This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
...better call your lawyer now, Doug!KELO catches up with the Madville Times and reports on TransCanada's planned expansion of its Keystone pipeline project. Even before receiving the final go-ahead from the courts to take our land and plow through the James River Valley, TransCanada is drawing a big green (oh, the irony) line through West River. (Now why didn't they think of that direct route in the first place?) One landowner on the Nebraska border says he's already seen surveyors out checking out possible routes for the line that would cut from Harding County down to the Winner area on its way to the Gulf of Mexico.
Not that anyone here in South Dakota seems to mind: that new font of public opinion data, the McGovern Center at Dakota Wesleyan, reports that two thirds of South Dakotans support the construction of the current Keystone Pipeline. There's slightly more support (69%) for construction of the Hyperion oil refinery. The poll suggests a slight split across the river: refinery support is higher West River (73% West River to 65% East River), while pipeline support is higher East River (68% East vs. 66% West). Those splits don't mean much with a 6-point in-state margin of error (maybe more on the regional split?). More interesting will be the next poll that sees whether support West River changes once TransCanada starts eminent domaining their land, too.
Looking on the bright side of our addiction to fossil fuels, elite intellectuals may help us get that oil out of Alberta's tar sands with less environmental damage. Listening to CKUA this weekend, I heard a news report (sorry -- can't find a link!) about University of Alberta researcher who says she has come up with a way to remove bitumen from the tar sands with carbon dioxide instead of water. Current extraction methods use 2.5 to 4 barrels of water to wrest 1 barrel of oil from the sticky sands. The researchers says her CO2 method could totally replace water without adding cost, thus keeping the tailings ponds from expanding.
Now if someone could just come up with a way to replace the 700 million cubic feet of natural gas burned each day to produce tar sands oil. Not that Canadians will need that fuel to heat their homes: extracting, refining, and burning the tar sands oil will put another 112 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, all part of Canada's secret plot to use global warming to reduce its heating bills.
Meanwhile, instead of pandering to Big Oil and criss-crossing our state with strips of foreign dominion, we could be building great swaths of windmills to produce electricity that we could sell or just use ourselves. Anyone care to think ahead?
I was wondering when this site would get to the McGovern numbers. But I certainly wasn't surprised this site made light of the margin of error. With that in mind, what Corey doesn't tell you is that a full 60% of South Dakotans would still be in favor of pipeline if the results were skewed lower.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it also stand to reason that the support West River might rise with the expansion of this project? The support East River is slightly higher than West River already and that side of the state has a publicly announced project closer to completion. There certainly remains the possibility that west river support will rise when they hear more about the economic development to state and country.
Finally, why didn't they use this route right away on the first Keystone line? How about because they converted existing natural gas lines in Canada to lessen the cost of the original project and save resources. Responsible journalism, which is a concept that blogs are adament they don't have to comply with, would have uncovered that nugget.
But we did uncover that nugget, thanks to your participation. Perhaps we can call it "collaborative community journalism." Keep up the good work! ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd "made light of the margin of error"? No, all I said was that the East River-West River split may not be significant. I am painfully aware that this poll shows strong support for continuting our addiction to Big Oil. --sigh!--
That KELO story caught my attention, but I heard no name of any farmer or rancher mentioned. Not sure how to sniff out that info.
ReplyDeleteThere is one great big reason not to run oil lines down this way. A few miles south of Winner is sand and the Ogalalla ? aquifer. Winner gets water out of the north end of it. A huge oil leak anyplace in that in this region would be a major problem.
Nebraska herbicide use has already indicated the rapid movement of chemical pollutants in the sand and aquifer.
Gotta quit typing. Just heard a severe thunderstorm warning for here.
Cory, I know that you don't really believe that Canada would deliberately pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the hope of reducing their heating bills! They would more likely want to keep all that oil and gas for themselves! And anyway, one of the theories about long-term effects of global warming suggests that if the Arctic ice melts, snowfall will increase in the northern latitudes to such an extent that glaciation will result. A new ice age ... no more Canada.
ReplyDeleteOh, but my mind slips here: I forgot that a judge in England has issued an injunction against Gaia, preventing her from engaging in such shenanigans.
Great swaths of windmills? Okay, good idea. And solar panels too, how about it? -- as long as it doesn't involve the same (or worse) eminent domain abuse allegedly being practiced by TransCanada. If not well planned, such ventures could turn into bigger gorillas than the oil pipelines.
Eeee, my brain bounces again: "Gorilla" is the oil refinery, not the pipeline. (Did anyone think of a code name for the pipeline project? How about "Snake"?)
I wonder if the Tribes would be interested in getting into the solar and wind power business? They could set up energy "ranches" on their land and then sell their product to the United States. I am no economist, so I don't know anything about the numbers; and far be it from me to speak for the Tribes. Just a thought.
Hey, Doug! I hope the storm left you standing!
ReplyDeleteStan -- glaciers and global warming: indeed, that is one of the key misunderstandings I hear. People think a snowy April disproves global warming, when in fact it may be a symptom. Change that Gulf Stream, and pow! We're shoveling snow in July.
Tribal green power? Heck of an idea. Actually, I think any South Dakota community in need of an economic boost -- that would be everyone but Sioux Falls, right? -- could benefit from investments in green power. Get towns and counties to invest in solar and wind to power their facilities. Get elevators to invest in their own wind generators to make anhydrous ammonia. Get self-sufficient first, then worry about transmission to other energy-hungry states. If we build it, they will come!