Environmental
activists came out in force Aug. 20 through Sept. 3 against the
proposed pipeline that would run from the largest tar sands field in
the world, in Alberta, Canada, to Texas, where the oil would be
refined and sold on the open market.
The action against
the Keystone XL pipeline included the largest act of civil
disobedience in a generation, with people coming en mass to be
arrested in front of the White House in Washington, D.C. Workers from
across the country and Canada who are or could be affected by the
proposed pipeline joined in. Canadian Indigenous community members
and leaders also participated, along with actors, activists,
students, teachers, scientists and more to stop a pipeline that if
built will affect us all.
The more than 1,250
people arrested over the two-week protest sent a powerful message to
President Obama and Congress. Although only six states and two
Canadian provinces are immediately threatened by the potential
disaster, workers and activists from across the country realized the
importance of standing up against the international oil companies.
The pipeline would
be 1,702 miles long, with 1,375 miles crossing through the United
States. The pipeline is being planned by the Canadian energy company
TransCanada.
TransCanada, like
all other oil companies in the world, looks to maximize profits at
all costs without regard for people or the environment. It is issuing
orders of eminent domain to residents who have not agreed to sell
their land. TransCanada already has a pipeline running from the tar
sands through the United States, called Keystone. This pipeline,
which took two years to build, has been in operation for only 12
months and has already had 12 spills.
The Keystone XL
pipeline would run across some of the most fragile land in the United
States, especially in Nebraska. It will run right through the center
of the state, traversing the Ogallala Aquifer, the most important
source of drinking and irrigation water for a wide area. The aquifer
measures roughly 174,000 square miles and provides water to over
eight states. (insideclimatenews.org)
The unique problem
in Nebraska is how close the top of the aquifer is to the land, and
how quickly oil could contaminate the water it contains. The area is
covered in sand hills and dunes that facilitate recharging the
aquifer. The same features would make it easy for oil to seep through
and poison the drinking water.
TransCanada has
assured that it will be able to detect a spill immediately and then
stop the toxic flow. However, a leak in the existing Norman Wells
pipeline, run by another Canadian company (Enbridge Energy Partners),
earlier this year was the size of a pinhole, and 63,000 gallons of
oil leaked during the three weeks before the spill was noticed.
Oil companies use
the same safety measures industry-wide, so there is no reason to
believe that a spill of the same magnitude from the proposed pipeline
would be discovered and stopped more quickly. Although the Norman
Wells pipeline spill created contaminated soil, that is nothing
compared to the disaster that a spill in the Ogallala Aquifer would
create, Anthony Swift of the Natural Resources Defense Council
suggests.
Impact of a
spill
Contaminating the
Ogallala Aquifer could affect a great amount of food production,
leading to higher food prices worldwide. A tar sands spill is also
different from a normal crude oil spill, such as the one in the Gulf
of Mexico last year that BP caused. A tar sands spill, because the
oil is heavier and not in a liquid form, can enter streams and lakes
and just sink to the bottom. This causes much greater pollution,
because even flowing streams cannot move the heavy sands, which will
just continue to contaminate water that flows over them. This is
already the case in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, where a spill
from a pipeline carrying tar sands oil caused the river to be too
contaminated for swimming or fishing. (dirtyoilsands.org)
In Alberta, Canada,
the tar sands have been described as “the Saudi Arabia of the
north.” There are different extraction methods that will allow the
solid oil embedded in rock to “flow.” The method used most widely
is open-pit mining, which completely destroys the land. Pits hundreds
of feet deep and up to a quarter of a mile wide ravage the surface of
the Earth that was once covered with topsoil or even forest that
would normally absorb rain and help prevent flooding.
According to leases
signed by the mining companies, the companies are supposed to replace
the land as mining goes on, but can keep it torn up for at least 50
years. While open-pit mining is the most visually unappealing process
of tar sands production, it is not the worst. To obtain the oil from
the rocks, the companies must boil the tailings, creating three
layers: on the bottom, heavy sand; in the middle, unusable water; and
at the top, oil, which is then transported through a pipeline.
(infomine.com).
The remaining pools
are called tailings ponds, which are extremely toxic to the
environment and still contain oil and other hydrocarbons that pollute
area groundwater. For example, benzene, a chemical known for causing
cancer, has been detected at higher levels in areas around the mines
in Canada than in previous years.
The worst process
currently being used to mine for tar sands is the “in situ”
technique that requires pipes to be drilled into the layer of tar
sands, and then pumping massive amounts of steam into the rock to
heat the oil so that it will drop to another pipe that sucks it up
along with sand. This process is called Steam Assisted Gravity
Drainage and is the most common of the non-open-pit mining
techniques. (infomine.com)
This process needs
three barrels of water for every one barrel of oil produced, which is
extremely damaging to the water supplies around the mines. The
streams and lakes around the Alberta mine are being depleted at a
faster rate than recharged, which strains the supply for surrounding
communities, especially Indigenous farmers who live off the land.
Moreover, Indigenous people throughout Canada are suing to stop the
pipeline because the drilling has increased the cancer rate in
communities near the open-pit mines.
Socialism or
‘game over’ for the environment?
TransCanada, the
company whose name will be attached to this pipeline, is no different
than any other capitalist company. If any major oil company were able
to get the contract, the result would be the same. Capitalism thrives
on profit and profit alone. There is no consideration for the land
that we all live on and must use to survive.
While the proposed
pipeline can be stopped through mass struggle, socialism is the only
long-term solution to these environmental threats. It is the only
system that puts people’s needs before corporate profits. Under
socialism, the environment would be protected, and planning would be
instituted to stop the plundering of natural resources to promote
dirty energy. There are viable alternatives to oil and other fossil
fuels that, under capitalism, will not be explored. Replacing
capitalism with socialism is the only way to avoid what NASA
scientist Jim Hansen has termed, “Game over for the climate.”
