| | | >> the pipeline will traverse the largest water aquifer in the world; one that American farmers and people are heavily dependent on for drinking and irrigation.
And no harm would come to that aquifer, whatsoever.
James Goecke . . . [a] hydrogeologist and professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, he has been measuring water tables in Nebraska’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region since 1970 and has shunned the political limelight — until now. He recently appeared in an ad for the pipeline’s owner, TransCanada, rebutting some of the arguments against the project and its new route.
All this offends Goecke, who even Stansbury calls “the number one expert” on the aquifer. Goecke says that many people have the wrong impression about the danger a pipeline leak would pose to the Ogallala. It’s not like dropping oil into a lake, he says; remember, the aquifer is more like a sponge. He said people “were concerned that any spill would contaminate and ruin the water in the entire aquifer, and that’s just practically impossible.” To do that, the oil would essentially have to run uphill, he said. “The gradient of the groundwater is from west to east; 75 percent to 80 percent of the aquifer is west of the pipeline, and any contamination can’t move up gradient or up slope,” he said.
“Secondly,” Goecke added, “any leakage would be very localized. .?.?. A spill wouldn’t be nice, but it would certainly be restricted to within a half-mile of the pipeline.” He predicted that the varied layers of fine-grained seams of silt and clay would contain the flow of oil.
>> And the reason for building the pipeline......to get oil faster to market is ridiculous.
It isn't ridiculous, but it is one of many reasons. Most notably, transport by pipeline is the most environmentally friendly method. But it is also the least expensive and fastest.
There is no cogent argument that can be made against it, which is the reason neither you nor Chauncey have been able to articulate such a reason. |
|
