The Pipeline Poses Minimal Risk to the Ogallala Aquifer

James Goeke

James Goeke, a research hydrogeologist, is professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Updated October 4, 2011, 3:13 PM

Surface water we can see; groundwater is an act of faith: I say that when I talk about aquifers. Because groundwater is out of sight, it lends itself to many misconceptions. This is the situation with the Ogallala/High Plains aquifer, as it relates to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

TransCanada should have to post a bond for any cleanup from a spill, but the pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the Ogallala aquifer.

An aquifer is any subsurface material that stores and transmits water in usable amounts. Underground water by itself is not an aquifer; the definition must include the host material. The Ogallala aquifer, named after the rock formation that has nearly unimaginable water riches, underlies much of the Great Plains. Recently, the U.S. Geological Survey has begun using the term “High Plains Aquifer” to include not just the Ogallala formation but also rock units below and more recent deposits near the surface.

During the past 40 years, my colleagues and I at the Conservation and Survey Division of the University of Nebraska have focused our research on this aquifer. I personally have drilled more than 1,000 test holes into and through its complexities; I have analyzed the volume and behavior of the waters it holds. Here are several important findings.

1. The slope of the regional water table is from west to east; the deep waters within the host rocks move persistently downhill eastward. Approximately 80 percent of the Ogallala Aquifer lies to the west of the proposed alignment, “uphill” of the pipeline’s route. Spilled oil could not move upward against gravity.

2. Along much of the alignment, the depth to water is over 50 feet. Sediments above the top of the aquifer contain fine-grained deposits like silts and clays. In a 25-year study of an oil spill near Bemidji, Minn., the Geological Survey reported that “apparently fine-grained layers impeded the infiltration and redistribution of oil.”

3. If areas of the Ogallala were exposed to leaks from the pipeline, the highly varied layers within the rock formation itself would serve to localize the impact of a spill.

4. In places along the pipeline’s route, there are locations where the water table is near or at the land surface. It is my understanding that in these areas, TransCanada will encase the pipeline in a waterproof covering and cement jacket.

All this comforts me with the knowledge that a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole. However, we should require TransCanada to post a bond for any cleanup in the event of a spill. With that in place, we should approve the pipeline while simultaneously implementing an aggressive national policy that mandates energy efficiencies and finances the development of alternative energy sources for transportation.

Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

Topics: Environment, energy, oil, pipelines

Are Oil Pipelines Safer Now?

The Keystone XL project would create jobs from Montana to Texas. But what scientific and environmental issues should be considered first? Read More »

Debaters