Keystone XL Pipeline a hair brain idea | LETTER

This Keystone XL Pipeline that many politicians propose has no successful history of transporting tar sand crude oil. As a result, there is no design criteria, there are no safety standards or specifications, as stated by the Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Administration, to pipe this type of material.

This Keystone XL Pipeline that many politicians propose has no successful history of transporting tar sand crude oil. As a result, there is no design criteria, there are no safety standards or specifications, as stated by the Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Administration, to pipe this type of material.

The abrasiveness and corrosiveness, pressure, and temperature of this particular tar sand oil has not been tested to the satisfaction of the Pipeline Safety Trust. Both have given this testimony at the House Energy and Power Subcommittee in Washington, DC hearings on June 16, 2011. Maybe this testimony wasn’t loud enough for these senators and congressman to hear.

The same politicians are continuing their unfounded scripted rhetoric trying to convince everyone that this pipeline will create jobs, energy security, and well being for all. Just not the case. The oil is going to China, the jobs for these pipelines are very specialized with most of the people required probably having jobs already.

What is really amazing is total disregard and a lack of responsibility from these politicians to the safe construction and analysis that has still not been carried out properly for this unique tar sand crude, and the audacity of some of these politicians who are trying to block our own safety boards from carrying out their investigation as responsibly as possible. Who is paying these guys I wonder?

The Canadian tar sand oil is originally like bitumen and will need to be thinned with solvents so it can be easily pumped, this solvent may be an added hazard when there is a spill, and believe me I have been there and in the oil fields for 33 years, and there will be spills.

The Keystone XL Pipeline plans to cross the pristine Ogallala Aquifer, which is the prime source of water to about 11 states. In some places this aquifer water table is only 5 feet below ground. Are these senators and congressman ready to contaminate this major water supply, for a pipeline carrying Canadian tar sand crude oil, that will probably end up in China?

Why are these senators and congressman so determined to sponsor this Chinese funded TransCanada Corporation’s Keystone XL Pipeline with so many unanswered questions about the integrity and safety in building this pipeline?

And unbelievably, this tar sand crude is proposed to go to refineries on the Gulf Coast that are over 25 years old, the majority needing maintenance, and not designed at this time to handle this tar sand crude oil! Who thought up this hair brain idea?

The logical and rational solution is to build a tailor made refinery for this unique tar sand crude oil in Canada near the tar sand recovery source along the coast for shorter geographically shipping distances to China.

The saved expense from this $7 billion pipeline would pay for the new refinery. The extraction of this Canadian tar sand crude oil emits 17 percent more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than conventional crude recovery. With the saved cost of a shorter shipping distance the tar sand oil recovery process could now afford to install carbon dioxide scrubbers and reduce the CO2 emissions significantly.

Another question I have for our senators and congressional members is when are they going to start a rational and realistic long-term national energy policy that encompasses sustainable and renewable energy sources. Many geologists in the petroleum industry have said that worldwide reserves have peaked, some say as that it has happened as early as 2000, and are now on a rapid decline.

What is being done to conserve our hydrocarbon use and reduce our carbon dioxide emissions? Why haven’t we adopted a clean coal policy for our power plants, or efficiency legislation that would require all car manufacturers to produce engines that use a minimum of 30 miles per gallon of fuel for all vehicles (yes, light trucks included), increase our technological spending on sustainable and renewable energy, so these same senators and congressman can lead our nation proudly into a more rational and sustainable energy powered future?

Richard Bodlaender, Kirkland