CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 07, 2011 08:02 AM UTC
12 Comments
Loading ...
so maybe this is redundant, but it is important to understand why this pipeline is such a dangerous one. It will be transporting the dirtiest oil on earth underground through the great plains, over the Ogallala Aquifer.
Luckily, they don’t have earthquakes in that part of the country….oh, wait….
US gasoline consumption has decreased for 4 consecutive years while oil production has steadily increased. High fuel prices have forced the nation to find ways to reduce our thirst for fuel. We don’t need this pipeline… Exxon/Mobils’ bottom line needs this project. Not the people of the United States.
The long term jobs are Canadian jobs, the taxes get paid to Canada, the world gets the massive amounts of carbon released by the “tar sands” recovery process…and we (the good ol’ USof A) gets the risk of losing one of the largest, most important, aquifers in the country.
I’m not ready to believe that a shallow pipeline would pollute a deep aquifer. Rivers, wetlands, sensitive habitat? Sure. And the carbon footprint alone is reason enough to kill it. But Ogallala? I don’t think so.
and I cannot give you a definitive geological scenario that threatens the aquifer. You may certainly be right about that.
I do know that geology is not uniformly consistent and, there is NO SUCH THING as impermeable. Perhaps the aquifer is the least of the possible threats, but I know that there are so many other recipes for disaster that this pipeline is a bad idea.
I do not believe the industry will spend the money necessary to design redundant “fail-safe” systems capable of assuring us that a half million gallons of crude oil doesn’t wind up in the Missouri river.
Exxon’s Yellowstone spill was 42,000 gallons and look at the damage it did.
In general, the top of the Ogallala Aquifer is just a couple hundred feet below the surface. Recharge from the surface is slow, but the principle area of recharge is the Nebraska Sandhills Prairie region. (the green to violet “bulls eye” in the map below)
The soils of this region, as the name suggests, are upwards of 90% sand. Thus, water percolates down relatively rapidly, carrying with it whatever it encounters.
The water table is very shallow in the Nebraska Sandhills. Nearly every large valley contains a lake that represents
The Dismal River flows through the Sandhills at nearly constant rates and temperature throughout the year. Its source? The Ogalalla Aquifer.
Disturbing the vegetation that stabilizes these sand dunes leads to rapid erosion. It is still possible to identify old farm fields from 50 or more years ago. They can be three feet lower than the surrounding unplowed prairie.
And then, perhaps worthy of even more concern, there is Carhenge …
… scene for the climax of 1994’s Omaha (The Movie).
There are very good reasons for why Nebraskans are saying the KXL should run through the eastern part of the state, where there are existing pipeline routes, rather than through the Sandhills. The official position of the Governor is not so much “NIMBY” as it is “YIMFY: yes in my front yard.”
The Nebraska Sandhills Prairie region is a highly sensitive area. It has taken generations to stop the harmful agricultural practices of the past and instead ranch gently on the landscape. The surface lakes are part of the great migratory flyway. There is much at risk.
to turn something you heard into a boatload of information. I guess it’s ’cause it isn’t a deep aquifer everywhere. I am, with the help of smart people..(thanks, ardy)..learning more about this everyday.
As I understand things, this must be about contracts between companies. If there is resistance to using a path the people prefer, follow the money. It is likely someone is asking too much for a right of way or easement or so. These companies really don’t like to co-operate.Pipeline companies are often consortiums of others (producers and such) that file as a separate entity.
I don’t have a clue about the politics out there in the prairie.
Thanks for the details Duke.
You are right–I made basically no effort to explain the technical reasons I oppose the pipeline, beyond quoting James Hansen on the subject.
But then, he’s an authority, both a scientific authority and to some degree, given his demonstrated willingness to go to prison for his beliefs, a moral one–and I’m not. Call me cynical, but I figured briefly making my own case for or against a particular national energy policy–or even for or against the reality of climate change–and leaving the reader to wonder how much time I spent finding just the right spin job online–well, I doubt it’d be more persuasive than referencing the position of people in authority.
If you won’t believe James Hansen, are you really going to credit some guy online with too much time?
Husker … POWER!
Husker … POWER!
GO BUFFS!! (yeah, I know…I know..).