The need to balance pros and cons for Keystone Pipeline

The Keystone Pipeline has been the topic of heated discussions for awhile now, and it seems that you can only be for or against it. However, the issue is not black and white. Rather than a yes or no answer, it’s better to weigh the pros and cons.

When the pipeline was first proposed, Nebraskans quickly objected to the route which took the pipeline through the Sandhills and the potential threat of contaminating the Ogallala Aquifer. Along with the possible threat to an endangered beetle that no one even  knew about before the pipeline, TransCanada re-thought the route in order to preserve the lands. In this case, the cons outweighed the the pros and to give credit to TransCanada, they listened.

According to an article recently published in the Omaha World Herald, the pipeline could not only bring nearly $2 billion to Nebraska, but also several thousand jobs during construction as well as several hundred ongoing jobs. At the same time, those who allow the pipeline to cross through their land are also compensated. Opponents however believe that the projections of job growth cannot be trusted because the research comes from TransCanada. However, this sounds more like an excuse rather than a valid point.

With how careful TransCanada has been about getting approval to move the pipeline through Nebraska, there caution will most likely continue once the pipeline is built. With how hard they have worked, most likely they will be proactive to keep major spills and accidents from happening.

There will never be a perfect and fail-safe course for the pipeline. Nor can anyone guarantee that accidents won’t happen. However, TransCanada’s has shown a true willingness to cooperate with opponents while still accomplishing the pipeline. Both supporters and opponents of the pipeline have valid points that must be considered.



One thought on “The need to balance pros and cons for Keystone Pipeline

  1. Not sure I would give credit to TransCanada for moving the pipleline since they were essentially forced into it. Not sure I would trust research that shows it’s safe for them to do something that is profitable for them to do that they really want to do. After all, BP told us that everything was safe about deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. On the other hand, this pipeline is going to get built, one way or the other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s