Of Sinkholes and Zombies: Tar sands pipeline projects are a looming horror story
- Josh Mogerman
- Senior Media Associate, Chicago
- Blog | About
- Posted June 19, 2009 in Curbing Pollution
"They're coming to get you Barbara..."
Those are some of the last words we hear from an unfortunate victim early in "Night of the Living Dead." With creeping doom and danger sprouting up all around them, a pair of siblings finds themselves in the worst possible place---visiting the cemetery just as hungry zombies are emerging from the grave. They don't realize there is a problem until it is too late---as the mocking brother loses a chunk of his neck to the shambling undead.
There's something similar happening here in the Midwest.
Our energy sector is introducing a slow underground menace that most will not catch onto until it is too late. Bitumen. The climate changing quasi-oil mined from Canada's tar sands. I've railed about the global warming dangers of the refining of bitumen, the environmental impact of digging this stuff out of Canada's boreal forest, and the unique threat that the refineries themselves pose to what is arguably the most important natural resource this nation has in the Great Lakes...
And as refineries are retooled to process the Alberta's tarry gunk, a growing web of pipelines is sprouting up to feed them. And those pipelines come with their own set of dangers for which we are blissfully unaware.
The Canadian Consulate in Chicago, which seems to have become a 24/7 shop for marketing tar sands to Midwesterners, has been busy promoting some Enbridge Pipeline projects in the region to extend tar sands oil deeper and deeper into the Midwest and eventually the Gulf Coast. They've taken the road show to Central Illinois to convince resistant landowners that they should give the pipelines right of way through their lands. The landowners are wise to hold out.
Just take a look at the recent ruling in Wisconsin where Enbridge was fined $1.1 million for environmental infractions that, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, disrupted and degraded forests and wetlands across 14 counties.
Even better, check out this NTSB report about a 2003 Enbridge spill in Minnesota. The pipeline burst, dumping a quarter million gallons of tar sands oil in less than 15 minutes. To contain the problem before it leached into the Mississippi, officials were forced to set the spill on fire---creating a sulfur-rific black cloud a mile high and five miles wide (photo from the report below). Yum. Folks who have noted that the current Enbridge project will pass near streams and drinking water sources should take heed... And so should state regulators and local governments who are supposed to protect the public health and safety. The land owners through whose property Enbridge proposes to pipe tar sands should not be the only ones to ask the right questions about Enbridge's risky business.

Currently, an even bigger tar sands pipeline project is getting a lot of attention. A coalition of landowners, steelworkers, and enviros expressed their concerns about the massive Keystone Pipeline this week. It crosses six states on its way to the Wood River refinery (which sits literally at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers). Given the news about the project's progress, those folks are right to be concerned. It turns out that there are sinkholes opening up all around sections of the pipeline in the Dakotas where it was drilled through unstable, sandy soil. Oops, those are 30 or 40' deep sink holes that are swallowing trees whole...
The problem is growing, just like those sink holes. With the Canadians attempting to increase tar sand production five fold in the coming years, more pipeline projects are coming our way. And more holes being chomped out of the landscape and climate, just like the guy's neck in the movie.
"They're coming to get you Barbara..."
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.




Comments
PogoJ — Jun 22 2009 12:36 PM
Mr. Mogerman provides few facts to support his dire warnings about tar/oil sands development, but he does provide further evidence of his usual practice of misinformation. He references, and provides an image from and a link to, the NTSB report on a 2002 pipeline rupture (Mr Mogerman says the event occurred in 2003) that dumped, "a quarter million gallons of tar sands oil in less than 15 minutes". Unfortunately for his argument, the report makes absolutely no reference to "tar sands oil" or what type of oil leaked from the pipeline. It could have been any of a number of grades of oil, originating from Alberta and/or Saskatchewan Canada. Either Mr. Mogerman does not understand this, or simply prefers to stick to his practice of stating as 'fact' things that are not supported by evidence. More oil sands derived crude in US pipelines does not mean more pipeline leaks, but it probably does mean fewer oil tankers plying US coastal waters to deliver OPEC derived crudes. Maybe it's the NRDC who are the zombies.
Josh Mogerman — Jun 22 2009 04:16 PM
PogoJ---
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Sounds like you are a regular reader, so feel free to let your feelings known more often even if we aren’t exactly on the same page about tar sands.
And thanks for pointing out the type-o on the year (that’s why I include links). You are right, the spill occurred in 2002 and its source is unknown. The incident is a good illustration of the potential problems associated with quickly expanding infrastructure in the region. There’s a litany of problems and accidents associated with bitumen extraction and production in Canada. And as the Minnesota spill and Wisconsin fines clearly show, those mishaps are being exported to the Great Lakes region of the US along with the air pollution and carbon liabilities that are part and parcel with the tar sands. With these aggressive pipeline expansions, we can expect more of these incidents. There’s $30-billion worth of pipelines coming to push bitumen further into the US. Since it is largely a private investment the general public has little to no voice in this massive transformation occurring around them. The pipelines show what is at stake. These infrastructure projects tie us to a carbon-heavy, polluting, thirsty fuel source for decades with limited public input. But the public pays the price for compromised waterways, destroyed wetlands, and trampled property rights that come with pipeline projects. And as has been pointed out in many other places, the environmental justice issues are rife here: rural populations pay for the externality costs and get a pittance of short-term construction jobs while the pipeline companies pocket huge gains.
The public needs to understand the long-term liabilities that come with these projects and the rapid effort to wed our energy economy to what has been called the “dirtiest oil in the world.” While we might not agree on the specifics of fuel derived from the tar sands, I would hope that we can agree that the public deserves to have a voice in a deeper commitment to this controversial fuel. Sorry for mixing metaphors a tad here from the blog, but contrary to your assertion, by making the public aware of the considerable dangers that come from Canada’s quasi-oil and the silent advance of infrastructure tied to it, we hope that the information will help folks avoid becoming zombies…
PogoJ — Jun 24 2009 12:18 AM
Thanks Mr. Mogerman for responding to my comment. Might I repeat, as you have again shown:
Mr. Mogerman does not understand or simply prefers to stick to his practice of stating as 'fact' things that are not supported by evidence.