Keystone XL Pipeline

Despite the probable environmental impact it acts as the best safe alternative for shipping oil sands crude. Apart from its probable impact on the environment, the project bears major impact on the economy thereby making it a subject to economic debaters. Major economic impacts include effect on the cash flows and job claims. An analysis on the economic and environmental impacts of the project makes it less feasible for implementation. The following are the pros and cons associated.
The Keystone XL provides a safer alternative for transporting sands crude thereby making the proposers to conclude on the environmental friendliness. Even though many environmentalist have argued against the environmental friendliness of the project, the study done by the State Department shows that it is better to have the project that the environmental significance of the project are far more valuable than when it is rejected. Whether in the absence or presence of the Keystone XL, there still will be higher production of the oil sands. This implies that there would be need for a railway to transport the crude oil in case the Keystone pipeline is not built. Considering the far much impacts which could transpire because of the recent high profile crude-by-rail accidents, Keystone XL is the most suitable alternative for transporting oils sands with lesser impacts on the environment. Intuitively, there is need to build the pipeline since it assures of reducing the environmental impacts which could result from use of railway (Chang, 9).
Economically, the project proves viable in increasing the cash flows of the national economy and the overall number of investors in the country. Usually, pipeline is a source of steady and stable cash flows as compare to any other means of transport. In this case, a country has to consider the volume of oil to be transported and the immediate returns from the project. For the TRP, the owners of the