Xl Pipeline
- Submitted by: sofisaurio
- Views: 189
- Category: Politics
- Date Submitted: 04/18/2015 12:21 PM
- Pages: 3
- Report this Essay
Governmental Defense for the Construction and use of the Keystone Pipeline XL
When talking about energy, America is lucky to adjoin Canada, whose proven reserves estimated by the Oil and Gas Journal, are at 175.000 million barrels. This number situates Canada just behind Saudi Arabia (260,000 million) and Venezuela (211,000 million) and ahead of Iran (137,000 million) and Iraq (115,000 million barrels). Sure, about 97 percent of Canada's reserves consist of Alberta's controversial tar sands, but new technologies and high oil prices make it an economically viable exploitation. Exploiting the U.S. market can provide a growing source of oil that would remain stable for decades. It would be insane to walk away from this.
In a global oil market repeatedly threatened by wars, revolutions, and natural and man-made disasters - having dependable dealers is not something that should even need discussing. Nowadays the United States imports about half its oil, and Canada is the largest supplier with about 25% of imports. But their conventional means for exploiting crude oil is continuously extracting less material. The only way to fill the gap would be through the use of tar sands. In doing this, the United States’ dependency on unstable nations’ supply of oil would decrease.
President Obama’s environmental supporters would consider his approval of the pipeline a betrayal. In practice, the reality is more complex. If Obama rejects the pipeline, it would actually result in the increase of emissions of greenhouse gases. Canada has made clear it will proceed on the exploitation of the tar sands regardless of the American decision for the construction of the Keystone pipeline. If the U.S. does not want the oil, China and other Asian countries will want it. The idea of the pipeline would cease to exist but a new path for shipping the material would in turn be created. Transporting crude oil to Asia safely would release more emissions than moving it through the pipeline to...
When talking about energy, America is lucky to adjoin Canada, whose proven reserves estimated by the Oil and Gas Journal, are at 175.000 million barrels. This number situates Canada just behind Saudi Arabia (260,000 million) and Venezuela (211,000 million) and ahead of Iran (137,000 million) and Iraq (115,000 million barrels). Sure, about 97 percent of Canada's reserves consist of Alberta's controversial tar sands, but new technologies and high oil prices make it an economically viable exploitation. Exploiting the U.S. market can provide a growing source of oil that would remain stable for decades. It would be insane to walk away from this.
In a global oil market repeatedly threatened by wars, revolutions, and natural and man-made disasters - having dependable dealers is not something that should even need discussing. Nowadays the United States imports about half its oil, and Canada is the largest supplier with about 25% of imports. But their conventional means for exploiting crude oil is continuously extracting less material. The only way to fill the gap would be through the use of tar sands. In doing this, the United States’ dependency on unstable nations’ supply of oil would decrease.
President Obama’s environmental supporters would consider his approval of the pipeline a betrayal. In practice, the reality is more complex. If Obama rejects the pipeline, it would actually result in the increase of emissions of greenhouse gases. Canada has made clear it will proceed on the exploitation of the tar sands regardless of the American decision for the construction of the Keystone pipeline. If the U.S. does not want the oil, China and other Asian countries will want it. The idea of the pipeline would cease to exist but a new path for shipping the material would in turn be created. Transporting crude oil to Asia safely would release more emissions than moving it through the pipeline to...