The Instigator
imnotacop
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Batman3773
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should we allow a 5th phase of the keystone pipeline? (theoretical)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
imnotacop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 65669
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

imnotacop

Con

resolved: Those like the previous bill regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline should not pass through government sectors with the current state of regulation.

definitions:
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.
Batman3773

Pro

I accept the debate for a fifth part to the Keystone pipeline.
Debate Round No. 1
imnotacop

Con

This TransCanada owned, more than 2,000 mile long pipeline will, with all taken into account, take more government money than it will produce, even though only 12% will be "federal, state, or local" land. In fact, it is estimated that local authorities would lose $50 million. This means that the U.S tax payer's money would be going towards private coorperate interests with, at best, only a percentage in return.
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.
Batman3773

Pro

The Keystone Pipeline is a huge part of rebuilding the economy. Not only will it give 9,000 Americans jobs, but give us energy independents. No longer will we suffer the oppression of OPEC who stops us from getting oil, but we can now drill our own oil. This will also decrease oil spills on our land and decrease case prices. SO it appears Tax payers will get a lot for their money.
Debate Round No. 2
imnotacop

Con

Bill Cassidy -- sponsor of H.R.5682 had made a similar claim to the creation of "9,000 American jobs" in a statement saying "If the president wants to be on record [apposing the creation of 40,000 jobs], so be it." Though 9,000 is a much closer number to the reality of jobs to be created, it is still a brazen overstatement. The true number of jobs to be created is a mere 35, where the number claimed only coincides with supported, preexisting jobs.
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.
Batman3773

Pro

I would like to start by saying that the keystone pipeline as some Democratic Senators said and I quote "increase our drive towards North American energy security and independence" - 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.
Debate Round No. 3
imnotacop

Con

Heidi Heitkam, with her signature on the quoted letter to Obama, had taken $162,300 from oil & gas donors and lobbyists, ranking that mark at her #4 industry contributor. TransCanada had spent $3,850 in donations and $1,060,000 in lobbying. This is important do to the very possible conflicts of interest that could come from those democrats involved in the letter -- a letter that's sole purpose is to rush a decision. And, while they are correct that energy independence will grow over the next few years, they are dead wrong that it is reliant on, or even as an effect of the Keystone Pipeline.
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

Pro

Batman3773 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by imnotacop 2 years ago
imnotacop
Han, the forth phase is not in action. SB 2280 was the bill to bring the forth phase into action, that's why I was speaking about the forth phase. It passed through the house, but not the senate, so it is not in action.
Posted by imnotacop 2 years ago
imnotacop
I actually started writing this one out before it passed. :p didn't really think about it when I posted it, lol. My bad. Still, the topic stands.
If I can, I'll make a minor tweak to fix that. ^_^
Posted by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
I think you mean the 5th phase, the 4th is already in action.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
imnotacopBatman3773Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture