Pipelines necessary in oil-addicted world

Here is a tale of two proposed pipelines that could run through South Dakota.

The diameter of Pipeline 1 is 36 inches. Pipeline 2 is 30 inches.

The proposed length of Pipeline 1 will be 1,179 miles. Pipeline 2 is 1,134 miles.

Pipeline 1 will carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day. Pipeline 2? Up to 570,000 barrels.

The first pipeline would cut through western South Dakota en route to Nebraska. The second through eastern South Dakota, including the Sioux Falls area, to a final destination of Illinois.

One of those pipelines has created a national political controversy. The other? Had you even heard of it?

Keystone XL, the first pipeline in our examples, has caused picketing and political posturing. The second, the Dakota Access Pipeline, was first announced last summer. Unless the pipeline was proposed to cross your land, most people have been undeterred.

That doesn’t mean we should accept the pipeline without asking questions or learning as much as we possibly can.

All residents in the area should be asking: What are the risks? Who will be monitoring and regulating the pipeline for leaks and other issues? What are the emergency shutoff procedures? Who will pay for any problems that arise from a leak?

But it’s no surprise that when politics enter the picture, talking points get thrown about, facts get forgotten and the issue becomes one big argument.

Here are a few key points.

— Pipelines are much safer than oil transportation by rail and more practical than truck. A train crash in Quebec in 2013 killed 47 people and spilled 1.5 million gallons of oil. There was a close call in North Dakota when several rail cars caught fire. If that incident had happened in a populated area, property damage would have been significant and lives could have been lost. As far as truck transportation, Forbes estimated it would take a million-and-a-half tanker trucks to transport the Keystone equivalent oil.

Pipelines have had their problems, though. In 2013, a Tesoro Corp. pipeline spilled 20,600 barrels, which is 865,200 gallons, in northwestern North Dakota. The worst was in Michigan in 2010 when an Enbridge pipeline spilled more than 25,000 barrels into a river. There is an environmental impact from pipelines, and Dakota Access advocates need to reassure the public that the new pipeline won’t have those problems.

— Transporting oil via pipeline is significantly cheaper. A 2013 Christian Science Monitor article stated that it costs $7 a barrel to transport oil on a pipeline compared to between $15.50 and $30 via rail.

— Pipelines already are a key part of everyday life. There are pipelines carrying natural gas to homes across the city and surrounding areas. The first phase of the Keystone Pipeline already crosses eastern South Dakota.

— For opponents, the Keystone Pipeline also is an environmental issue — mining a barrel from Canada’s oil sands creates 17 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the extraction of a standard barrel of oil, according to the Washington Post. North Dakota oil is not clean, either, but blocking pipeline plans won’t stop the production. It still will travel by rail and alternative pipelines. To fix carbon emissions, the focus should be on the demand, not supply.

The Keystone Pipeline only became a national political issue because it crosses the U.S. border from Canada, thus involving the State Department.

It’s OK to be skeptical of what those proposing the pipeline claim. A 2011 Argus Leader story showed that the eastern South Dakota Keystone pipeline wasn’t raising as much tax revenue for local governments as officials had originally stated.

So as the Dakota Access Pipeline gets debated in the coming months, educate yourself about the pros and cons, and our reporters will continue to uncover as much as they can. Make your decisions based on logic, science and facts and not on political soundbites.

Weigh the risks of all choices and consider the options, but rejecting Keystone XL or Dakota Access won’t solve the greater problem: The world has an insatiable appetite for oil.

The bottom line is that there is no perfect solution — no option that completely protects the environment, property and public safety.

But pipelines are the best option.