The pipeline that Congress needs to support

Keystone XL didn’t survive a vote in the Senate, and that’s a good thing from my perspective.  I don’t like being lied to, and the supporters of this pipeline have embellished the benefits of this pipeline so much that I think some people honestly think that this pipeline will lower gas prices in the US.  In reality, the only benefit of this pipeline is that Canadian oil will be able to be sold on the world market, which would have doubled the price that it was being sold for at one point.  I’m not sure if the same would hold now because of the overall decline in oil prices.

If there was a need for a public infrastructure pipeline that would benefit America, I would offer this as a suggestion.  Instead of a single pipeline, why not build a series of pipelines to move water/snow from areas overwhelmed with it to areas that need it.  For example, Buffalo just got hit by a major snowstorm that will dump up to 6 feet of snow in some areas.  Wouldn’t it benefit California and Buffalo right now if that water could be moved from one area to the other?  Buffalo could keep their streets clear and California could get some much-needed water.

Such an endeavor wouldn’t be cheap, but the long-term benefit would be great.  We know that Grand Forks, ND and other areas are going to get flooded by the Mississippi River next spring when the snow melts.  Why something like this hasn’t already been proposed or suggested is beyond me.  These events happen every year with predictable results.  We know that the Upstate New York area is going to get hammered by lake effect snow.  We know that the Mississippi River is going to jump its banks when the snow melts in the spring.  Even if we didn’t pipe the water to specific areas, we could use a series of pipelines to shift water from one river to another to alleviate flood conditions or other things.

We don’t need Keystone XL or the 20-30 permanent jobs that Americans would compete for.  TransCanada does need Keystone XL to boost their profits.  Why should Americans risk our natural resources for something we don’t directly benefit from?  If there was a direct benefit for America, I could see a reason to approve this pipeline.  When the reasons Americans should prove it are lies, I say that we should focus our infrastructure ideas to things that will directly benefit Americans.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The pipeline that Congress needs to support

  1. I don’t really have much of an opinion on this either way. The pipeline will be built, either thru the U.S., or Canada will build it across their own territory to the Pacific Coast.

    Personally, I’d be against the water pipeline (or any of them). Trying to cram too many people into a space with too little water is a large part of the water problems in the American West, Atlanta, and several other places. There comes a time when a place is overbuilt and outstrips it’s resources.

    The Chamber of Commerce/Builder and Development movers and shakers don’t know how to run an economy on anything but wide open growth. It’s high time they put their minds to figuring it out.

    The Colorado River was a pipeline in a sense but now, there are times when it doesn’t reach the Pacific Ocean.

    Like

    • Point well taken there. I wouldn’t think of it as moving water to needed spaces as much as moving the excess in times of floods or huge snowfalls like what Buffalo got hit with.

      In regards to population, I agree with you on trying to cram too many people into areas with too little resources to sustain them. I don’t think anybody will come up with a solution to that until you can affix a profit to it.

      Like

      • Ran across something interesting a while back while doing some historical research. It seems back in the 1820’s, there was a study conducted to find the best way of linking the Tennessee and Chattahoochie Rivers. The study concluded that rail made more sense than a canal, hence the railroad which is still in pretty much the same location it was built in (from Atlanta to Chattanooga) and the reason Atlanta came into existence to begin with.

        I think they were right then and the same holds for today. The often proposed linking of Atlanta with the Tennessee River would be a colossal boondoggle (Atlanta is uphill from Chattanooga, which few people realize). I’m guessing none of the current people pushing it are even aware of the history, though.

        Like

        • I’ve never looked at the altitude difference between the two, but I agree that linking the two would be awful. I knew Atlanta came into being because of rail, but I didn’t know the reason behind the rail.

          As usual, you drop a gem of knowledge that I had not previously heard of.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s