keystone pipeline (I'm against it)

Hello DDO. I've accepted this debate on the pro-side of whether or not the proposed Trans-Canada Keystone XL pipeline, which will stretch from Nebraska, USA, to Alberta, Canada, and carry crude oil extracted from the (in)famous Alberta Oil Sands. This is a controversial undertaking, with one of the concerns being noted by my opponent above - the risks associated with oil spills and other disasters that could befall such a large pipeline. My goal will be to show that: a) that pipelines are a safe way to transport needed petroleum products; b) that in the case of a spill or other disaster, we have the capability to reduce harm; and c) that any perceived risks are outweighed by the benefits of constructing the pipeline. Let me begin by addressing the oil spill my opponent mentioned in his opening statement. On May 7, 2011, a leak occurred at a pumping station along Trans-Canada's existing Keystone pipeline, dumping 21,000 gallons of crude oil into the adjacent areas. This was an awful disaster that was among nearly a dozen of bad spills in recent years that have affected the industry's image, not to mention the lives of those who were nearby. While this and many other spills are terrible events, the fact is that pipelines stretch across huge distances in North America, and represent a huge amount of instructure to keep tally of, with close to 900,000km of pipelines carrying oil and natural gas domestically and internationally. With so much infrastructure to take care of, leaks and spills are to be expected. According to one report I found, 15.6-million gallons of oil (as well as fracking fluid, wastewater, etc.) were lost from oil production wells and sites (the incident in North Dakota took place at one of these sites) in the US in 2012 alone, a huge amount that came from various incidents[1]. This is obviously an intolerable situation, even if it is a known risk associated with a needed industry. While that number is huge, the fact is that it is minimal compared to how much petroleum products are shipped through the pipeline networks each year. The Association of Oil Pile Lines (AOPL) notes that 11.3-billion barrels of product move through interstate (that is to say, domestic-only in the US) pipelines, or 474,600,000,000 (474.6-billion) gallons, per year[2]. The amount of oil lost at these oil wells is less than 0.00004% of the total that goes through pipelines each year. Even more amazingly, data from the US Department of Transportation"s Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Association shows that the total number of onshore pipeline leaks in that same year amounted to just 45,934 barrels, or roughly 1.93-million gallons[3] " a fraction of the amount lost at wells. While leaks do happen, it is clear that on a per volume basis, pipelines have an enviable safety record, with roughly 0.88 barrels of oil per millions transmitted on average. It would be unreasonable to expect that accidents cannot happen, but its clear that the risk of major accidents occuring among the pipeline networks just in America alone is not as great as some claim. A key thing to remember is that pipelines are not some newfangled technology " most of our petroleum in the United States and Canada is shipped to us through pipelines, and neither of our countries are giant seas of oil. That is a testament to the safety of pipelines on this continent, and there is no reason to expect any less regulation on the proposed Keystone XL. However, those leaks do happen, and as I already noted, they can be devastating for the environment, and for people. The North Dakota incident is a prime example of that. Let"s talk about that incident, though. According to the North Dakota Public Service Commission"s May 16, 2011 summary of the incident, a very clear process was outlined about how Trans-Canada dealt with the leak. It started with a detection by the pipeline"s Leak Detection System at 03:51 on May 7th, with an investigation by attendent personnel who, upon confirmation by a local farmer, had shut down the entire pipeline system by 04:35, less than an hour after the first detection. The following days saw the clean-up of the spill, including recovery of 280 barrels of product (out of roughly 500 that leaked). Only 5 barrels leaked onto adjacent farmland. Trans-Canada then did a thorough investagation of the incident, discovered what had went wrong, and committed to corrective action[4]. A terrible incident, but one that was detected, cleaned up, and handled, with minimal risk and cost. Trans-Canada clearly understands what it must do to ensure the safety of the lands its pipelines cross, includng the current Keystone pipelines. Keystone XL will be no different, as Trans-Canada has promised to outfit the pipeline with state-of-the-art safety features, including automatic shut-off valves, a 24/7 monitoring centre, and much more[5]. One of their touted safety measures includes above-ground pump stations like the one in North Dakota, which allow for easy access to control any situations that might arise, as we saw above. Clearly, Keystone will have the ability to detect and stop any leaks from running out of control. Even in the case of leaks, Trans-Canada and other industry companies have proven to take responsibility when accidents occur. Monetary settlements for any damaged property come quickly, and responses from both industry and government are effective at minimizing the damage[6]. Finally, let us consider the benefits of Keystone XL"s construction. The project is an absolutely huge undertaking, stretching over 1,700 miles from tip to end, and it will require a lot of investment and infrastructure to work. A detailed jobs report from Trans-Canada shows that roughly 20,000 jobs will be created in the United States alone[7], though this has been disputed by critics. Even if they are right, Keystone XL will bring in 830,000 more barrels per day of oil into the US from Alberta"s oil sands for refining and distribution[8], which will help ease the United States" dependence on foreign oil, a key pledge in President Barack Obama"s last two presidential campaigns (and just a good idea overall). Plus, not only will the US work with a valued partner in Canada, it will gain a safe and clean energy supply, and Americans can sleep well knowing they"re buying from friends, and not enemies. With that, I wish to come to a conclusion in this first round. Yes, accidents happen " but they are rare and not as severe as you would expect when considering the billions of gallons of oil transported throughout the US and Canada each year. When they do happen, they are swiftly detected, capped, and cleaned up, and responsibility is taken by the operators. Keeping all that in mind and adding in the benefits Keystone XL will bring to Americans by creating jobs and bringing in a safer, cleaner energy supply, it is clear that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Keystone XL should not be opposed, it should be embraced. Sources: 1: http://www.eenews.net... 2: http://www.aopl.org... 3: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov... 4: http://www.argusleader.com... 5: http://keystone-xl.com... 6: http://www.epa.gov... 7: http://www.transcanada.com... 8: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov... (pg. 3, ES-1.1)