Keystone Pipeline: Do benefits outweigh risk?

I was pleased to see President Obama made a decision with regard to the Keystone Pipeline last week. However, he left the door open to continue the project, so I’m not ready to celebrate.

I developed an interest in water supplies after teaching a Bible study on globalization a couple of years ago. From municipalities selling water rights to bottling companies to water supplies poisoned by fracking (the source of Keystone’s oil) and other industrial processes, I learned water is becoming an embattled resource due to growing scarcity.

So the idea of running an oil pipeline across one of the largest water sources in our country, the Ogallala Aquifer, concerns me. And after the Fukishima reactor disaster last year, I am skeptical when ads (paid for by an energy consortium) quote a single geology professor saying, “I guarantee” Keystone’s tar sands oil will NOT contaminate our water supply. I believe the energy company building the Fukishima plant gave Japanese residents similar guarantees. Yet how many times have we seen Mother Nature deliver unanticipated destruction?

I understand the hope that the pipeline will supply jobs, but the few studies conducted show the industry’s estimates are high.

A recent study by Cornell University disputes the industry’s 140,000 jobs (direct and indirect) estimate, noting a number of negative factors including: the temporary nature of the jobs, many of which will be filled by non-local workers, and the possibility of related job losses due to higher Midwestern fuel prices, spills, pollution and costs from climate change. To quantify it further, some estimates ballpark the real job numbers at 2,500 to 4,650 (temporary) jobs.

And did you catch the reference to higher Midwestern fuel prices? Contrary to the pro-pipeline ads, the Cornell report states: “KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel.” Of course, China is one of the major markets for this oil.

As I watch the rise of wind turbines on our horizons, I wonder which project is creating safer long term energy solutions. And I have to ask again, do the benefits of the Keystone Pipeline outweigh the risks to our water supply and quality of life? Does the potential for 5,000 temporary jobs outweigh the cost of higher fuel prices?

The government’s environmental impact study includes information about leaks in existing pipelines included in the project, specifically Ludden, N.D., so it’s a given leaks will occur. To quote this study: “The Northern High Plains Aquifer system supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska and approximately 30 percent of water used in the U.S. for irrigation and agriculture.”

Before we get an answer the hard way, I think we should look for renewable energy sources to replace the oil and study the project further. And perhaps Keystone’s resources would be better spent to research alternative energy sources as well.

In the meantime, read and study for yourself.

Executive Summary: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KX...

Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/Keystonexl.html

Cornell’s full report: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Keys...