I don't think I have commented on the Keystone XL pipeline yet. It has taken me a while to figure out what I think about the plan to build a giant tube across the state for the purposes of transporting oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. I'm not inherently opposed to the idea. Yet something keeps nagging at me.
Something like the nagging feeling that a
worst-case scenario spill would be far worse than TransCanada has suggested, for example.
There are a couple caveats here, of course. For one thing, the very notion of what constitutes a "worst-case scenario" can be pretty controversial. Some so-called worst-case scenarios are so ridiculously unlikely that worrying about them simply isn't worth the energy. I don't have the expertise to know whether or not that's happening here. A second caveat is that I don't know if John Stansbury, the UNL water resources engineer who has questioned TransCanada's assertions, is any more or less biased than TransCanada itself. He could be a hyper-militant eco freak for all I know.
Well, probably not. Mr. Stansbury is likely a stand-up guy, and I'm inclined to lean toward the "Holy Crap!" interpretation of worst-case scenarios because, well, that's how humans tend to think. Besides, the Japanese were prepared for a worst-case scenario earthquake and look how that has worked out for them. Even the most prepared among us get caught with our pants down sometimes. Furthermore, it doesn't help that TransCanada is in the same industry as BP. I naturally lump the two together in my mind, fair or not.
Long story short, I can't get excited about having this thing cut across Nebraska. At the very least I would demand
huge -- and I mean record-setting -- amounts of "oops we screwed up" insurance from TransCanada. If the risk of accidents is as low as they say it is, then the insurance won't cost them much. And they should have to agree to a wicked, punitive fine structure for accidents. The purpose of hitting them in the pocketbook is simple: give them every incentive to build the best, most state-of-the-art pipeline in the world.
Many pipeline supporters talk about all the jobs and economic development it'll create. Meh, maybe. If we're going to create jobs, let's kick off some serious sustainable energy incentive programs. More wind turbines, more geothermal, more switchgrass and other non-food ethanol sources, more turning NU research into reality. All that stuff has problems too, but they're significantly less destructive problems.
Anyway, I'm not rabidly anti-pipeline, but it's hard to get excited about the construction of a possible horror movie across the state. I'm curious where you folks come down on this.