Keystone Pipeline

Group 8Shane Palmateer, Maya Dongier, Matt

Morris, Lily Henderson, Sama Khaterzai, Priyanka Chavan, Filip

Vasquez, Ryan Durazo, Ben Dulaney and Charles Sipe

What is Keystone CL

• A 7-billion dollar pipeline proposal

• Runs from Alaska to Texas. • Above ground; 3-ft in diameter• Built by TransCanada; Materials

obtained from US, Canada & India

Current Status

• Obama delayed his decision on the Pipeline till 2013; Project needs his approval in order to procede onto US Borders

•  State Department is conducting year-long study environment effects

•  Cushing, Oklahoma - Gulf portion was recently approved 

Interest Groups

Oil Industry Interests

• Increased exportation of oil = Increased revenue for Industry• Breaking Cushing Glut = Raises Oil Prices for Americans• Reduce reliance on Foreign Oil • Reduce payment of "Risk Premiums"

 

Federal Interests

• Open up jobs for 1 year:o 15,000-20,00 TransCanadao 5,000 American Constructiono 7,000 Manufacturing (Major Portion Overseas)

• Concerned about 5 billion increase in US Fuel Bill• Wants Tax Revenue: Will generate 5.2 billion dollars in property

Foreign Interests• Canada

98.3% of oil is exported to US Will collect tax revenue from oil

o India Manufactures the steel (Welspun Corp.)

 • 50% of Steel produced overseas •  New job openings

Local Interests

• Major Concerns: Jobs• Harm to ranchlands in Sand Hills• Pollute Ogallala Aquifer

o Supplies 80%  of State's water                         supply for irrigation and drinking

• Concern about Oil Spillageo There have been 12 spills                                      in 1

year

Environmental Interests & Concerns

• Tar-sand drilling o Produces more greenhouse

gasses than regular oilo Carbon dioxide emission = 3

times higher than those of conventional oil

o  Equivalent to adding 6 million new cars to US roads

o Uses 400 million gallons of water; 90% of polluted water is dumped into ponds

• Double imports of dirty tar sands oil into US

 

Proposal

Part 2: Northern Leg

Secondly, our group determined that both globally and nationally (taking into account both human and environmental tolls) the northern leg of the pipeline should not be constructed. Firstly, should the oil be drilled, it is NOT neccessary for it to cross US soil before it reaches in the international market, thus exposing us to environmental risks.   

On a global scale, the tar-sands oils harnessed by this process would be environementally detrimental and accelerate climate change (which is one of the greatest threats we face today in society). Locally, the human costs of tar-sand drilling is too high, sickening entire communities and driving them to poverty.

Public Opinion

A survey was taken of 15 people on the campus of The University of Virginia. These 15 people were chosen based on whether they were willing to answer a few questions and if based on our opinion, they seemed to have the time to answer our questions. Before asking the questions, we presented each person with a few facts about the Keystone Pipeline. Three pros and three cons were given so that their answers were not biased based on our facts. 

By using the Statistical program called Fathom, used by the Environmental Statistics seminar, we were able to simulate 1000 trials based on the original 15 trials. By simulating 1000 trials we were able to more accurately portray the true proportion of opinion about the pipeline on The University of Virginia campus.

Do you believe it is worth gas prices going up in exchange for price stability?

           No- 73.9%                       Yes- 26.1 %

Which factor do you believe matters more when drilling for tar sands oil? The environmental harm or the economic benefits?

                                                                 Economic- 34%                  Environmental-66%

Currently, the state departement is debating whether or not to build the northern half of the keystone pipeline. In your opinion,

are you for or against?

                               Against- 53.8%                             For- 46.2%

Part 1: Southern Leg

Our group came to the conclusion that the southern leg of the pipeline is in American interests and should be constructed.  The pipeline will ease the Cushing Oil Glut by allowing American oil to reach the Gulf for export. As oil supply becomes more scarce prices will rise; therefore, oil companies will rely more on profitable American oil than on foreign imports.

We believe that the financial benefits of this portion of the pipeline currently outweighs environmental risks as the pipeline has been rerouted to avoid major nature preserves and aquifers such as the Nebraska Ogallalagi Aquifer.

ConclusionWe applaud President Obama for his approval of the Southern leg of the pipeline and feel that he should work to ensure that it is built according to current expectations. However, next year, when the state department returns with its report, Obama should reject the permit for the Northern leg of the Keystone Pipeline XL. As evidenced by our data, public opinion is very equally divided on this issue. However when more specific issues of the pipeline such as gas prices and environmental issues were identified, the participants tended to lean towards our proposal. If the president includes these issues as the key reasons for accepting our proposal, it should surely be a politically viable solution to this crisis.

Works Cited Black, Richard. “Global Warming ‘Confirmed’ by Independent

Study.” BBC News. N.p., 20 Oct. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/ science-environment-15373071>.Jones, Jeffrey, and Roberta Rampton. “TransCanada Chops up Keystone XL to Push it Ahead.” Reuters. N.p., 27 Feb. 2012.

Web. 2 Mar. 2012. <http://www.reuters.com/ article/ 2012/ 02/ 27/ us-keystone-idUSTRE81Q1II20120227>.

“Keystone Pipeline Project.” TransCanada. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2012. <http://www.transcanada.com/ keystone.html>.

Kohn, Sally. “Six Reasons Keystone XL was a Bad Deal All along.” Fox News. N.p., 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.foxnews.com/ opinion/ 2012/ 01/ 18/ six-reasons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/>.

“Say No to the Keystone XL.” NewYork Times. N.p., 2 Oct. 2011. Web. 2 Mar. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/ 2011/ 10/ 03/

opinion/ say-no-to-the-keystone-xl.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065>.

Schoen, John W. “Keystone Pipeline Claims Just Don’t Add up.” MSNBC. N.p., 31 Feb. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2012.

<http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/ _news/ 2012/ 02/ 29/ 10541404-keystone-pipeline-claims-just-dont-add-up>.