped.
Another major concern with building this pipeline is the possibility of oil leaks or spills. Many people have expressed that the chance of this happening are very high due to the type of oil being transported and can’t be ignored. The Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) argues that oil spills are an overwhelming concern due to the nature of the oil being transported. Congressman Lee Terry believes the studies that have been done to determine this are flawed. He explains that the petroleum produced from the Canadian oil sands project is a very thick substance which is slow flowing. This is called bitumen. In order for the bitumen to be transported, it must be cut with something to make it lighter. Most of the bitumen from Canada will be cut with light hydrocarbons, which creates the mixture known as dilbit. This mixture is expected to be what is primarily exported through the pipeline. The NRDC claims this substance is more corrosive than other types of oil transported through other pipelines. Because of this claim, they want more environmental reviews to be done on top of the several that have already been completed. Terry says, the studies compared incidents in Alberta pipelines where a high amount of this dilbit was transported to incidents in the United States. The report shows higher amounts of incidents in Canada pipelines than United States pipelines. The pipelines in Canada that were included in the study were broader than the pipelines included in the United States. The only pipelines that were included in the US were classified as transport pipes for hazardous liquids, petroleum, petroleum products, or anhydrous ammonia. The Alberta oil sands report, on the other hand, includes water and multiphase pipelines in addition to petroleum product pipelines, which account for over 62% of pipeline incidents” (Terry 75-76). Comparing water pipeline spills to oil spills is pointless due to completely different regulations and consequences involved with them.
Positive Impacts
Former Republican Congressman Lee Terry was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1999-2016 and has been a strong supporter of the pipeline for years. He has been involved in the process of developing and proposing the bill to construct the pipeline. In his article about our nation’s energy security, he explains the benefits through his perspective. “There are two major results from Keystone XL construction that will impact the U.S. economy. First, TransCanada's expenditures on the project would create thousands of jobs and increase U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the next few decades. The Perryman Group predicts that throughout the lifetime of the project the spending will total about $20.931 billion and 118,935 person-years of employment. Second, the project will decrease the cost of energy by increasing supply and strengthening the reliability of supply, which will have ripple effects in the domestic energy industry and the economy as a whole” (81).
Many of the oil refineries in the Gulf of Mexico states are designed to handle heavy crude oil inputs. Venezuela and Mexico have been the main sources of this type of oil in these states for many years. During recent decades, the delivery of this heavy crude by Venezuela and Mexico has been inconsistent, leaving a void in the production and refining at these facilities. As a result, inconsistent jobs and a reduction in the overall utilization of these refineries has taken place. The Keystone Pipeline XL would provide a more steady and dependable supply of heavy crude oil from Canada. This would not only provide a healthier economy in the areas of these refineries, but also in our entire nation. A consistent energy supply in our nation would result in a stronger production of domestic petroleum end products (Terry 81).
Different methods of producing oil do use various amounts of energy depending on the method used. The risk of spills exist in any form of oil transportation, and necessary precautions should be taken in all of them. The pipeline would provide great long term benefits to the economy of the United States. Oil is not something people want, it is necessary in the world we live in. With hopes to move toward more alternative forms of energy, fossil fuels are still needed to keep our economy stable. For now, the citizens of our country and our elected officials need to make the right decisions in our energy industry to leave a minimal impact on our planet while protecting the security of our nation.
Works Cited
“A General Overview of The Keystone Pipeline System”. STI Group. 16 July, 2013. Web. 5 July, 2015
"Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline Bill Approved by Congress." EFE News Service Feb 24 2015. ProQuest. Web. 6 July 2015
Patchett, Merle. "Reframing The Canadian Oil Sands." Imaginations Journal 3.2 (2012): 40-169. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 July 2015.
Perry, Mark. “Keystone XL pipeline is simply an extension of an already existing network that is working well and creating US jobs”. American Enterprise Institute. 2013. Web. 5 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.
Zakaria, Fareed. "Build That Pipeline!." Time 181.10 (2013): 20. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 July 2015.