Glasgow Hosts Meeting On Proposed Crude Oil Pipeline

By Samar

About 75 people attended a public hearing in Glasgow Tuesday at the Cottonwood to comment on the draft environmental impact statement on a proposed pipeline that would cross the northeast corner of Montana, carrying crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska, eventually to end up at refineries on the Texas Gulf coast.

The $7 billion, 1,375-mile Keystone XL pipeline planned by the Canadian company TransCanada would carry 900,000 barrels of crude a day.

The pipeline would cross 272 miles of Montana, primarily agricultural land (106 miles) and grassland (172.7 miles). Of that, 42.6 miles would be federal land, mostly BLM but also Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers, 19.1 miles of state land and 220.6 miles of private land. It would enter Phillips County at the Port of Morgan and travel southeast through Valley, McCone, Dawson, Prairie and Fallon counties, then continue through South Dakota to Nebraska.

Permitting of the project is headed by the Department of State because it crosses an international border and requires a presidential permit. The State Department issued the draft EIS and is conducting 19 public hearings on the project. Six are in Montana. The comments taken at the hearings will be incorporated into the final EIS.

The draft EIS is available on a CD and in paper versions at scores of libraries, including Glasgow, but at 800 pages (2,400 with the appendices), it seems doubtful that many people at the hearings have read it all.

Of the six people who stood to make public comment at the Glasgow hearing, three were local people in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline and one who had safety concerns. Two speakers came to represent environmental organizations. One was opposed and one was concerned that not all affected landowners had been notified that they were on possible pipeline routes.

Craig Herbert, general manager of NorVal Electric Coop, led off by saying briefly that he is in favor of the project.

"It will hold rates flatter," Herbert said. "It will be a pretty good boost to the county, the schools and taxes."

Jeannie Barnard, general manager of Big Flat Electric Coop, echoed the sentiment.

"Transporting oil in a pipeline is responsible. It's not like a tanker," she said. "It's a good project to keep the country running in a good way."

Rick Ost of Nashua also spoke for the pipeline.

"We live in oil country whether we like it or not," Ost said. "The Bakken oil project is working west. This project is no different. Accidents happen and there are policies to clean them up. It's a no-brainer. We either keep this project and make it work or ship it to North Dakota."

The pipeline comes very close to home for Ron Garwood of Nashua, a member of the Valley County Conservation District. He farms close to where the Milk River enters the Missouri, and where the pipeline would cross the Missouri. The pipeline's preferred route would come within 2 miles of his land and it would cross his father's land. They are concerned about where the pipe would cross ditches and dikes because his country features shallow topsoil with sand underneath. It might present settling problems after a pipe was trenched in.

Garwood was worried about needing more than one safety stop where the pipe rises 700 feet up Signal Hill south of the Missouri, to keep oil from the river in case of a pipe break.

He also worried about a thinner pipe that TransCanada has requested a waiver for. He said we shouldn't be compromised by using thinner pipe.

Tom Finch, the Community Assistance and Technical Services manager for the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety, Western Region, fielded this question.

He said they ensure that pipes have the specified minimum yield strength, and that in "high consequence areas," such as a river crossing, they use thicker-walled pipe. He said the pipeline undergoes hydrotesting and later inspections, which are increased in areas of high concern.

Bill Staeger of the environmental engineering firm ENTRIX, hired by the State Department to handle the EIS process, said that the Keystone request for a waiver has been taken under advisement.

"It's a typical thing for a pipeline company to do," Staeger said. "The pipe would be slightly thinner if approved. It must still meet requirements."

A staff member of the National Wildlife Federation was concerned about the impacts to wildlife and waterways.

"This is also important to the tar sands region of Canada," said Jenny Pelej. "(This pipeline) could drive massive expansion in Canada."

She cited possible damage to water, forests, wetlands and the health of First Nations people, "all to produce an expensive, dirty fuel source." She said we should be developing alternative sources of energy.

Olivia Stockman of the Northern Plains Resource Council said that some landowners were not notified that they are on possible pipeline routes and they needed adequate time for comment. 

Tom Ring is with the Major Facility Siting Program of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which also has to certify this pipeline. He acknowledged that the wrong mailing list was used to notify some affected residents, and said that informational CDs were sent to them by two-day mail. The public comment period has been extended to June 16.

Don Brown of Fort Peck is a member of the Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group, formed to consider property rights, environmental and safety concerns, and to negotiate contracts with TransCanada for rights of way on private property.

“This draft Environmental Impact Statement from our government is woefully lacking in quite a few key areas, not least of which is safety for those of us on or near the pipeline route,” Brown wrote in a statement forwarded by the Northern Plains Resource Council. “For one thing, the Emergency Response Plan is far from completion.  If something should go wrong, our local emergency personnel and landowners need to know what plan to execute, and our communities need to know that it will work. We are seeing right now in the Gulf, how a lack of emergency preparation can quickly become a disaster."

Phillips County's disaster and emergency services coordinator, Greg Speer, asked about spill cleanup preparations. TransCanada spokesman Jeff Rauh said they work closely to train local responders, who are to protect public safety until Keystone personnel and federal officials arrive. He said Keystone is responsible to take care of any leakage and to restore the area.

After the meeting, Valley County Commissioner Bruce Peterson expressed approval of the pipeline. He said the governor's office has estimated that TransCanada would pay Valley County $12.9 million in property taxes annually.

"This is obviously is very positive," Peterson said. "Taxwise, it could add 25 to 30 percent to our taxable valuation. It would lower taxes and we would not have to worry about the budget. It's analogous to the Northern Border Pipeline. They have had no problems over the years. It seems to me these guys are absolutely trying to do it right."

To comment on the draft EIS for the Keystone XL pipeline, write to Elizabeth Orlando, Keystone XL Project Manager, U.S. Department of State, OES/ENV Room 2657, Washington, DC 20520, or fax to (202) 647-1052. Or use the form  at www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/CommentForm?OpenFrameSet