<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"  There are two big environmental arguments against the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, the controversial infrastructure project that would carry Canadian crude from Alberta&amp;#039;s oil sands to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. This is the project that currently is causing headaches for the Obama Administration, which has promised both to promote fossil fuel production and to curb greenhouse gas emissions. One environmental concern is that the pipeline would speed climate change, because extracting and processing the oil is particularly carbon-intensive. The second is that a pipeline spill could harm sensitive lands and waters in the American Midwest.  Surprisingly, however, the environmental impacts could be worse if the pipeline isn&amp;#039;t built. That&amp;#039;s because the oil will almost certainly be produced in any case. All that would change would be the method of getting it to market, and the new route would involve tankers crossing rough and environmentally sensitive U.S. waters.  The Canadian government seems determined to develop the country&amp;#039;s oil resources. There&amp;#039;s so much crude locked up in the oil sands region of northern Alberta\u2014more than 169 billion barrels\u2014that the province alone has the third biggest proven reserves in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Production of raw crude bitumen from the oil sands is rising. It jumped 8.2 percent in a single year to hit 1.7 million barrels a day in 2011. The volume is expected to more than double, to 3.7 million barrels per day, by 2021.  Canadian officials and energy companies are looking for new ways to export the oil. The quickest solution would be to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, which requires approval from the U.S. Department of State because it crosses an international border. The decision has been delayed, but the pipeline cleared a major hurdle in January when Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman approved a revised route that would skirt the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region. Heineman, a Republican, had opposed the previous route.  That puts pressure on the Obama Administration to make a final decision. Michael Byers, Canada research chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, says that if the Keystone XL project were to be rejected, the oil companies would probably focus on pipelines to Canada&amp;#039;s west coast. Plans are already in place: Enbridge&amp;#039;s Northern Gateway Pipeline would transport the oil from Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia, about 400 miles north of Vancouver; Kinder Morgan has proposed expanding its existing TransMountain Pipeline, which ends near Vancouver.  Like the Keystone XL, the TransMountain and Northern Gateway projects face opposition on environmental grounds, and so it&amp;#039;s not clear if or when they will be built. If they are completed, however, the oil would be destined for export to Asia. And that&amp;#039;s the problem.  Tankers carrying the oil would join the heavy marine traffic that already churns through America&amp;#039;s Gulf of Alaska and close to the Aleutian Islands, areas with rough seas and abundant marine life. The Gulf of Alaska is where a Shell oil rig recently ran aground. After crossing that region, the tankers would then have to navigate some of the most dangerous waters in the North Pacific, including Unimak Pass, a harrowing 10-mile-wide passage in the Aleutian Islands that is an important habitat for sea lions, gray whales, tens of millions of seabirds, and other species.  Tankers at sea are more accident-prone than pipelines on dry land. And if a spill occurs at sea, it can be difficult to contain and is nearly impossible to clean up. &amp;quot;People remember the Exxon Valdez and worry that sort of thing can happen again if these pipelines are built,&amp;quot; Byers says. &amp;quot;Imagine oil-laden tankers passing through one of the richest fisheries in the United States. That will raise many concerns.&amp;quot;  Unimak Pass is about 800 miles southwest of Anchorage. David Mosley, public affairs specialist for the U.S. Coast Guard in Alaska, says that the thousands of ships that already navigate its waters each year face &amp;quot;winter hurricanes&amp;quot; with 40-foot seas and 100-knot winds that appear with little advanced notice. Large ships must ride out the storms in sheltered coves in the Aleutians. In a typical year, at least one ship gets into trouble. &amp;quot;A vessel will have some sort of mechanical or physical issue that then puts them at the mercy of the weather and the waves.&amp;quot; Keystone System Details The Keystone XL Pipeline is part of a larger Keystone system designed to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from Alberta&amp;#039;s tar sands, and crude oil from North Dakota&amp;#039;s Bakken shale region, to refineries in Texas. Several pieces are already in place. The original Keystone pipeline, completed in 2010, runs 2000 miles from east-central Alberta, through Saskatchewan and Steele City, Neb., to its end in Patoka, Ill. A second phase development, carrying Canadian crude from Steele City to a crude oil terminal in Cushing, Okla., was completed in 2011. Construction on a third phase, from Cushing to the Texas coast, began last August and is expected to be complete late this year.  The contested Keystone XL section would be a 36-inch-diameter pipeline carrying 830,000 barrels of heavy crude per day 1179 miles between eastern Alberta and Steele City. Warren Mabee, assistant professor of geography at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, says that the recent revision of the route to avoid the Sand Hills has done a lot to gain local approval of the pipeline. &amp;quot;The real question is whether the State Department and the President think that is enough,&amp;quot; Mabee says.  Judging from the President&amp;#039;s Day weekend demonstration in Washington, D.C., to oppose the pipeline, environmentalists haven&amp;#039;t been won over. One concern they cite is the consistency and composition of the oil itself. Michael Byers is among those who worry that the oil&amp;#039;s heavy viscosity will create more friction in the pipeline than conventional crude, inviting corrosion and leaks. &amp;quot;If I were living along the proposed Keystone XL route, I would be worried,&amp;quot; he says.  It&amp;#039;s not clear how big a problem that would be, however. The petroleum that comes out of the oil sands is bitumen, a solid, sticky substance with the consistency of cold molasses. It is refined into a lighter crude oil, which is similar to conventional crude, or diluted with a hydrocarbon liquid to allow it to flow through pipelines. TransCanada, the proposed pipeline&amp;#039;s operator, claims that any oil flowing through Keystone XL would be similar to the crude already being transported through pipelines in the United States. The company has promised Nebraska officials a more rigorous pipeline design and a higher construction standard than the oil and gas industry normally adheres to. The company agreed to bury the pipeline deeper in the ground than originally proposed, install remote-controlled shut-off valves, and increase its pace of maintenance work and inspections. Former U.S. diplomat Steve Kelly, a visiting professor of public policy and Canadian studies at Duke University, believes that the pipeline project will go forward. &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s pretty much on a glidepath to approval,&amp;quot; Kelly says, adding that the Obama administration&amp;#039;s approval of the Gulf Coast leg of the pipeline last year is a strong indicator that the line between Alberta and Nebraska will be approved too. Environmental concerns aside, the bottom line for the Keystone XL Pipeline, Kelly says, is whether the U.S. decides the pipeline is in its national interest. &amp;quot;Big picture, I think it absolutely is,&amp;quot; he says. &amp;quot;Pipelines are not foolproof, but there&amp;#039;s no such thing as a zero-risk world, and energy is all about tradeoffs. We&amp;#039;re going to be using oil for a very long time, and, frankly, I&amp;#039;d rather get it from Canada than from most of the other countries around the world.&amp;quot; Ultimately, the decision to increase Alberta&amp;#039;s oil sands production lies with Canadians, not Americans. The choice that the United States can influence is how the crude gets to market. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a8697/the-environmental-dangers-of-not-building-keystone-xl-15119227/>