News :: Northern Plains Resource Council

Guest opinion: Keystone XL permit denial gives TransCanada time to do it right – Billings Gazette, Jan. 29, 2012

· Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-keystone-xl-permit-denial-gives-transcanada-time-to/article_6cb79aaa-682f-5d2b-a798-ef73edd5b305.html

By DARRELL GAROUTTE

I am a landowner whose ranch would be crossed by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. I don’t want a huge pipeline carrying tar sands bitumen across my property but, in the end, I suppose I’ll be forced to give up land for this project. If you were in my shoes, would you want your land condemned to build an industrial project like this through your pastures?

The best I can hope for is to force TransCanada to build it as safely as possible and not use substandard pipe in rural areas like it originally planned to do.

I want an emergency response plan in place, which we haven’t seen so far.
I want to know that the construction work on my land will be done properly, will be bonded, and that it won’t unduly interfere with my ability to operate my ranch.
I don’t want to be held financially liable for any pipeline failures after construction is done.
I don’t want the rural roads and bridges in my county to be ruined by heavy truck traffic.

I have many other concerns about adequate bonding, public safety, river crossings, reclamation work and weeds. I have concerns about the willingness of state and federal agencies to protect me — the little guy — when there’s so much political pressure to accommodate this Canadian pipeline company.

Those of us whose land would be condemned and crossed by this project have concerns because of TransCanada’s wretched safety record with its Keystone I pipeline (not to mention the TransCanada gas pipeline that exploded in Wyoming last summer).

That’s why we formed the Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group, a committee of the Northern Plains Resource Council. We knew that, in the stampede to build Keystone XL, neither the politicians nor the chambers of commerce nor the local newspapers would stand up for us landowners. We had to stand up for ourselves.

The oil spill on the Yellowstone River last summer taught us a lesson: Spills do happen. The Keystone XL pipeline would have the capacity to transport 20 times the amount of oil of the ExxonMobil pipeline that burst, and would carry a more corrosive tar sands crude.

In Nebraska, the Keystone XL route crossed farm and ranch country where the Ogallala aquifer — one of the largest and most relied-upon aquifers in the world — comes to the surface. Polluting the Ogallala would affect America’s entire midsection. This should not be allowed to happen.

Instead of trying to fix these problems while the state of Nebraska worked to find a route that protects the Ogallala, Congress set an arbitrary deadline for a decision on the presidential permit needed for the pipeline. It was impossible to resolve the issue by this deadline, leaving the White House little choice but to refuse to issue the permit at this time.

The denial of the presidential permit, however temporary, gives us some breathing room. Landowners need help in preventing a Keystone XL pipeline disaster — a disaster for land and water, for farmers and ranchers, for local governments.

Darrell Garoutte, member of the Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group, lives near Wolf Point.

Comments (0)

Categories : Agriculture, Fossil Fuels, Guest Editorial, Landowner Rights, Northern Plains Resource Council, Pipeline

Guest editorial: Mining Montana coal comes with a high cost – Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Jan. 25, 2012

· Comments (0)

Friday, January 27th, 2012

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/guest_columnists/article_32cea5f4-492e-11e1-be13-001871e3ce6c.html

By John Vincent

We all know there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Sooner or later, one way or another, there’s a price to be paid, whether economic, social or environmental.

That holds true for the shipment of Montana coal from the Otter Creek coal deposits just like it does for everything else. The Tongue River railroad issue offers an excellent opportunity to take a close look at what at first appears to be a great deal for Montana.

Almost always the primary reason given for mining and shipping more and more Montana coal to Asia is economic, (forget about the mid-west market, it’s all about selling coal to China now), whether it’s increasing coal tax revenue for state and local governments or in the name of jobs. Both are very important, but neither one holds as much water as most assume.

Taxes on coal amount to about 5 percent of all taxes paid to state and local governments in Montana. Of course, mining more coal would increase Montana’s coal tax take, but at what cost?

Jobs? Coal mining accounts for less than two-tenths of 1 percent of all jobs in Montana because the industry is no longer labor intensive. Coal is now mined at the rate 22 tons per worker hour.

On another front, according to a 2011 study by the New York Academy of Sciences, the human health and environmental cost of burning and transporting coal in the United States is between $345 billion and $500 billion a year. These numbers do not bode well for the health of our people or the future of our environment and planet. They also help explain why the Mayo Clinic campaigns so hard against transporting and burning coal.

Mining, transporting and burning 1.2 billion tons of Otter Creek coal would increase annual CO2 emissions by about 250 percent every year for 30 years, an increase of around 186 million tons per year.

Colstrip and other coal-fired electrical generation in Montana emits about 20 million tons of CO2 a year. Exported Montana coal and its transportation currently accounts for about 97 million tons of CO2 emissions a year. Add them up and CO2 emissions from this coal would total right around 300 million tons each year for the next thirty years. Montana would have to generate about 17 times the amount of usable wind energy currently being generated in the nation’s number one wind state, Texas, to “cancel out” that much CO2. It would take building at least 70 of the world’s largest wind farms, each with about 1,000 turbines on a total of about 2,100 square miles of land to accomplish that.

Consider, too, that each mile long, 125-car train load of coal throws off about 500 pounds of pulverized coal dust per rail car on its way from Montana to the coast. At least half of that falls by the wayside in Montana, some of it in major population centers like Bozeman/Belgrade as well as in smaller communities like Manhattan. Figure that an additional twenty two loaded coal trains would pass through here each day with another twenty two coming back.

Environmental, health, quality of life and traffic impacts, especially at rail crossings, are inevitable.

We need to look at both sides of the ledger before making decisions of the kind and magnitude presented by the future of Montana coal mining and the Tongue River railroad. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

John Vincent is a Montana Public Service commissioner.

Comments (0)

Categories : Climate change, Coal, Fossil Fuels, Guest Editorial

Letter: Obama made right call on pipeline – Helena Independent Record, Jan. 22, 2012

· Comments (0)

Friday, January 27th, 2012

http://helenair.com/news/opinion/obama-made-right-call-on-pipeline/article_20b376de-44c8-11e1-81ea-001871e3ce6c.html

Jonathan Windy Boy, Your Turn

I want to praise President Barack Obama for his decision and standing with tribes and landowners by rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline. This decision reflects the need for an additional supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement that would study many of the remaining needs such as:

An emergency response plan;
A study of the corrosiveness of tar sands oil pipelines in light of the 14 spills on the Keystone I pipeline which began operations in June 2010;
Assurance that pipeline thickness will be the same in rural areas along the pipeline as in highly populated areas.

The president had announced that he and the State Department would need until the 2013 to adequately review public safety and environmental impacts from the project. A Presidential Permit is needed because the privately owned pipeline would cross the U.S. border. Congress passed legislation that would have forced Obama to make a premature decision on the pipeline by Feb. 21.

There is a coalition of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices that gathered recently, opposing the Keystone Pipeline project. Their opposition was concerning to a few historic sites along the Keystone corridor. I’m hoping that when this adequate review takes place, the THPOs are at the table.

The members of The Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group, a committee of Northern Plains Resource Council, is a group of landowners crossed by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline who have organized to negotiate with Trans

Canada an equitable contract which protects landowners and public safety. I want to thank organizations such as this for the due diligence needed projects that have such a huge impact, across the broad spectrum of Montanans. We as Montanans need to step up and support this decision, to make sure all Montanans’ interests remain intact.

Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy (D-Box Elder) represents Senate District 16 in the Montana Senate.

Comments (0)

Categories : Landowner Rights, Letters, Northern Plains Resource Council, Pipeline

Montana landowners welcome rejection of Keystone XL pipeline – Jan. 18, 2012

· Comments (0)

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

By Northern Plains Resource Council

Today, President Obama and the State Department announced they have rejected the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

This decision reflects the need for an additional supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement that would study many of the remaining unanswered questions about the Keystone XL pipeline. The President had announced that he and the State Department would need until the first quarter of 2013 to adequately review public safety and environmental impacts from the project. A Presidential Permit is needed because the privately owned pipeline would cross the U.S. border. Congress passed legislation that would have forced Obama to make a premature decision on the pipeline by Feb. 21.

“I’m glad to hear that the President stood with landowners who knew that the impacts on our state from this pipeline have not been adequately analyzed,” said Sandy Barnick, landowner crossed by the proposed pipeline and member of the Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group. “The President stood on the side of the people, as opposed to foreign corporations, today. I hope this decision sets a precedent that the impacts from a project must be determined before approval.”

The public and members of the Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group along the Keystone XL pipeline are still waiting for:

An Emergency Response Plan;
A study of the corrosiveness of tar sands oil pipelines in light of the 14 spills on the Keystone I pipeline which began operations in June 2010;
Assurance that pipeline thickness will be the same in rural areas along the pipeline as in highly populated areas.

The Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group, a committee of Northern Plains Resource Council, is a group of landowners crossed by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline who have organized to negotiate with TransCanada an equitable contract which protects landowners and public safety.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 18, 2012

Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas. And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.

Comments (0)

Categories : Climate change, Congress, Fossil Fuels, Landowner Rights, News, Northern Plains Resource Council, Pipeline

Bozeman Daily Chronicle guest column: Tongue River Railroad not in nation’s best interest – Jan. 14, 2012

· Comments (0)

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/article_e95162e0-41f8-11e1-ae7a-0019bb2963f4.html

By Mark Fix

Holding up the coal-to-China railroad, also known as the Tongue River Railroad (TRR), was the best thing to happen in eastern Montana in a long time. In late December, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that much of the decision-making to permit the railroad was “arbitrary and capricious,” which is legal language for “they did a lousy job.”

This ruling proves that it is illegal to carelessly blaze ahead with projects that would industrialize an entire agricultural valley and use condemnation on Montana landowners to secure private property for a right-of-way in order to send coal to China without first taking a careful look at the environmental impacts.

The permitting agency, the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), did what we call a “windshield study” – it’s almost as if they drove around and looked out the car window and based their analysis on that. It’s not fair to landowners like me who could be condemned by this railroad.

The Ninth Circuit ruling means that the TRR cannot proceed with right-of-way acquisition, eminent domain condemnation, or construction of any type until a competent examination of how an enormous new coal mine at Otter Creek and the railroad that would haul the coal out would affect water and air quality, wildlife, and the human environment. Before this railroad even considers moving forward it must go back to “square one” and conduct a new environmental impact statement that also considers the fact that much of this coal is now destined for Asia instead of the Upper Midwest markets, which was the original justification for the railroad.

The ruling means STB:

Must now look at how the enormous impacts of the proposed Otter Creek coal mine factor into their thinking about whether this project is worth it (Otter Creek would be two-and-a-half times bigger than any mine in Montana and the biggest new mine proposed in the lower 48 states today);
Cannot rely on stale data, some of which is more than 30 years old;
Must study how the TRR and coal mine affects the Miles City Fish Hatchery, sage grouse, pallid sturgeon, and other troubled wildlife species;
Must look at how the water pollution, groundwater loss, and air pollution from nearby coalbed methane development all adds up as to how this valley and its residents will be impacted.

Years ago the TRR sent landmen to my ranch seeking a right-of-way through my property. They made sure I knew they had the power of eminent domain and could take my land if they wanted.

My neighbor and I tried to get along with them. My neighbor asked them to make him an offer. They offered him $100 per acre for a 40-acre strip, three miles through his ranch. So, for $4,000, they could wreck his ranch by separating it from the river (his source of water), start fires, spread weeds, and make it a major challenge to move cattle requiring culverts under the railroad. If I ever wanted to sell my land it would be worth far less with a railroad between most of my ranch and the river.

Needless to say, no easements have been purchased on the TRR route. It is plain to me that some believe farmers and ranchers are expected to bear the brunt of all the negative effects of the railroad, Otter Creek coal, and coal bed methane.

If you live near a railroad, you can expect an additional 40-50 trains a day heading to and from the West Coast where the coal will be placed on ships and exported overseas.

Otter Creek should never be mined and the Tongue River Railroad never built. Shipping coal to China does nothing for America’s energy independence. The Surface Transportation Board needs to go back to “square one.”

Mark Fix is past chair of the Northern Plains Resource Council, and his ranch southwest of Miles City would be crossed by three miles of the proposed Tongue River Railroad.

Comments (0)

Categories : Agriculture, Clean Water, Coal, Courts, Fossil Fuels, Guest Editorial, Landowner Rights, Member news, Northern Plains Resource Council

Missoulian columnist: Ruling a victory for common sense, natural beauty – January 5, 2012

· Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012

http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/recreation/columnists/greg-tollefson-ruling-a-victory-for-common-sense-natural-beauty/article_655486a8-37b1-11e1-8355-001871e3ce6c.html

Missoulian

“What a way to end the old year and start the new one.”

That’s the entire text of the email Homer forwarded to me last Friday afternoon, the day before New Year’s Eve. He had just received this message from his dear old friend Bunny, a rancher down on the Tongue River in the far southeastern corner of this sprawling state.

Bunny Hayes, gruff old rancher that he is, is a master of understatement.

There was not even an exclamation point at the end of the note, but the brief news release attached to the email was exclamation point enough for Homer and me. The story announced a rare victory in the decades-long battle by ranchers and environmental groups to protect a place and a way of life that are threatened by energy development. The headline read simply, “Court hands setback to SE Montana coal railroad,” and to most who read the article, it probably did not rise to the level of earth-shattering news.

However, for those who know the history of the long battle over coal, and now coal-bed methane development in Montana, it was big news indeed that a federal court determined the analysis of the potential environmental consequences of building a railroad up the Tongue River Valley had fallen far short of the required standards.

For those of you who have not ranged far and wide across Montana, the Tongue River country is a piece of the old west that must be seen and felt to be appreciated. A drive along its length on a fine spring day is enough to put the lie to any notions of eastern Montana as an arid wasteland. Its winding course past 100-year-old ranches, through cottonwood bottoms and lush hay lands, along the eastern edge of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, and below the ponderosa pine-studded Tongue River Breaks takes visitors back to another time.

The Tongue River Railroad has been on corporate drawing boards for more than 30 years. It was originally conceived as a way to move coal from a proposed mine near Birney, on the Tongue River south of Ashland, to connect with the main east-west line at Miles City, where the coal would then be moved primarily to potential power plant customers in the upper Midwest. Despite vocal environmental concerns, and years of effort by many local ranchers and the Northern Plains Resource Council to have those concerns addressed, the railroad backers received a permit to proceed with the project from the Interstate Commerce Commission.

That mine near Birney was never built, and neither was the railroad. Meanwhile, the ICC was replaced by a new agency, the Surface Transportation Board. Somehow, that permit has stayed in force through several iterations of a plan to move coal from the region. Now, with the possibility looming of development of the coal tracts in the Otter Creek area south of Ashland, the Tongue River Railroad is once again on the front burner. These days, now that coal-fired power plants are not exactly popping up everywhere in the United States due to serious environmental concerns, including climate change, the potential market for the coal is now global in reach, particularly to Asia.

Though the quiet ranches along the Tongue River haven’t changed much since the first hint, way back in the 1960s and ’70s, that coal development was coming, other things worth noting have changed. Most alarming for local ranchers who are dependent upon the waters of the Tongue River for the viability of their ranches is the threat of impacts to that precious water from large-scale development of coal-bed methane. This is a huge concern for people like Bunny and all the others who for most of their adult lives have trooped back and forth to Helena or the site of whatever next meeting was scheduled to address their issues related to energy development.

One of the findings of the federal court in the recent decision was that any analysis of the environmental impacts of the Tongue River Railroad must take into account the cumulative impacts of its own proposal in concert with the effects of the projected coal-bed methane development in the region in the years to come.

That seems like common sense to me. But for those who have been on the battle lines demanding accountability and responsible development of those energy resources for decades, it is a huge victory. And it is a victory for all who cherish the natural beauty and abundant natural values of this state, and the way of life that we are so proud of here.

This does not mean that no railroad will be built. Everyone involved knows that. But it does assure that a much closer examination will be made into what the real effects of energy development are going to be.

And that, by almost any measure, is a good way to end the old year and start the new one.

Greg Tollefson is a freelance Missoula writer whose column appears each week in Outdoors. He can be reached atgtollefson@bresnan.net.

Comments (0)

Categories : Agriculture, Coal, Courts, Guest Editorial, Landowner Rights, News, Northern Plains Resource Council

Guest opinion: Keystone XL permit denial gives TransCanada time to do it right – Billings Gazette, Jan. 29, 2012

Guest editorial: Mining Montana coal comes with a high cost – Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Jan. 25, 2012

Letter: Obama made right call on pipeline – Helena Independent Record, Jan. 22, 2012

Montana landowners welcome rejection of Keystone XL pipeline – Jan. 18, 2012

Bozeman Daily Chronicle guest column: Tongue River Railroad not in nation’s best interest – Jan. 14, 2012

Missoulian columnist: Ruling a victory for common sense, natural beauty – January 5, 2012

Recent Posts

What People are Saying About Northern Plains:

Subscribe to RSS

Find us on Facebook

Archives

Categories

Go paperless!