Canadian oil Sands pipeline

The latest drama on the environmental vs fossil fuel front is the Keystone XL pipeline that may be going from Alberta Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. This pipeline will corss numerous states and in it's currently planned path, will overlay the Ogallala aquifer. hmmmm, really?! Okay, so this is part of the drama, this pipeline will increase the amount of jobs in the US. lots of jobs. The pipeline is a $13 billion dollar project. yea, lots of jobs. It will also decrease out dependency on Middle Eastern oil. That's a good thing. Canada doesn't have the refining facilities that the US has for oil sands, so, there would be jobs at the refinery's for all of this extra oil. So, those are the good points. The bad points..... The oil sands contain lots more carbon than regular oil. I mean lots more. Which, unless we figure out a way to capture CO2, will increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. Um, don't we already have a problem with that. Also, the planned route of the pipeline will be over the Ogallala aquifer, as I've mentioned. The company has proposed a $100 million bond in case of any spill that would happen in the area. I think I've written a post before on the aquifer, but let's refresh, shall we. The aquifer supplies 80% of the drinking water to the people within it's boundaries. It lies underneath 8 states. It supplies 30% of the irrigation for agriculture in the US. Granted the aquifer is getting emptied a lot faster than it's being recharged, but that's another whole post. But it also creates a problem that I don't think anyone has considered while planning this pipeline. If there is a spill over any area of that aquifer, the potential will be to destroy over 170,000 square miles of aquifer. An aquifer that supplies 80% of the drinking water to people in 8 states. Since the water is being withdrawn faster than it is being recharged, there are lots of empty spaces where oil can easily flow, filling up spaces that were once filled with water. I don't think the $100 million bond will cover the water needed for 80% of the people in 8 states, nor will it cover the loss of irrigation water to agricultural industry in the area. Think of all the crops that will not be able to grow, or the increase in price if water has to be shipped or piped in from somewhere, is that aquifer is compromised. We've seen by the Alaska pipeline that a pipeline can go in without to much environmental impact to wildlife. That's not really my concern, as I've said, there is proof that wildlife could care less about the pipeline, it may change a few migration patterns, but on the whole, that isn't a problem. It's all the other stuff that worries me. I really think these people need to rethink their plans for locating that pipeline, cause any spill near that aquifer would be disasterous to all involved.