The Keystone pipeline decision shows that politics triumphs over “shovel ready,” real job-creating projects and American energy security. The decision shows that in Obama’s mind, “big green” is more important than energy security. His administration continues to take us down the road to serfdom with its failed fantasies, such as Solyndra solar project, that will deny us the energy to maintain our economy and make us more dependent on sometimes unfriendly foreign sources.

As Warren Meyer writes in Forbes: “Obama made the decision to block the pipeline because of concern over contamination of the Ogallala Reservoir….But local environmental concerns were merely the public pretext for a decision that is much more troubling. Opposition to the pipeline began to rally among radical environmental groups long before any of them had the first clue about the pipeline route. The real goal of these groups was not to protect water along the pipeline route, but to make it impossible to develop new sources of oil in Canada.”

The pattern of obstructing American energy production is seen with the EPA’s regulatory war on electricity production from coal-fired plants, with Interior Secretary Salazar’s withdrawal of uranium resources in northern Arizona, and with its de facto moratorium on off-shore drilling.

I have previously written about how Obama seems clueless on energy (see links below). I wonder, however, whether it is truly a lack of understanding or whether it is a concerted ideological quest to cripple America. The White House website has said, “”We need to deploy American assets, innovation, and technology so that we can safely and responsibly develop more energy here at home and be a leader in the global energy economy.” But action gives the lie to the rhetoric.

See also:

Keystone XL pipeline and the Ogallala aquifer

Obama Clueless on Energy – Part 1

Obama Clueless on Energy – Part 2

Obama administration still clueless on energy

Obama’s April Fools Joke

Politics versus American Energy Security

On January 9, 2012, the Obama administration announced a 20-year ban on new mining claims on public land near Grand Canyon National Park. The ban will not affect about 3,000 existing claims in the area. A principal stated reason for the ban was to forestall possible contamination of Colorado River water resulting from a mining accident. But uranium contamination from an accident is extremely unlikely according to a study by the Arizona Geological Survey:

To examine one potential impact of uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region on uranium levels in Colorado River water, Dr. Jon Spencer (AZGS Senior Geologist) and Dr. Karen Wenrich (Consulting Geologist) posed a hypothetical , worst-case, scenario involving an accidental spill of the entire contents of an ore truck hauling 30 metric tons (66,000 pounds) of uranium ore containing one percent uranium (ore grades in northern Arizona are typically somewhat lower), followed by flash-flood transport and dissolution of all spilled uranium into the Colorado River. In this scenario, the ore is pulverized and dissolved within a single year, releasing 300 kg of uranium directly into river waters.

The result: uranium concentration of Colorado River waters would increase from 4.00 to 4.02 ppb (parts per billion by mass); an increase of just one half of one percent that would be masked by natural uranium-concentration variations as determined by measurements reported in a recent U.S. Geological Survey study. Furthermore, the uranium content of Colorado River waters would remain well below the 30 ppb Maximum Contaminant Level set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for safe drinking water.

The small change in dissolved uranium content of Colorado River waters as a result of this hypothetical accident is due to the very large annual volume of river water that passes through the Grand Canyon and the approximately 60 metric tons of dissolved uranium that is naturally carried by the river each year.

The study is: Spencer, J.E. and Wenrich, K, 2011, Breccia-pipe uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region and implications for uranium levels in Colorado River water. Arizona Geological Survey OFR-11-04, 13 p. It may be downloaded here.

A U.S. Geological Survey report issued in 2010, provided data showing that the river carries an average of 120,000 lbs (a range of 40-80 tons) of uranium down the Grand Canyon every year. The uranium is apparently eroded from normal crustal concentrations over the large drainage area of the Colorado River basin.

Ref: Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona, Edited by Andrea E. Alpine, USGS SIR 2010-5025.

Besides eliminating hundreds of potential jobs, this decision denies the U.S. resources to produce electricity. This decision seems to be part of Obama’s plan to make energy costs “skyrocket” to make green energy appear more attractive.

See the ARTICLE INDEX page for more stories on mining, geology, natural history of the Sonoran desert, and climate change

Tucson City Councilman Paul Cunningham wants to impose a fee on use of plastic bags because he’s  “fed up with driving down the streets, noticing plastic bags plastered to the needles of what would otherwise be attractive desert plants.”  This fee, essentially a tax on food and other items, is supposed to discourage use.  Cunningham’s quest will probably work as well as Rio Nuevo, the City’s grossly mismanaged attempt at urban renewal.  Just how will a fee on plastic bags solve the problem of littering?

Plastic bags are recyclable; some are even biodegradable.  According to the Arizona Daily Star, “Tucson currently requires grocery stores to provide recycling collection for plastic bags.”  Even easier is to dispose of the bags in your home recycle container.

The war on plastic bags is a current eco-fad.  Other cities charge fees, some even ban plastic bags.  But, alternatives to plastic bags present their own problems.  Paper bags pose a littering problem too and use up trees.

Some people bring their own reusable bags, especially for groceries.  But that too, has problems.

Bags made from non-woven polypropylene, the most commonly used material in reusable grocery bags, have been shown to contain excessive lead which can pose a danger.  Also a study by Canadian microbiologist Dr. Richard Summerbell found that unless you wash reusable fabric grocery bags after each use, they can harbor unacceptably high levels of bacteria, yeast, and mold.  “The study found that 64% of the reusable bags tested were contaminated with some level of bacteria and close to 30% had elevated bacterial counts higher than what’s considered safe for drinking water,” according to the National Post, Canada.

By the way, a British study of all types of bags found that plastic bags were superior because they take less energy and water to make and less energy to recycle, as well as taking up less space in landfills (link).

I suspect that some of the bags seen plastered to cactus needles are fugitives from garbage trucks and land fills.

It seems that Cunningham is following the second law of government institutions: “All problems will be solved with infusions of money taken by coercion from the people.” -Mark David Ledbetter

As for Mr. Cunningham’s concern about aesthetics, I have just one word: POTHOLES.