key stone pipeline

i didn't find anything pertaining to this so if theres something similar please tell me.

for those who don't know the keystone pipeline is a pipeline leading from the Alberta oil sands leading to certain American states the problem with this is oil sands our for one more expensive to get oil from and cause 3 times the pollution the map i put up is were it goes through and the dotted line is were they want a second one.

there have been environmental protests against it but they complain and do nothing a lot of the time what are your opinions about this it causes a lot more harm to our environment and if the pipeline were to break it could poor a lot of oil into some public places.

it'll create lots of jobs and already has helping both Canada and Americas economy and Alberta's selling it dirt cheap.

in my opinion i agree with it will help both our countries quite a bit us with money and you guys being able to have a steady gas price since the middle east regions of the world wont be constantly changing it.

but i don't 100% agree with it its kind of like a 70 30 thing personally id prefer we go through with it but also use a portion of the money both countries make to find a way to make the process better for the environment.

so you guys think to make it better and go along with it, let em do whatever they want, or not at all, or do you simply not care

its not the best poll so im sorry

I believe the benefits of the pipeline definitely outweighs some of the environmental damage it could cause. I've heard reports that prospectors have discovered Canada already has more than twice the oil reserves compared to Saudi Arabia, so this is something that will definitely be beneficial for America if we want to stop relying on OPEC exports.

This will definitely save the time/money for the effort of import/export. It may seem that it will cause damage to the environment and also increase the risk of losing millions if not more if the pipeline would break. America has a steady increase on earthquakes which will definitely put the pipelines to risks as well.

Alberta's oil sands alone are considered to have 100 years worth of oil in them and the territories have more



which is 1 of the concerns you guys remember the bp spill from last year right? just imagine a larger version of that but on land.

also since America has been slow to decide on things the Canadian government has been thinking of sending it to china instead going across the ocean floor which is by far worse for the environment and Americas economy.

While I would love to imagine in the coming years we could be off of oil in regards to transportation and the such....however that is not going to happen. Right now a lot of business related costs are directly coupled with the cost of gas. If that stays low and the economy recovers the chances of allocated money towards clean energy could grow in strength.

I think this pipeline would greatly help out with the current prices of oil, and also stop the flow of money to countries that are not exactly "friends" to the U.S.
Yes the chances for a oil spill do exist like the BP spill a few years back, however containing a spill on land would be infinity more easy to contain and clean up. I have to believe that MOST, key word being most, forms of damage to a pipeline with current technologies could be avoided with good planning and foresight.

I say build it, use it, recover, invest in cleaner technology, destroy it.

true it would be easier to clean up and the middle east really don't like you guys lol :P

and it would be closer making it so much faster like what Legendary_Dollci said above plus its fairly cheap.

biggest problem i have with it isn't the oil spilling its the process because its oil sands and not pure oil you have to do a process to get just the oil which costs 3 times more pollution then making normal oil.

and who knows how long it'll take to make it cleaner sure were investing in it but i have this feeling we should find a way to keep it cleaner or more contained so it doesn't let out as much green house gases before we start the pipeline project.

This is very true, I think a fairly large amount of time should be taken in the prevention and planning of the pipeline.
Everyone just wants to throw down some pipe and start a pump up or so it seems.

I'm against it because the environmental risk outweigh the benefits of the pipeline http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/04/keystone_xl_pipeline_not_worth_the_risks_111554.html

I don't think the environmental risk are worth it.

It's definitely worth it, but to be fair I'm not a person who cares at all about environmental concerns. Mostly because I think all environmental concerns are grossly exaggerated, so I have a hard to time taking anyone seriously when they use the term "environmental risks." I can't deny I have this image of a bunch of treehuggers who want me to magically obtain materials out of thin air rather than obtain materials that will affect nature in some fashion.

Yes go ahead and build the pipeline and from the map it looks like an extension of the currently existing one as well. There will always be risks of building anything and we can't do much of anything without affecting the environment in one way or another.

It doesn't take an idiot to know there are "environmental" risks with a pipe 36 inches in diameter carrying oil that far. This is why engineer's study safety factors, fatigue and failure. So they can design a pipe that will fail predictably and be able to predict and prevent a disaster. It would be a disaster if a well placed earthquake or tremor caused the pipe to rupture and a large amount of oil spilled.

There are environmental risks with producing almost everything we interact with. Computers have e-waste, polymers have chemical waste, nuclear energy has spent fuel rods. The point is to minimize the effect the waste has on the environment.

I'm not saying I'm all for using up fossil fuels. I strongly support alternative forms of energy. Right now, hydro is the leading way of producing energy with minimal waste. But hydro won't work in a car so we are looking at alternatives like bio-fuels and fuel-cells. It will be a slow transition away from fossil fuels but it will happen eventually. I support the keystone pipeline because of its short-term goals. "Short" in the sense that it will generate construction, maintenance and engineering jobs at the least.

I want to emphasize we need to not use this as an excuse to say "oh with the pipeline I won't have to care about alternative energy for 25 years". That would make us (humans) look very silly if/when Alberta runs out of oil and we are unprepared. Using oil for now is fine as long as continue to move towards other forms of energy production.

Fyi: Crude oil is used in much more than gasoline.