My pro arguments are the following.1.The American Petroleum Institute; economist Dr. Mark Perry.2.Featuring the final environmental impact statement released on January 31, 2014.4.James Hoffa, President of the Teamsters; the American Petroleum Institute.The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014. Second, the pipeline would include a new section from Alberta to Kansas. It would pass through Baker Shale region of eastern Montana and western North Dakota. Here, it will pass through a region where oil extraction is currently booming.
My con arguments are also the following.1.Dr. James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA.2.Norman Seip, former US Air Force Lieutenant General.3.The Natural Resources Defense Council; the League of Conservation Voters; nine former NoneThe southern of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that is running already to Canada, bringing up to 720,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas.The pipeline will deliver 829,000While the pipeline is initially carried U.S. light crude, it is expected to carry more heavy Canadian oil-harvested from tar sands over the next year.
In my opinion I don't support the XL piplines.one reson is that the pipeline costs a lot of money to make and if it breaks they will spened even more money to rebuild.Another thing is that if it breaks it goes from canada and is bringing up to 720,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in texas and that could be a problem.Also the money isn't the only thing that is wrong with the XL pipeline.The pipeline is also a bad idae if it is to long and it has a risk of breaking or not wroking right and bamiging the oil.In conclusion my opinion is that I just don't support the XL pipeline because it is a bad idea.
