Gas prices : Ohio.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Gas prices : Ohio.
25
Thu, 01-12-2012 - 10:49am

Seems the Republicans

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 01-13-2012 - 11:34pm
That's actually quite a good question: Who will pay for the Keystone pipeline and will the benefits outweigh environmental risks? As we saw when the BP Macondo rig spilled so much crude into the Gulf of Mexico, there were indeed plentiful jobs in cleanup operations. Probably not quite what would be seen by any but idiots as a net gain.

The Ogallala Aquifer is responsible for supplying drinking water to towns, cities and farmers for irrigation. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-ogallala-aquifer

Its tainting by oil seepage would be catastrophic. But that's par for the Big Oil course. Pander to our addiction to oil and ignore the simple physical fact that we cannot live without water but we can certainly survive without oil.

If we do not learn simple lessons, about our dependence on clean water, and clean air, then ironically enough, we will join dinosaurs and become, in eventual eons, fossil fuel. Oh, the irony..........

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Sat, 01-14-2012 - 12:01am
.... Off topic. (I guess my inquiries won't be answered) can/will the aquifer be conserved? Looks like its depleting fast but there is no way to stop that because it is so necessary.

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Sat, 01-14-2012 - 7:43am

The Keysone Pipeline has been in several bill being pushed by the Republican Congress.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sat, 01-14-2012 - 9:35am
Eh? Why the assumption that an off-topic query would go unanswered? When it comes to facts, versus opinions, there would be no sound reason to NOT respond.

Sure the Ogallala Aquifer can be conserved. But it will mean shared ......errrr, ........ ummmmm, ..............sacrifice. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-ogallala-aquifer Farmers would have to back off the amount they draw out for crops which require irrigation. Am guessing that ethanol production in the aquifer region is a lousy idea since corn is NOT a dry-land crop, and the production process requires ample amounts of water. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-10-ethanol-water_N.htm

Over time (thousands of years!), an aquifer can actually be replenished, as rain and snow melt, infiltrate the soil and moisture makes its way back into the aquifer. But it takes TIME and reduced/no drawdown.

There's an aquifer in the Albuquerque vicinity which was tapped to provide water for the city's growth. For years, it was assumed that the aquifer was limitless. Then scientists who study such things raised an alarm when they saw reason to believe that the aquifer was finite, and was being depleted much faster than it was being replenished. Now ABQ also draws water from the Colorado River via the San Juan/Chama project. http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=San%20Juan-Chama%20Project We have incentives from ABCWUA to xeriscape, use low flow toilets, acquire rain barrels to collect roof runoff, etc. Supposedly, such measures have helped reduce overall water usage last year, even though we were in severe drought.

But proponents of Keystone would do well to look at another aspect of ABQ's situation. Over years, jet fuel lines at Kirtland AFB had leaks which allowed jet fuel to seep into the aquifer. And a plume of jet fuel is gradually making its way towards the point where water pumping stations pull drinking water from the aquifer. http://www.koat.com/news/27306599/detail.html

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sat, 01-14-2012 - 10:38am

It's simple supply and demand. Obama has done all he can to keep prices up. No pipeline, stopped off shore oil drilling, no new refineries, all the government bureaucracy that stops new wells, ANWAR, etc...

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Sat, 01-14-2012 - 10:39am
I meant that I didn't think my questions regarding the government paying the pipeline will be answered.

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Sat, 01-14-2012 - 10:56am
I'm pretty sure I read that there's no reason to think that Keystone oil would be used for us. It would go to the refinery and it depends on who buys it. That's not necessarily us, nor is it going to be any cheaper if we do buy it from the refinery.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sat, 01-14-2012 - 2:40pm

Hmmmmm........I indicated in an earlier post that WHO would pay was a good question because nobody had actually said. Common sense would dictate that TransCanada would pay for the project.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Sun, 01-15-2012 - 11:55pm
My apologies. I didn't mean to gloss over your answer. It was claimed that the company itself would NOT pay for it.

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Mon, 01-16-2012 - 12:09am
It's clear that the aquifer is depleting faster than it can naturally replenish. And since the majority of it is used for crops, do you really think that water conservation in other areas will be enough. It's almost as though the only way to ensure the longevity of our own natural resources is to eliminate shipping our goods over to other countries. But that's unreasonable. Will we ever find the right balance?