Northern Plains organizes landowners

Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, a report by Cornell university Global Labor Institute (pdf)

TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline will carry tar sands oil from Alberta to Texas, including 253 miles across eastern Montana. Infrastructure projects like this frequently force affected landowners and local taxpayers to bear a heavy burden in terms of environmental impacts and out-of-pocket costs. The original proposal for the pipeline requested that the Canadian company behind the project requested a waiver that would allow the company to use thinner gauge steel for the pipe in relation to the pressure in areas of “low consequence,” that is, rural areas. The company has since promised to forego that waiver, but they could also re-apply in the future.

Northern Plains is working to help landowners in the path of the pipeline to protect their land and water, as well as their legal rights. Northern Plains and our affiliates Dawson Resource Council and McCone Agricultural Protection Organization organized landowners along the route to help them gain better information and negotiate from a stronger position. This alliance, the Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group, hired a lawyer to represent it in negotiations with TransCanada.

In 2009, Northern Plains organized a fact-finding trip for Montana landowners to learn from landowners, public officials, and company representatives along the route of the first Keystone pipeline in North Dakota. Following this trip, a Northern Plains staffer and a member made a presentation on pipeline activity in Montana to the Pipeline Safety Trust conference in New Orleans.

Is the Keystone XL Pipeline in the “National Interest?”

President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have a decision to make: Whether the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is in the “National Interest” and therefore whether it should be permitted.

The Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest. This pipeline, which is proposed to carry Canadian tar sands oil to the Gulf Coast, is for the purpose of generating profit for a private company – it is for a private use. It will generate few, if any, local jobs, and the oil is likely destined for export markets. This is not in the national interest nor will it generate any benefit for the public. Please read on for a list of reasons that Keystone XL is not in the national interest.

Needed safety analysis

  • The Keystone I pipeline, the precursor to the Keystone XL pipeline, has had 14 spills since operations began in June 2010 including a 21,000-gallon spill in North Dakota, and the Enbridge pipeline carrying tar sands in Michigan spilled 843,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River.
  • An expert safety review by the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is needed.
  • The State Department acknowledges that a study on the impacts of diluted bitumen on pipeline safety has not been done (Section 3.13-43). They also note that TransCanada must complete a risk assessment in part to look at valve replacements and leak detection systems (ES-10), acknowledging that the current measures are not properly protected. Even the State Department acknowledges that additional studies are needed.

No Emergency Response Plan

  • The Final Environmental Impact Statement does not contain an Emergency Response Plan, nor has one been released for this project.
  • The emergency personnel (largely volunteers) and the potentially affected property owners and others who live near the pipeline deserve an opportunity to comment on TransCanada’s Emergency Response Plan prior to approval.

Pipeline thickness

  • The Final Environmental Impact Statement does not analyze the risks or potential spills of alternative thicknesses of pipe – most notably, the scenario of allowing a higher pressure and thinner pipe in “low consequence areas” as originally requested by TransCanada.
  • Landowners and neighbors to the pipeline need to know what oversight process exists to verify that TransCanada is using the pipe thickness they claim to be using.

Where are the local jobs?

  • TransCanada brought in crews from out of state for its Keystone I and Bison pipelines so why wouldn’t they do the same with Keystone XL? They have a non-Montana workforce that is already trained. The FEIS states that only 10-15% of people may be hired from the local workforce, but that this may not be possible in rural areas. The entire pipeline route in Montana is in rural areas (Section 2.3.5.1).
  • In terms of permanent jobs, the FEIS states that the permanent operation workforce along the pipeline would consist of 20 Keystone employees (not new local employees) located along the entire U.S. route (Section 2.4.1)
  • TransCanada, Perryman and even the State Department have miscalculated and misled the public and Congress about jobs. (See Cornell factsheet, report).  How dare TransCanada and the oil industry exploit genuine concern about unemployment and raise the hopes of thousands of families when in fact very few will receive jobs from this project.
  • Agriculture is Montana’s No. 1 economy, yet this pipeline poses a threat to the farming and ranching operations along the route, both because of construction hassles as well as any potential problems including leaks, weeds, or trenching that might occur. Why would we harm our state’s No. 1 economy for any project, but especially one that isn’t locally owned?

This particular company has a bad track record

  • Pipelines are not all bad, in fact we need pipelines, so it is fair that our nation is considering approving this one, but the fact that this particular company has such a bad track record makes it the wrong one for the job. This company’s resume includes 14 leaks on its other tar sands pipeline in only about a year of operation, and a major explosion on its brand new natural gas pipeline (the Bison). It would be one thing if this pipeline was being proposed by a company that has a good track record – but this one doesn’t.

For export

  • Being the country in between the oil producer and the oil purchaser does not somehow make us energy secure – this is not in our National Interest, but maybe in Canada or China’s national interest.
  • The fact that the end point of this pipeline is on the coast, when TransCanada already has a pipeline to carry tar sands to an inland refinery (Keystone I goes to Illinois) leads to the logical conclusion that this pipeline is for tar sands export.
  • The Gulf Coast refiners at the end of the pipeline’s route are focused on expanding exports, and the nature of the tar sands crude Keystone XL delivery enhances their capacity to do so. (Source: Oil Change International)
  • Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation’s top refiner has locked in at least 20% of the pipeline’s capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free. (Source: Oil Change International)
  • The oil market has changed markedly in the last several years, with U.S. demand decreasing and U.S. production increasing for the first time in 40 years. Higher fuel economy standards and slow economic growth have led to a decline in U.S. gasoline demand; therefore U.S. refiners are turning to export. (Source: Oil Change International)

This part of the route isn’t needed, plus threatens the Ogallala Aquifer

  • TransCanada could still get its oil to Texas just by the Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, Texas, extension from Keystone I – It does not need to build the Steele City segment (from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, to Cushing, Oklahoma). The fact that the route goes through the Ogallala Aquifer is reason enough to not build this segment.

If it’s eventually needed, it certainly isn’t now

  • Keystone I is far from capacity.
  • Our economy is sluggish.
  • At the least, postpone this decision.

The State Department has been acting with questionable ethics

  • TransCanada has enjoyed too cozy of a relationship with the State Department through personnel who formerly worked for Hilary Clinton and other relationships.  (Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2011). The EPA is the agency best equipped to make a fair and accurate assessment of this project.

List of conditions for Keystone XL approval

Attached are some of the conditions we’ve asked the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to attach to the state-level permit for Keystone XL:
  • Requiring TransCanada to provide a comprehensive Emergency Response Plan for public review prior to issuance of a permit in the state of Montana;
  • Requiring that all disturbed land be restored to its original state after construction and that any potential damage be reclaimed in consultation with soil scientists familiar with the region;
  • Requiring a comprehensive engineering study of pipeline pressures and worst-case spill risks specific to KXL;
  • Requiring that in the event a person’s water supply is contaminated as a result of construction or pipeline operation, all costs associated with finding and providing a permanent water supply that is at least of similar quality and quantity be covered, as well as any other damages, including but not limited to any consequences, medical or otherwise, related to water contamination;
  • Requiring that the company cover liability for surface and water damage;
  • Requiring that all hydrologic sensitive areas are identified and a plan is implemented to protect them;
  • Requiring a certificate that states which government agency will oversee all construction activities in Montana.

LINKS

Report outlines worst-case scenario

John S. Stansbury, Ph.D., a professor of engineering at the University of Nebraska, released a report on July 11 titled, Analysis of Frequency, Magnitude and Consequence of Worst-Case spills from the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.

Stansbury’s analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline estimated that a spill on the Missouri River could contaminate the river with over 134,000 barrels of oil and a spill on the Yellowstone River from the Keystone XL pipeline could release over 188,000 barrels of oil. Contamination of benzene on any major river (like the Missouri and the Yellowstone) could exceed drinking water standards for over 450 miles.

“This really scares me,” said Doris Frost of Miles City, a member of the Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group who owns land near the Yellowstone River where the Keystone XL pipeline is planned to cross. “We are talking about a pipeline that carries more than 20 times the oil that the Exxon pipeline carries, and it’s far more corrosive material. The State Department, Montana DEQ, and everyone else involved in the permitting process needs to take a hard look at what is being proposed.”

TransCanada says spill response time for the Keystone XL pipeline would be 11 minutes and 30 seconds; however, the June 2010 spill of more than 800,000 gallons of crude oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River along the Enbridge pipeline, another tar sands pipeline, was not shut down for 12 hours! Stansbury says a conservative estimate of response time would easily be ten times the 11 minute and 30 seconds that TransCanada reported.

Stansbury says of his motivation for the report, “To provide my decision-makers – legislators, governors and State Department folks – with an independent, unbiased assessment of the potential spills and impacts from those spills.”

The recent Exxon pipeline oil spill on the Yellowstone River showcases the fact that spills do happen, and emergency responders are often not prepared to deal with their impacts when they do.

An Emergency Response Plan has still not been released by TransCanada for the Keystone XL pipeline. Emergency responders and people living along the pipeline need to know what to do in the case of emergency, and have the plan to review prior to the construction of the pipeline.

Please join us at the hearings for the Keystone XL pipeline in Helena, tentatively scheduled for this fall (after the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement). Call Rose at Northern Plains at 406-248-1154 for more details.

Stansbury’s report can be found online at http://watercenter.unl.edu/downloads/2011-Worst-case-Keystone-spills-report.pdf