THE TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY DEBATE

  • Kurt Gasser

Abstract

Keystone XL is a proposed pipeline stretching from Alberta, Canada’s tar sand oil reserves to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas, and would have a carrying capacity of 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil. The Keystone project has evoked heated debate over the environmental prudence, economic viability, and international politics of implementing the plans. Thousands of demonstrators concerned about the environmental impact of the pipeline gathered near the White House in opposition of the pipeline in November of 2011. While supporters of the pipeline engaged in media blitz to promote their view that the pipeline could provide both thousands of permanent jobs and oil from an allied neighbor. This Note attempts to balance the positive aspects of the project with the negative ramifications of its implementation. While each side of the debate has merit, and neither side can agree on the prudence or imprudence of the project, this Note attempts to flesh out the good that the Keystone XL could accomplish, the bad effects the pipeline could cause, and reconcile some of the ugly debates surrounding Keystone XL.
Published
2012-10-30
How to Cite
GASSER, Kurt. THE TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY DEBATE. Utah Environmental Law Review, [S.l.], v. 32, n. 2, oct. 2012. Available at: <http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlrel/article/view/795>. Date accessed: 18 oct. 2017.
Section
Notes