Keystone XL Pipeline Research Paper

Imagine a forest with unnatural beauty: green trees, a wide variety of wildlife, clean water from streams, and the sound of migrating birds flying overhead. Now imagine that same exact forest with tar sands oil running through it: wilting trees, bone-thin wildlife suffocating from the fumes, and streams covered in brown and black oil. Jonathan Waldman, an environmental journalist at the University of Colorado, published an article that argued that the Keystone XL pipeline should be built because it is the safest way to move tar sands oil, does not affect the environment and climate, and creates effective jobs. However, that is not the case. The Keystone XL Pipeline is actually a dangerous way to move oil from Point A to Point B, affects the environment negatively, and does not create effective jobs. In the article, one
This is due in part to tar sands, the main source of oil that is carried by the Keystone. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, “Studies show that tar sands pipelines are more vulnerable to leaks than those carrying traditional crude because of the oil’s corrosive nature and the chemicals necessary to make it run through the pipes (NRDC, 1).” Some examples of this could be an oil leak an Arkansas that sent 210,000 gallons of oil barreling though the small town of Mayflower and left local residents with respiratory problems, nausea, and headache. Another example is the 2010 tar sands disaster in Western Michigan, which has been deemed the most expensive onshore oil spill in US history. This cleanup has cost an estimated $1 billion so far and continues today after five years. This could also prove that although people claim that leak detection and clean-up methods are the most modern and efficient, they are inadequate and disappointing at the least. Another reason is that if there