Press "Enter" to skip to content

After Oil, Keystone XL May Drain Ogallala Aquifer

One of the major concerns about TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline is the possibility that it would contaminate the Ogallala aquifer as it crosses Nebraska. (And remember, Keystone XL is eight times more likely to damage the aquifer than TransCanada tells us.) But even if we luck out and TransCanada doesn't damage the Ogallala aquifer, they may still drain it.

The Council of Canadians was reviewing the transcript of testimony by Jim Krause, TransCanada's pipeline operations manager, before the Nebraska Legislature back in February. Krause answered a question about what happens years down the road when TransCanada has no further use for Keystone XL. In discussing the decommissioning process, Krause mentioned alternative uses for pipeline, including shipping gasoline or water.

What major water sources would the Keystone XL pipeline cross?

Map: Keystone I and Keystone XL tar sands oil pipelines, Ogallala aquifer
TransCanada to Ogallala Aquifer: "Slurp!"

Keystone XL and its installed sister line Keystone I both cross the Ogallala aquifer. They also cross the Missouri River. Keystone I crosses the Mississippi.

Consider that the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System plans to be able to pipe an average of 22 to 23 million gallons of water per day out of the Missouri River to thirsty towns in the lower Sioux River basin. That's more than a half-million barrels a day. Keystone I alone has about that same capacity; Keystone XL will bring the whole system's capacity up to 1.4 million barrels per day... and that's pumping heavy, gritty, corrosive oil. Imagine how much more clean prairie water could shoot through those two 36-inch pipes.

So maybe TransCanada really does have an interest in protecting the Ogallala aquifer and other prairie water resources. They don't want to pollute our water; after the oil runs out, they want to drain our water and sell it.

9 Comments

  1. Troy Jones 2011.08.17

    Cory, the pipeline couldn't pipe enough water to have even a negligible impact on the water in the aquifer. If you want to oppose something, do it with facts and not fear mongering.

  2. larry kurtz 2011.08.17

    Great work keeping the chemical toilet informed of this heinous abomination, Cory. Keystone XL is DOA; so is Hyperion.

  3. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.08.17

    Troy, I only know what I read in the papers (the electronics?). Sure, one guy with two really big straws could suck water out of the aquifer for 50,000 years. But lots of guys with lots of straws have significantly depleted the Ogallala aquifer in just 150 years. That sounds like facts to me. And it seems reasonable to consider both potential harms of the main use of the pipeline as well as potential harmful future extractive uses.

  4. Troy Jones 2011.08.17

    Let me put this in perspective:

    Assuming Keystone has capacity for 1.4 million barrels a day, in 39 seconds that much water is currently rushing through the Oahe Dam. In other words, the entire Keystone pipeline's capacity is .04% (yes 1/25th of a percent) of the water going thru the dam right now. Or, .12% of the average flow.

    When Janklow proposed the ETSI pipeline to Wyoming, more water evaporates on Oahe on a hot summer day than would be piped in the ETSI pipeline in a year.

    These sound like big numbers but when you look at what actually flows on the Mighty Mo', this is negligible.

  5. Troy Jones 2011.08.17

    Our posts are passing each other. As your map shows the pipeline goes over the top of the Missouri so they wouldn't have to use the aquifer as a source. They could take it right out of the river.

    I'm sure here are arguments opposed to Keystone but this isn't one of them.

    P.S. I don't know if this is right but I think the aquifers (maybe not Ogalalla based on your map) is filled now. As I recall, part of the problem with the current flooding is the aquifers couldn't take any of the excess snow pack and rains this Spring worsening the Missouri river capacity problem.

  6. Justin W. 2011.08.17

    Just a quick internet search points to the XL pipe being buried an average of four to five feet deep. South Dakota Plumbing Code dictates that water mains are to be buried a minimum of 6 feet deep. Common sense in northern climates, probably makes the idea of using the XL pipe for water a non-issue.

  7. Douglas Wiken 2011.08.17

    A 36 inch diameter pipe with moving water is not likely to freeze if down 4 feet deep. The pipeline runs within a few thousand feet of Winner SD water field and within a few hundred feet of small Colome, SD wells.

    I doubt the snow and rain in Montana has done much to fill the Ogalalla aquifer. The drought in Texas and Oklahoma hasn't helped either. The pipe in this area would apparently have concrete "saddles" on it to keep it from floating out of the ground.

  8. jsteve 2011.08.19

    President Obama is feeling the pressure to approve the Keystone XL projects from Republicans in Congress. That's why the environmental groups are getting hella prepared in taking this fight on. I saw the fiery debate on Democracy Now! between a person from the American Petroleum Institute and an activist organizing against the pipeline. The activists are coming for Washington! The interview is here: http://bit.ly/tarsandsdebate

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.08.19

    Yay, Jane Kleeb on Democracy Now! Go get 'em, Keystone XL opponents!

Comments are closed.