Keystone Pipeline...

[Stavros]

There seems to be some confusion here. The pipeline itself is not the problem. There are pipelines all over the US which do not pose a threat to humans or the environment. The biggest threat, for example, to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline are those occasinal idiots who think its cool to blow a hole in it with their gun (which has happened, and on one occasion the man concerned insisted God told him to do it).

The issue that has to be resolved is the extraction of shale oil/gas using the method known as hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking'.

The oil companes argue that the methodology is proven and safe; the detractors argue that the depth of burial of shale and its proximity to water resources brings the two into a perilous relationship -even if 90% of the time an aquifier is not threatened by the collapse of a gas field or subsidence, or leakage-it only needs to happen once, and the water is unusable.

Fracking as its name indicates is about destruction: the only way to get at shale oil or gas is to shatter the rock in which it has collected -the mush is then sucked up and separated. It has become a hot issue because the price of oil per barrel has far exceeded the cost of extracting oil from shale, so it is now commercially viable, ditto gas.

In conventional oil and gas fields, where fluids are trapped in sandstone surrounded by non-porous rock, the sandstone remains when the fluids are flushed out. What I am not sure about is the impact of the shattering of the rock in shale deposits -is it the cause of land subsidence on the surface? Does a sudden subduction of rock not threaten an aquifer? If it doesn't then its ok, but if does, how precious is that water supply?

I am not opposed to the Keystone Pipeline, nor am I opposed to hydraulic fracturing in principle, but I have yet to be convinced that in all cases it is safe.

[danthepoetman]

I suggest we call these guys, the Keystone Cops…

[Ben]

The Question No One is Asking about Keystone XL:

[fivekatz]

One of the key concerns with the Keystone is what happens to the Ogallala Aquifer if there was a pipeline failure. The Ogallala Aquifer is the major source of water for much of the Great Plains and if it's water was to polluted enough to compromise it as potable or worse yet as an aggregation resource the consequences for the Great Plains would make the Dust Bowl look like a minor event.

The problem with trying to mitigate risk to the environment is the environment never seems to win the argument over profit until the environment is lost.

[Stavros]

I think its the drilling that is potentially the cause of the problem, as the technology used in crushing the rock interferes with the geology. The pipeline itself is not technologically a problem, pipelines need maintenance, and are mostly safe when kept in proper working order.

[fivekatz]

Well if it is fracking than from what little I have been able to learn of it, that is a far greater danger. Just one look at the underlying indemnification that KBR (Haliburton) extracted from the government to protect itself from the known or perceived hazards is enough to give most folks caution. While documentaries are edited to express a point of view, if anyone has watched Gasland even after balancing the tendency to create alarm from the message of that movie find they are not concerned about fracking is a frigging optimist or a Haliburton shareholder.

This kind of stuff is real. For those who have never seen the movie Erin Brokovich, Hinkley was a real place, were real died, real children were born with birth defects and a real company PG&E knew it was happening as early as 1968 and chose not to stop for far of calling attention to the damage to human life.

But my understanding was most of the fracking was north of the pipeline and the fear is spills which given the fragile nature of the plains and its dependence Ogallala Aquifer was the Obama administrations concern.

Considering the administrations rather loose oversight of EPA concerns, people should seriously stand back and try to understand why an administration that has been so willing to grant off shore drilling rights, looking the other way on 100's of claims of fracking pollution is putting this pipeline on hold. Be it fracking or risk to the water table, it has to be substantive to get this administration with a piss poor environmental record to put a project on hold.

[Stavros]

Well if it is fracking than from what little I have been able to learn of it, that is a far greater danger. Just one look at the underlying indemnification that KBR (Haliburton) extracted from the government to protect itself from the known or perceived hazards is enough to give most folks caution. While documentaries are edited to express a point of view, if anyone has watched Gasland even after balancing the tendency to create alarm from the message of that movie find they are not concerned about fracking is a frigging optimist or a Haliburton shareholder.

This kind of stuff is real. For those who have never seen the movie Erin Brokovich, Hinkley was a real place, were real died, real children were born with birth defects and a real company PG&E knew it was happening as early as 1968 and chose not to stop for far of calling attention to the damage to human life.

But my understanding was most of the fracking was north of the pipeline and the fear is spills which given the fragile nature of the plains and its dependence Ogallala Aquifer was the Obama administrations concern.

Considering the administrations rather loose oversight of EPA concerns, people should seriously stand back and try to understand why an administration that has been so willing to grant off shore drilling rights, looking the other way on 100's of claims of fracking pollution is putting this pipeline on hold. Be it fracking or risk to the water table, it has to be substantive to get this administration with a piss poor environmental record to put a project on hold.

Again, the key point is that the process of extracting shale oil and gas is hydraulic fracturing; pipeline technology is different and has been around for thousands of years, and in its contemporary form ought not to pose a problem as long as the pipeline is properly maintained and some idiot doesn't decide to blow a hole in it if it is running overground -as has happened with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Apparently when it happened, the man claims it was God who told him to shoot a hole in the pipeline. Many pipelines run underground, but this too ought not to pose an environmental hazard under optimal conditions. It is up to the operators to make sure the pipeline is always in proper condition. The fracking, however, is the sensitive issue which divides opinion.

[Ben]

[fivekatz]

We continue ignore the possible or that if you spit enough on the planet it will bring you to your knees. The lessons learned from the Dust Bowl? Zero.

Instead we want to build a pipeline across that very region, crossing our fingers and hoping that a bad oil spill won't happen and ignoring the environmental impact of fracking and the entire issue of fossil fuels impact on the very health of the planet all so a few folks can make a lot of money on the hope and a prayer that a crumb may trickle down to us.

Screw with nature enough and it will screw you back and ask folks in New Orleans and New York-New Jersey who wins that battle.

[Ben]

We continue ignore the possible or that if you spit enough on the planet it will bring you to your knees. The lessons learned from the Dust Bowl? Zero.

Instead we want to build a pipeline across that very region, crossing our fingers and hoping that a bad oil spill won't happen and ignoring the environmental impact of fracking and the entire issue of fossil fuels impact on the very health of the planet all so a few folks can make a lot of money on the hope and a prayer that a crumb may trickle down to us.

Screw with nature enough and it will screw you back and ask folks in New Orleans and New York-New Jersey who wins that battle.

Concentrated private capital of course leads to political power. Oil companies have power thus have enormous sway over our elected officials. And, too, with these trusts -- or big companies -- you get the antithesis of a free -- and competitive -- market.
I mean, how many people want, say, alternative sources of energy? It simply isn't on the table because it harms the interests of oil companies.