I asked Joe, a wise old fellow, what he thought of the Keystone pipeline and his instant response was, "We don't need anything that will threaten the Ogallala aquifer." He spit that out with such alacrity it seemed practiced. As if that word is on all of our lips. As long as I've known him I've not heard Joe say either of those two words before, "Ogallala" nor "aquifer" and that told me his source of information had drilled successfully that particular point to associate with Keystone. It was odd for Joe to produce the word "Ogallala" on the spot like that as he did.
"The stuff is already being transported by rail."
"So. Just as long as it doesn't threaten damage to the Ogallala aquifer. Because that cannot be fixed."
"It is already threatened by the manner it is already being transported. A pipeline is safer than rail. If you are concerned for an aquifer that you can suddenly name then you will support the safest means possible."
"Well that's to be seen. Nothing should threaten the Ogallala aquifer."
I can see this is far as I'll get. Ogallala aquifer. Well done, Media, now even Joe can bark the word on signal, and he's so pleased with himself for that ability and for his grasp of current events.
Since then two train wrecks involving oil cars has been reported, but I forget where the first one was, it happened right after our conversation, the second one was in Illinois a few days ago and both times when I heard the reports my first thought was, "Well, well, conservative activists are finally coming out of character, finally taking a page from their adversaries, finally behaving as fiercely as environmentalist zealots by producing catastrophes to drive their points dramatically and sway political discussion, carelessly threatening lives and property in their demonstration of hazardous rail crude oil transport by creating these wrecks, and by contrast then how much safer for the environment a pipeline would be. Clever use of winter weather for plausible deniability.
I don't know how railroad companies keep their tracks together. It's a matter of continuous daily diligence. Due to geology and weather the tracks themselves are continuously moving. The earth under the tracks and around the tracks is moving.
On a train trip back to Denver from Concord and San Francisco our passenger train continually stopped along sidetracks to yield for cargo trains in the opposite direction that used the same tracks. It rained unusually as the train passed through Nevada and then through Utah. In those two states particularly there is more geology than there is vegetation covering it. The water drains down the slope the tracks traverse washing away the surface layer of soil right under the tracks creating oily psychedelic slicks and exposing older layers underneath, you can see the ballast under the tracks washing away, the water is passing right under the tracks and as passengers all sit there waiting and a kind of claustrophobia of not moving sets in and you wish you could leave the train and muck about along side wandering off not too far from the train panning for silver and gold until the train moves again. Surely the water is bringing up new metals and minerals. The entire landscape looks otherworldly, alien, uninhabited, wet and rippling with minerals to be had for the taking right off the shimmering newly exposed smooth wet surface.
All that track would require repair every time it drizzles continuously for days like that. It is impressive that there are not more rail accidents due to track displacement due to geology and weather.
11 comments:
Years ago I worked in the city and a group of us would go to this Irish bar for lunch every Thursday. The bartender was a chummy sort of guy, late 50s, not too bright. Salt of the earth might be about right.
Anyway, he liked us and he would entertain us with his views on life. One time, he went off on this claim that you should only eat vegetables that grow in the ground because vegetables that grow in the air are exposed to airborne pollutants that stick to the food no matter what.
Pissed me right off in some sort of weird primitive way much more like Napoleon Dynamite than Sheldon Cooper. YOU IDIOT!
And I started arguing with him.
The alpha male of our group intervened and brought me down almost immediately. He took it all in stride, for which I was grateful.
But I was still kind of miffed even when we were walking back to the office. And I was all, like, "That was one of the most stupid things I've ever heard anybody say in my entire life."
And my friend said, "He's a bartender."
A word to the wise.
"Dirty filthy oil" are the words Sen Boxer used to justify the pipeline veto for the most efficient energy source we've ever known, as if she'd like it to disappear completely and the country would be so much better.
Sen Boxer should stop using any oil, if we are to take her seriously.
No more cars. No more planes. No more Limousines.
My attitude when encountering people stating things running counter to what I've understood is not to challenge but to prod and ask questions.
Remember the days of lots of motor oil commercials?
I remember paying attention to that. asking people what kind of motor oil do you use? what about viscosity?
I would take it to a place where I brought the oil, I'm not letting them just put any cheap oil they want!
And then one day I heard a mechanic authoritatively say "they are all the same" and I was internally going what is this guy talking about?
Most people who are against the pipeline probably think that gas originates at the gas pump.
It is far easier to contain oil in a pipeline than in railroad cars. The anti-pipeline advocates just can't let fact get in their way. The Keystone proposal is not something "new" it is simply an addition to a vast existing pipeline web across the entire country. Go figure.
Michigan is so covered with natural gas and oil pipelines that the energy firms all have vivid orange markers to assure fools don't dig over them. They've been in place my entire life, so I am amazed at this latter day resistance. But not surprised...it is politicization, not sound environmental concern.
Allen S ....those people you cite are not talking about "their" oil or gas, only yours. They're all special doncha know :-)
I'd love to hear Al Gore say "Ogallala Aquifer," real slow.
I did the same train trip and a similar thought. I wanted to get out in some small mountain towns in Colorado and just walk around - they looked so inviting.
The small towns in the middle of Nevada had a similar effect on me.
Sadly, the train kept moving.
It's relatively easy to repair railbeds - they have rails run right out to them, it doesn't cost that much to move heavy repair equipment to the problem areas. Likewise, the railways are just functionally simpler engineering projects than auto highways, which have to be constructed to support people driving all over their surfaces, at all sorts of speeds and incidental factors. All a railway needs to do is maintain the proper pitch and orientation, and the rails keep the traffic moving in a very predictable direction and fashion. They tend to brake at expected areas, accelerate at other locations, don't see much in the way of cross-traffic, and so forth. Nobody ever has to worry about potholes on a railway.
Still and all, pipelines are massively simpler, and much safer. You never need to emergency-brake a pipeline because some idiot decided to walk the rails, or kill himself in front of a coal-train.
Post a Comment