I’ve stayed out of the fray for a while now.  (Don’t cluck-cluck me; I really have!)  Because I wanted to see what each side would really use for their arguments; you see, there is nothing that is intrinsically safe, unsafe, right, or wrong with either side’s position.   No, it’s the execution that will make the difference.  About what am I talking?  Harvesting tar sands for oil refining and piping them thousands of miles.

Don’t jump down my throat yet.  I know this means that our carbon footprint is not going to decrease dramatically.  But, really, given the REAL situation of the world, what replacement energy source do you propose, in lieu of petroleum?   We don’t have viable solar vehicles- and certainly not for trucks or trains, although we could use electrically powered engines for our trains and that could make solar power viable for that use.  But, solar power for movable pieces- not a good solution.

Likewise, wind power won’t cut it.  Oh, we can harvest the wind – off shore, in remote areas for our electrical demand.  But, that won’t be possible for our cars, trucks, and trains.  And, if we want to use either solar or wind power, we need to find better storage capabilities, since the wind doesn’t blow all the time and the sun is a transient source, as well.

As if that were not the biggest issue, we need to spend money on our infrastructure.  Because we don’t have the power grid we need to maximize our potential wind or solar sources.  From the need to transport the power at longer distances (since these energy sources are remote from the cities and factories that are the biggest power users) and the need for these grids to interact with battery (or other energy) storage, as well as power production.

So, at least for the foreseeable future (that’s read the next 20 or so years), we will be relying on petroleum sources for our transportation needs.  These sources are easily pumped, and easily applied for mobile applications.

(Before you claim we can use hydrogen [for which we have no infrastructure], recognize that this country is refusing to spend money on our existing roads, our existing buildings, our existing bridges, etc.- so how likely do you consider it that a new infrastructure will be constructed any time soon?  Oh, and natural gas, which could power our vehicles- that has the same carbon footprint as the rest of the petroleum fuels- and I include that source in my definition, as such.)

So, should we build the Keystone XL pipeline?  Let’s consider the facts.  Tar sands have been a potential, viable fuel source for some 40 years.  I know that because I worked on that during my graduate days at MIT.  Dr. Hermann P. Meissner had high hopes for a variety of alternative fuels.  (You may recall we felt the fuel shortage acutely some 40 years ago.)  And, we knew that this source was viable- but only if the price of petroleum was around $ 100 dollars today.  (I converted the price from my grad school days to current times.)  Oh, wait- it is!  So, it’s a potential money maker.

But, unfortunately, no one really made the process better.  So, there’s plenty of pollutants produced when we collect these tar sands and extract them to a fluid- even before we refine it.  (Yes, I did consider water reuse and process recycling, as part of our research back then.  And, nothing has really changed.)

And, the real problem is the “liquid” the tar sands becomes is pretty corrosive.  Far too corrosive for the types of petroleum pipelines that we have in existence.  Especially because many of them are welded in place.  And, welded using low-frequency electrical processes that date back to my MIT days.   How prevalent is this?  Oh, some 45000 miles of our 182,500 miles of fuel pipelines are so constructed.  And, our integrity testing methods are not up to the task of finding the flaws.

Don’t believe me?  Consider the problems that exist(ed) in the Alaskan pipelines.  Or the leak that developed in an Exxon pipeline in Arkansas or a Chevron pipeline in Utah just last month.  Yes, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) [another government agency we never knew existed] is involved in a $ 4+ million study to determine if and how we can prevent the failures of electrically-welded pipes.  (Why they don’t demand that industry replace these antiques with new technology is beyond me.  No, not really! It’s because a certain party will scream and yell that the government is picking on industry.  You see, we- the humans- don’t count in their equation.)

So, should we let the tar sands be harvested and pumped to the existing refineries in the Southern US?  Only if the pipelines are replaced with state-of-the-art systems and high-tech monitoring is employed- so that any failure will IMMEDIATELY stop the flow of fuels and save our environment.

What do you think?

Share this: