AMERICA - Keystone Oil Pipeline Debate

"Keystone Oil Pipeline Project Divides Nebraska Residents" by Tom Bearden, PBS Newshour 10/10/2011

If your car ever dies in the middle of nowhere, you better hope you're in Nebraska.

While working on a story about the Keystone XL pipeline project, photographer Brian Gill and I stopped alongside a rural road to shoot video of the Sand Hills, a sprawling area of prairie and sand dunes in northern Nebraska. During the brief time we were there, three motorists stopped to ask if we were in trouble and needed a ride. Over the years, we've parked along many roads in many different states, but this was the first time anybody had stopped to help.

That sentiment does not extend to the pipeline project though. Many Nebraskans have little interest in helping TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline, which would stretch 1,700 miles from northern Alberta to Texas. The Canadian company wants to transport billions of barrels of oil from the Tar Sands region in Alberta to refineries in Houston. The proposed route would go right through the Sand Hills and on top of the Ogallala aquifer, which is the major source of water for much of the agricultural Midwest.

Opponents wearing red T-shirts gave the State Department an earful during two late-September public hearings in Lincoln and Kirkland, Neb. They believe that an accident is inevitable and that the pipeline poses a serious risk to the all-important water supply. They also claim the oil will be of little benefit to Americans, because it will be exported.

But others in Nebraska want the pipeline built as soon as possible, because it will create badly-needed construction jobs. Union members wearing orange T-shirts turned out in force to show their support for the project. Both sides accused the other of busing out-of-staters to the hearings in order to artificially inflate their numbers.

TransCanada says this will be the safest pipeline in the U.S., or anywhere else, for that matter. They point to the fact that the State Department's Final Environmental Impact Statement says it can be operated without endangering the environment. TransCanada Vice-President Robert Jones also told us that the U.S. will benefit from having a reliable source of oil from a friendly neighbor. The claim that the oil would wind up overseas doesn't make economic sense, he said.

The State Department spent the last three years writing the impact statement and has held public hearings in all six states that the pipeline will cross to get citizen input before making a final decision.

We'll explore these issues in the story that Producer Mary Jo Books, Photographer Brian Gill, Editor Tim Smith, and I prepared for Monday's NewsHour.

COMMENT: This applies to ALL subjects that involve "construction jobs." Construction jobs are SHORT TERM. They last only as long as the construction of whatever lasts, just ask anyone involved in the home construction industry. In the case of this pipeline, the environmental risks for ALL the states it passes through last forever.

"Environment, Economy at Heart of Keystone XL Pipeline Debate"
PBS Newshour 10/10/2011


Excerpt from transcript

TOM BEARDEN (Newshour): Jane Kleeb says the pipeline won't just cross the aquifer, that, by being buried four feet deep, it will actually be in it.

JANE KLEEB, Bold Nebraska: That Ogallala aquifer is really close to the surface, so a rancher can literally stick a pipe in the ground and water will come out of it. And that's how they water their cattle.

TOM BEARDEN: Kleeb runs a citizen advocacy group called Bold Nebraska. She says the company has had problems with other pipelines it operates in the U.S. and Canada.

JANE KLEEB: So, TransCanada has already had 14 leaks in the United States, over 30, if you combine the leaks that have happened in Canada as well. There has been one leak here in Nebraska. They have also actually had to dug up the pipeline in three different areas in Nebraska for pipeline anomalies.

TOM BEARDEN: Kleeb and others claim the type of oil the pipeline would carry is far more toxic than the lighter crude carried by other pipelines.

JANE KLEEB: Tar sands oil is 16 times more corrosive than traditional oil, which means that there will be more pipeline ruptures, more leaks. And it also produces three times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. And so not only is the oil not guaranteed for the United States. It's also a dirtier form of oil than traditional oil.

COMMENT: I don't usually agree with Republicans (an understatement) but Sen. Tony Fulton's (R) statement that states should have some say as to the routing of oil pipelines IS a good idea. I was surprised that this is not normal in these type of decisions.