Should we allow a 5th phase of the keystone pipeline? (theoretical)
Debate Rounds (4)
Keystone XL Pipeline: A Crude Oil Pipeline stretching from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Cushing, Oklahoma, U.S.A and Patoka, Illinois, U.S.A with the capacity to carry 830,000 barrels a day
The previous bill: H.R.5682 sponsored by Bill Cassidy with three republican cosponsors "To approve the Keystone XL pipeline's forth phase."
Round 1 - acceptance
Round 2 - opening statements
Round 3 - rebuttals
Round 4 - rebuttals and conclusions.
The financial aspect, though an obvious concern, is not the main concern. What could possibly be worse than taking U.S tax payer money, putting it toward private interests, and putting our government in more dept? The destruction of the environment around us. The environmental risk is so great that, to fully grasp it, you have to realize the connection between the pipeline and a slightly unrelated issue, fracking. The process of fracking is hydraulically forcing chemical cocktails into the earth. By doing this, fracking sites create veins in the ground. This already dangerous process is made even more dangerous when you take into account the Halliburton loophole leading to little to no regulation. As a consequence of this, a 2009 water well explosion led to the known contamination of 4 home's drinking water. When you take into account the more difficult to detect (by the average citizen) carcinogens in the cocktails, the only way to get a better idea of the true effect this had is to look at the cancer rate running through the time of the explosion of 494,000. Even looking at the support this pipeline gives to this process, the surprisingly greater threat this pipeline poses lies simply in it's existence.
Turning the 100,000 to 555,000 barrels per day, this substantial number is made even greater when taking into consideration this number represents the stickier, heavier, dirtier tar sands oil. If transCanada's history of "one spill a month" is enough to be cause for major concern, putting that next fact that, in the event of a spill, this pipeline has the capacity to spill 5 million barrels per day into a major river making water undrinkable for hundreds of miles, that the pipeline is not equipped to support tar sands oil, and that the Keystone Real Time Detection System won't register less than 700,000 gpd, the magnitude of concern this pipeline should pose becomes monumental.
And, through all this, the thing that can not be escaped is that U.S tax payers will take part in funding that, and, mathematically speaking, will get nothing in return.
Those jobs also do not lead to U.S energy independence. The pipeline will mostly work to export oil from Canada, through America, and onward. Only a significantly small amount will go toward America, let alone for commercial use.
The U.S. not only isn't a member of the OPEC but the only case of OPEC regulation having an effect on the U.S. is do to favored ideas. The Idea that the OPEC is stopping the U.S. from producing oil is entirely misleading, not to mention the implication (at best) that the creation of a private interest pipeline that would need it's own set of regulations would overturn any such alternate reality.
This pipeline also would not increase the amount of oil gained from U.S. land. It is merely a way to transport Canadian oil, in fact, the U.S oil mining sites and refineries that will be reached are at the end of the line. In the event that new oil mining sites are created, those are separate projects and will not have price cut down do to the pipeline being their when it comes to construction.
Not knowing how to lead into this paragraph smoothly, I will plainly confront my opponent in saying: the company in charge of this pipeline has a spill rate of one a month. Did you really get that adding to the immensely to the chances of a spill will decrease that number? And, assuming that you mean gas prices when you say "case prices" experts estimated gas prices to go up assuming the fourth phase pass. You don't have to take my word for it. Just sift through the links when I add them.
http://keystone-xl.com.... Also the US gets their oil from OPEC meaning we are basically apart of them. I believe I misspoke when I said stops, they did only once in the 70's, but this will not happen again, because most of the oil will come from Canada. Also we will still receive more oil from US soil then we do currently. And as the senators and many others say we will create more jobs, increase economic stability, and move us closing to energy independence.
While, upon further study, I have found reason to retract my statement "only a ... small amount will go to America .. ." it is still not the pipeline that will increase energy independence. While experts do in fact say that U.S refineries will be the main buyer, the oil that will be bought and sold by the refineries is not what the rest of the world is buying.
Patterns show a shift toward natural gas and away from crude oil -- the kind of oil carried by the pipeline. The price of crude oil is already decreasing due to overproduction, and the pipeline will likely cause prices to rise again.
The initial rise I'm talking about is the rise due to the 1973 OPEC decision not to ship oil to western countries. If this were to happen again, the U.S, would still "produce more natural gas ... than the entire Middle East."
In conclusion, The Keystone Pipeline, owned by a company with a history of spills, has the capacity to leave hundreds of mils worth of people with contaminated drinking water, and support Fracking, while creating only 35 jobs, producing a declining oil, and possibly create an energy independence that will be reached with out the danger of this pipeline.
The passing of any such bill as H.R.5682 would likely impede the progress of the nation.
Batman3773 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.