Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government


Academic, Non-Governmental

Oil and Water in Nebraska: Elected Officials Ducking Pipeline Issue

This multipart series explores the election-season dynamics surrounding a plan to build the Keystone XL pipeline through Nebraska

By Elizabeth McGowan

Sep 29, 2010

Editor's Note: In late September, SolveClimate News reporter Elizabeth McGowan traveled to Nebraska to find out more about the Keystone XL pipeline that TransCanada plans to build to carry crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries in Texas. This is the first in a series.

LINCOLN, Neb.—As a rule, oil and water don’t mix. And Nebraska environmental advocates would like to keep it that way.

That’s why they are trying to capitalize on this election season to halt—or at least redirect—TransCanada’s proposal to construct an Alberta-to-Gulf Coast pipeline and its most eye-catching and fragile landscape.

But it’s not especially easy to gain traction while going up against the promise of hundreds of jobs and millions in tax revenue for depleted state coffers from a well-heeled oil corporation, weak state laws and politicians who rely heavily on donations from the fossil fuel industry.

With oil from tar sands, conservationists know they are challenging a legacy created in 2001 when newly elected Vice President Dick Cheney organized secret meetings with a select cadre of insiders to forge a closer-to-home energy policy for the 21st century. Plus, as Midwesterners, they suspect international companies and decision-makers in the nation’s capital expect them to be compliant instead of combative.

“This is the dirtiest source of energy out there,” Jane Kleeb, the leader of the advocacy coalition Bold Nebraska, told SolveClimate News in an interview. “If we’re talking about making America energy independent, then we don’t need to be dependent on Iraq or Canada. We need to be exploring biofuels and wind. We’re woefully behind on that.”

It doesn’t make any sense for a state with an agricultural base and a blooming tourism effort to risk polluting those cash cows irreparably by soiling the Ogallala Aquifer and the sandhills, she added.

A decision about the controversial pipeline, known as Keystone XL, is in the hands of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because of the ’s international nature.

TransOcean requires a presidential permit to build and operate the 1,375-mile section that will start in Montana and continue through South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The 36-inch diameter pipeline will have the capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

Initially, a thumbs up or down was expected this autumn. But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave anti-pipeline advocates a wider window for strategizing when it labeled the State Department’s environmental impact statement as “inadequate” in July. EPA officials cited shortcomings that included accounting for greenhouse gas emissions affiliated with the pipeline, safety and spill-response planning, and the impact on indigenous communities.

Now that the State Department has to revisit the issue, a decision isn’t expected until the first quarter of 2011.

“Are we going to get a few short-term jobs and economic activity while risking the lifeblood of the state for the future?” attorney Ken Winston, chief lobbyist for the Sierra Club’s Nebraska chapter, said in an interview with SolveClimate News. “In the world of risks, we believe that’s unacceptable.

“To quote John Paul Jones, ‘We haven’t yet begun to fight.’”

Nebraska’s Elected Officials Ducking the Issue

Not too surprisingly, Kleeb and Warren are discovering that finding a state politician to stand by their cause is akin to pulling teeth. Most wash their hands of it, claiming it isn’t front and center because it’s a federal issue.

“But we know Nebraskans are on our side with this pipeline,” said Kleeb, citing poll numbers released in mid-September by Bold Nebraska, Nebraska Wildlife and the Nebraska Sierra Club.


If you are going to pipe anything, why not put a big seawater desalination plant just north of Corpus Christi TX and pump potable water up to recharge the Ogalalla aquifier. The best price estimate I have seen is about $660/acre-foot for an Israeli reverse osmosis process. But please cast the salt into building blocks instead of throwing it back into the Gulf of Mexico. There is also something called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion that is supposed to produce enough energy to run the two pumps it involves (one to produce a partial vacuum to make the warm salt water boil at summer day outdoor temperature and one to pump cold water up from the bottom to cool the steam from the low temperature boiler after using it to run a steam turbine generator), but I don't have any idea how much it costs either to build or to operate. The $660 is just for separating the water from the salt. Pumping up hill costs extra.

If you want oil, why not grow some sort of vegetable oil crop (corn, soy, sunflowers, etc.) press it for the oil and make bio-diesel. Better yet, press oil from algae, either ExxonMobil's green icon genetically engineered algae or common pond scum. Algae are not fussy. You can give them a tub or clear tube of water, a touch of fertilizer, some CO2 captured from a fossil fuel fired electric plant, and put their home up on a roof or a pole in a parking lot where they will be out of the way but still get plenty of sun.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options