In what seemed to be a fleeting moment of remembering why many of his supporters in the last presidential election voted for him, President Obama rejected, for the time, a proposal that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline extension to be built.

Had it passed, the extended pipeline would transport crude oil from tar sands in Canada to refineries along the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Though the temporary rejection of the proposal took place on January 18, many media pundits and writers are still debating whether or not it was a good decision. However, I don’t think it’s as difficult of an issue it’s been made out to be.

Proponents of the pipeline project tout claim it would create 20,000 American jobs and significantly reduce our dependence on oil from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Creating jobs that will mostly disappear when the project is finished, boosting the economy and being less dependent on OPEC (of which many members are not big fans of the United States) sounds great.

However, the sad truth of the matter is that building the pipeline would essentially put the economies of eight states, along with the environmental and public health of millions of Americans, at risk — for dirtier energy than we are currently using.

Tar sands are named so because the natural mixtures of sand, clay and highly viscous bitumen (a form of petroleum) have the same obnoxious, smelly stickiness. The environmental stress caused by the extraction and refining process of tar sands alone should’ve been reason enough for lawmakers to reject the pipeline.

The high viscosity of natural bitumen found in oil sands means after they are strip-mined (usually assisted by steam) and carried to processing facilities in giant, oil-fueled trucks, they are then heated by steam to a temperature at which they will flow freely and can be chemically processed to remove impurities. The processed bitumen is then diluted with other hydrocarbons so it can be pumped to refineries.

These processes not only require the burning of massive amounts of other fossil fuels, but also millions of gallons of fresh water, of which a mere fraction of the Earth’s water is composed of.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension would cover 1,700 miles of the American Midwest. Underneath those 1,700 miles lies the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides almost 30 percent of the ground water used for irrigation in the United States and approximately 80 percent of the drinking water for the people in that area. More than $20 billion worth of crops rely on that irrigation water.

For those of you who don’t know, Lubbock happens to draw its water from the Ogallala; so if you think our water is bad now, try to imagine how much worse it would be if it was contaminated by benzene, a carcinogenic and highly soluble chemical contained in bitumen.

The proposed pipeline also passes over a seismically active area in Nebraska, which experienced a 4.3 magnitude earthquake in 2002. TransCanada, the company that owns the pipeline, tried to cut corners and applied to Congress to use thinner steel — saving them almost $1 billion — and pump at higher pressures and temperatures, yet still swears they will adhere to the highest safety standards and a leak or spill is unlikely at best.

At this time, I would like to invite readers to look to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 and the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989 as prime examples of how trustworthy the oil industry is when it comes to adhering to safety standards.

If all of this isn’t enough to show how much the oil industry cares about the people it impacts, TransCanada also threatened 56 landowners with confiscation of their private lands through eminent domain actions before they had federal approval to begin construction, according to the New York Times.

President Obama only postponed the decision on whether or not building the Keystone XL pipeline was in the U.S. national interest until next year, citing the 60 days Republicans in Congress gave federal agencies to assess its impact as inadequate. However, I think it’s obvious that if we plan on truly developing energy independence and sustainability, pandering to the oil industry and building this pipeline will do nothing but hold our nation back.

(4) comments

PrattOnTexas

What bilge. There are already millions of miles of pipelines over the same area you say this pipeline would endanger and yet, you seem completely unaware of that. You ground water protection argument is based completely upon a presumption that introducing the pipeline is a new environmental condition.

Did you know that there are thousands of miles of pipelines over the Ogallala just inside Lubbock, or any other area county? You are simply repeating uninformed talking points of the anti-energy, anti-free enterprise Left.

Pipelines are the most safe and environmentally secure method available for the transportation of liquids and gases.

pirate20

This column makes me think of the line in The American President when Michael Douglas says that his opponent is not interested in solving your problems, but simply "making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it."

This column is nothing more than fearmongering from the left. As the previous comment states, there are already millions of miles of pipelines, so this particular pipeline won't change anything.

As far as the tar sands are concerned, once the petroleum from that area is refined, it is no different from the petroleum we get from anywhere else.

And in regards to the two oil spills, if you can only find two big accidents over the course of the last 25 years, then that's not bad. Would you rather have nuclear energy and experience a meltdown like Japan? Theirs was caused by an earthquake, by the way.

TimeLord

You must have missed the announcement of two new nuclear reactors in the last week. Nuclear poses threats to our security and environment, but factoring both is still considerably safer than running toxic fuels across aquifers and living areas. The nuclear plant in Japan was hit by an earthquake, and still failed as designed, and left 0 dead, though there is a good chance of radiation-related cancer.
There are many more spills/leaks. Wikipedia has a whole list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills . Granted, some of those are drilling and shipping related, but there are a fair number of pipeline spills in there. Here is a list of pipeline accidents, to refute your claim they are super safe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents .
So no, they are not as safe as you would believe.
Keystone also creates very few jobs - a quote I saw put the number at less than 200 new permanent jobs.

CBY84

I wrote a 3,000 word paper over the XL Pipeline for an ethics class last semester. This is article is one of the most disingenuous pieces of garbage I've seen come out of the DT, though not shocking, in quite some time. PrattOnTexas is exactly correct. There are MILLIONS of miles of pipeline that already cross the Ogallala Aquifer. And pipelines ARE the safest and most efficient way to transport petroleum products. And your statement that Obama only had 60 days to make a decision on the pipeline is absolutely false. TransCanada applied for the permit 3 years ago, and has undergone the most extensive research during the permitting process of ANY pipeline in US HISTORY!!! Jakob, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself for this writing this piece. And the DT ought to be ashamed of itself for publishing it!!! Garbage.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.