Multimodal Transport Fuel And Efficiency Affect Both Air Carrier Costs And Pricing

The Keystone XL pipeline would do little in reducing the United States dependency on Middle Eastern oil, which is actually goal established by president Obama for the sake of national security and economic growth. Another issue is that the out of the 42,000 jobs TransCanada has claimed the new pipeline will create, an analysis done by the State Department disagrees and claims “The proposed Project would generate approximately 50 jobs during operations.” All the harmful effects that the pipeline would have on the environment and the public health is not worth the creation of merely 50 permanent

Almost 95 million barrels of oil and fuel are produced each day in order to provide energy and fuel to people the world over. A major component of the oil industry is the transportation of oil through various means including oil pipelines. These pipelines are capable of transporting thousands of barrels of oil thousands of miles per day. In the United States one possible pipeline has caused a lot of controversy and discussion on the impact it will have on the United States. The difficulty in deciding if the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built is in whether the possibility of economic growth outweighs the possibility of environmental destruction. In order to make a decision, one must first look into the history of oil pipelines. It is crucial

The environmental risks that come with such a massive pipeline to transport “tar sands” pose a threat on many levels. As a matter of fact the tar sands they are trying to transport are required to

In June of 2010, a plan to construct a pipeline that would run from Alberta, Canada through the center of the United States, making its way to its final destinations in Nederland, Texas, and Pakota, Illinois were finally commissioned. As an energy management major at the University of Oklahoma, I was intrigued to research the Keystone Pipeline and the plans that hinge alongside it. The plan to construct the pipeline that would connect the two countries certainly began with good intentions, however many people would disagree. When viewing the plans for construction of what became known as the Keystone Pipeline, it’s apparent that there are numerous benefits that result from building the pipeline. On the other hand, some people argue that

With the rise in violence, the United States government must dispute equally amongst both sides. The land, in which the pipeline will be built, is not owned by the Sioux; it is owned by the federal government. The pipeline will pass through the land, but will not pass through the Sioux reservation. The pipeline is a resource that the U.S. is dependent on. Oil is a main contributor to the U.S. economy and without it, there would be a drastic change in the economy. A simple soloution could be to redirect the pipeline to where it does not cross the Sioux's holy land, but crosses through the Missouri River - containing already more than seven other pipelines - and must be secured so the water is not polluted by leakage in the pipe. This solution

Because of this very reason, many citizens, especially passionate environmentalists, have taken interests on this matter because it jeopardizes our environmental welfare in exchange for mere money. This claim is actually possible concerning that nothing can really be perfect; that this pipeline will eventually have problems that can significantly affect us. As said before, professionals have worked and are currently working on this pipeline plan. Trusting someone who is credible enough to be a specialists on something is better than judging based on one’s unproven probability. Since the US Army Corps Engineers, the federal government, and oil company who is in charge for this claim that DAPL, “ will be among the safest, most technologically advanced pipelines in the world,” and still pushes for this project to continue, when the worst actually happens they can be sued for the infringement of: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Clean Water Act of 1972, Endangered species act of 1973, National Environment Policy Act of 1969, and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (“Checking the Facts Once Again”). Knowing that they will be facing these charges if,

The economic impact, including the costs and benefits of extending the pipeline into America. A lot of environmentalists believe the pipeline extension hinders the ecosystem by changing the landscape to build the pipeline. The actual cost associated with the Keystone XL pipeline extension is $3.4 billion dollars and creates thousands of construction jobs. This provides our country with a great solution to our slumping economy, by decreasing our unemployment rate and stimulating the economy with more money. The cost of the pipeline benefits the job outlook. The only problem with that is the cost to construct the pipeline can only go so far for the short run. After the project is finished, those construction jobs would disappear. With almost 4,000 jobs created from a project like this, only 35 jobs would be permanent when the pipeline is complete, meaning over 3,900 people would have to find work afterwards. In the long run, the United States would have to pay $60 million dollars every year to maintain the pipeline on top of an estimated $2 billion dollars in environmental costs. The economic benefits would only get us so far before the start to decline leaving rising environmental costs. Assuming the pipeline would not be policed, species of animals will start to make the pipeline their new home since theirs was taken away. This can wear down the pipeline, comprising its structure.

almost all the jobs working with the pipeline are short term so people will once again have to go through the struggle of a finding a new job. Also you may say that the companies of the keystone will give you money for land but some landowners do not accept the keystone to take their land because it they have should have a right if they want to give away their land or not.

Having these jobs available would help increase the economy, and help the job crisis that America has been facing. Having this pipeline could also help reduce the cost of gas. Although there would be no significant impact on the price of gas, for something most American’s use every day, the slightest decrease in gas prices could help. Building this pipeline would also help provide a channel for oil from a friendly alley, and cement trade relations for the United States and Canada. There are so many positives to this proposed pipeline, but every good has a bad, and it’s definitely worth looking at the opposition to this side of the story.

Oil is imperative to the endurance of today’s society and plays a major role in the world’s economy. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a crude oil pipeline that is designed to run from “Hardisty, Alberta…to Steele City, Nebraska,” (About The Project). Citizens of Canada and the United States are debating the development of the pipeline. There are two sides to this issue, to either approve or disapprove the Keystone XL Pipeline, and by researching this topic I will form an opinion.

Innovative thinkers and large minds of industry have decided that building a massive pipeline running through many rivers, cities, and one of the largest freshwater reserves in the United States is a good business idea. They will be able to transfer giant amounts of oil across a set distance very easily. This section from an informative website explains the project, "The Keystone XL Pipeline Project is a proposed 1,179-mile (1,897 km), 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline, beginning in Hardisty, Alta., and extending south to Steele City, Nebraska. It is intended to be a critical infrastructure project for the energy security of the United States and for strengthening the American economy."(TransCanada). These are factors of why building this pipeline will be useful. Many costs of transportation will be easily avoided and the time is takes will be shortened significantly.

The projected Dakota Access Pipeline would be beneficial for various reasons. To start, this huge creation would be 1,172 miles long and run "from North Dakota's northwest Bakken region down to a market hub outside Patoka, Illinois" (Mother Jones). With this being said, the construction of this massive pipeline would provide an estimated 12,000 jobs. In addition, crude oil would be able "to reach major refining companies in a more direct, cost-effective, safer and environmentally responsible manner" (Dakota Access Pipeline). To support the demand for crude oil now, railroads and trucks are transporting it to major U.S. markets. However, if this pipeline were to be approved it

Those for the pipeline say that it will help the economy, and that it will be much safer than transporting crude oil through rail cars. North Dakota oil producers will also get more revenue as a result. However, those against the pipeline say that even though it may be swell for the economy, it will not be swell for the environment. The gases that will be released from burning those gases from cars and other sources will help advance climate change, and is ultimately bad for the environment. If the United States just went to completely renewable energy, we could slow down the process. Also, it was planned that the pipeline be built and crossing under the Missouri River, which is the main water source for millions of people. Native Americans of the area--Sioux mainly--also have sacred grounds through where the pipeline was supposed to go through. The land was technically theirs in the treaty from the 1800s, but through deceit over the years, it has been taken from them. If the pipeline needs to be built, then it needs to be rerouted in order to protect the rights and environment of the

A Nebraska farmer, Randy Thompson, is opposed to the construction of this pipeline because of the impact it would have on his crops. In an interview with Mother Jones, Thompson states that, “anytime it leaked, it would go directly into the water supply” (qtd in Sheppard “A Pipeline”). The Keystone XL and the environmental impacts that are associated with are something that U.S. cannot afford to take in addition to the growing issue of global warming. While the state of our environment is such a strong issue, there are other concerns that arise with the construction of this pipeline.

The Dakota Access Pipeline has been the main focus of attention within the last year. To understand how and why this pipeline is at the heart of such heated debate, it is important to explain what the pipeline is for. The Dakota Access Pipeline is an underground pipe that is funded and paid for with TAXPAYERS MONEY and carries crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Crude oil is currently transported by way of railroads and trucks, which in recent times is noticeably becoming more problem some. The debate centers over how productive this pipeline will be and are the risks worth it. The suggested answer to this question is the benefits of this pipeline will not out way the risk. There are many factors that are given to support this point