Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
El Paso Corp. Bribes Environmentalists for Ruby Pipeline Route
In order to appear more environmentally friendly, proponents of the 680 mile long Ruby Pipeline Project have reached a conservation agreement with two prominant environmental groups (WWP & ONDA) in exchange for the environmental groups dropping any opposition to the proposed pipeline route through pristine sagebrush wilderness, mating ground for endangered sage grouses.
While many people in the environmental movement may agree that cattle grazing has adverse effects on ecosystems, when El Paso corporation is pushing hard for a natural gas pipeline through pristine sagelands offers up a conservation agreement in exchange for political support, we should all be suspicious of alterior motives. Bribery of environmental groups in the beginning of the pipeline project would stifle most opposition, and then in the event of a future rupture, more bribes would appear for purposes of PR damage control. Here El Paso appears to be playing both sides of the fence, buying out ranchers and environmentalists at the same time.
The foreknowledge of natural gas corporations having eventual ruptures of their pipelines seems like a conservation agreement would serve as a potential mitigation measure that would reduce the penalties for ecological catastrophe as recently witnessed by several other pipeline ruptures in the last few months. Two in Texas (Dallas, Lubbock), one in Utah (SLC) and now another one in Michigan (near Kalamazoo) ruptured and spewed their fossil fuel contents into nearby watersheds.
Though cattle grazing may have some long term negative effects on rangeland, nothing is as drastic for the ecosystem as millions of gallons of natural gas spewing into local watersheds. The best way to prevent this is to not enable corporations to build pipelines in pristine habitat.
There exists another route parallel to I-80 that would be far less damaging to to ecosystem, though more expensive for El Paso corporation to install there. Another case of cutting corners so corporations can save a few bucks, we know what happened the last time a corporation cut corners?
BTW - Forgot to mention that one of the corporations most heavily invested in the Ruby Pipeline to transport their products is none other than BP, the Kings of Corner Cutting!!
Here's the article;
"Groups Trade Gas Pipeline Approval for $20 Million Conservation Fund"
By Bea Gordon, 7-26-10
"Habitat conservation because of a natural gas pipeline? Two environmental organizations are promising just that, thanks to an unlikely partnership with a natural gas company.
The Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) reached a $20 million conservation agreement with the Houston-based El Paso Corp. over its proposed installation of the Ruby Pipeline, a 675-mile transmission line that would stretch from the Opal Hub in southwestern Wyoming to Malin, Oregon.
In the deal, El Paso plans to establish a $15 million conservation fund for the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project and a $5 million fund for the Oregon Natural Desert Association over a period of ten years.
In turn, WWP’s Executive Director Jon Marvel tells the Elko Daily Free Press, both groups have “agreed not to try to delay or litigate Ruby Pipeline.”
If completed, the pipeline will cross four Western states: Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. In its initial design capacity it could stand to transport 1.5 billion cubic feet per day. The company estimates that its installation will cost about $3 billion, according to an official project summary. The project is currently awaiting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and approval from state historical preservation offices.
El Paso Western Pipeline Group President Jim Cleary tells Adella Harding of the Elko Daily Free Press that the agreement reflects “El Paso Corp.’s industry-leading commitment to environmental stewardship and to this end represents a significant component of the unprecedented voluntary mitigation efforts being applied to Ruby’s construction and operation.”
Both organizations already have big plans for their respective funds (which will not go directly to the organizations, instead to separate funds that will be be overseen by three-member boards.)
The Oregon group’s executive director Brent Fenty, said in the same article, “Protecting the area around Hart Mountain and Sheldon Refuges is critical to ensuring the survival of high desert species like sage grouse and pronghorn antelope.” The Hart-Sheldon conservation Fund could create restoration and conservation initiatives for 5 million acres of habitat.
The Western Watersheds Project, on the other hand, plans to focus almost exclusively on using the money to retire grazing permits by buying them from willing ranchers. The organization is first working on Congressional approval to allow federal agencies to retire these permits, however.
Marvel, a longtime opponent of grazing on public lands, argues that ending grazing along the pipeline would be better for wildlife, water quality, recreation and the environment. “It’s time to end public lands grazing,” he said.
Marvel tells the Green River Star, “These funds will be used to protect sage grouse habitat and the mule deer population in Wyoming.”
The deal is precedent setting and it hasn’t gone unnoticed by the region’s ranching community, which has historically relied on public lands grazing.
David Sparks, a commentator for AgInfo.Net, lambasted the agreement, saying, “So let me get this straight. Marvel and WWP are on a legal crusade to stop the devastion of our public lands by cattlemen (who incidentally have been stewards of the land for over a century) but it’s OK to deal with oil and gas companies and let them have at the land. Gulf oil spill and the like…no big deal with $20 million in your hypocritical pocket.”
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/groups_trade_gas_pipeline_approval_for_20_million_conservation_fund/C35/L35/
Here's the comment from David Sparks;
"Ah…saving the earth and wilderness. The great earth watcher from Sun Valley, Jon Marvel, who has filed a billion lawsuits to prevent beef producers from grazing on public land has reached an intriguing agreement with the El Paso Corporation. Advocates for agriculture printed an article saying El Paso Corp. has reached a precedent-setting, $20 million arrangement for habitat protection with two environmental organizations that protested the company’s planned Ruby Pipeline that will extend from Wyoming to Oregon.
The company will set up conservation funds with the Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association, and the organizations in turn are dropping objections to the natural gas pipeline. So let me get this straight. Marvel and WWP are on a legal crusade to stop the devastion of our public lands by cattlemen (who incidentally have been stewards of the land for over a century) but it’s OK to deal with oil and gas companies and let them have at the land. Gulf oil spill and the like…no big deal with $20 million in your hypocritical pocket. Beef producers…just a thought…want your new best friends to be Marvel and WWP? Line his pockets with big bucks."
found here;
http://www.aginfo.net
Some background on the contract between El Paso corporation and BP;
"An alternative pipeline route was considered that would bypass the herd areas and go through land already disturbed, but it would have cost more. BLM approved the plan that would be cheaper for El Paso but more costly for the land.
"We are the Bureau of Land Management, not the Bureau of Wildlife, not the Bureau of Horses," said BLM district manager Gene Seidlitz.
In BLM's management of public lands, wild horses almost always lose out to economic interests, especially livestock interests. But BLM has also been good to the oil and gas industries, and the Ruby Pipeline will be a huge money maker, according to company projections, not only for El Paso but for the gas companies.
As it turns out, one of the largest users will be BP. A contract obtained by the website AboveTopSecret spells it out.
As the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis has demonstrated, the Department of Interior has previously bent over backwards to benefit BP and other oil producers. And even if it's not the case here, it's fair to ask questions.
"We have a perfect right to wonder about all this stuff," said Kathrens."
entire article found here;
http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12769788
The foreknowledge of natural gas corporations having eventual ruptures of their pipelines seems like a conservation agreement would serve as a potential mitigation measure that would reduce the penalties for ecological catastrophe as recently witnessed by several other pipeline ruptures in the last few months. Two in Texas (Dallas, Lubbock), one in Utah (SLC) and now another one in Michigan (near Kalamazoo) ruptured and spewed their fossil fuel contents into nearby watersheds.
Though cattle grazing may have some long term negative effects on rangeland, nothing is as drastic for the ecosystem as millions of gallons of natural gas spewing into local watersheds. The best way to prevent this is to not enable corporations to build pipelines in pristine habitat.
There exists another route parallel to I-80 that would be far less damaging to to ecosystem, though more expensive for El Paso corporation to install there. Another case of cutting corners so corporations can save a few bucks, we know what happened the last time a corporation cut corners?
BTW - Forgot to mention that one of the corporations most heavily invested in the Ruby Pipeline to transport their products is none other than BP, the Kings of Corner Cutting!!
Here's the article;
"Groups Trade Gas Pipeline Approval for $20 Million Conservation Fund"
By Bea Gordon, 7-26-10
"Habitat conservation because of a natural gas pipeline? Two environmental organizations are promising just that, thanks to an unlikely partnership with a natural gas company.
The Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) reached a $20 million conservation agreement with the Houston-based El Paso Corp. over its proposed installation of the Ruby Pipeline, a 675-mile transmission line that would stretch from the Opal Hub in southwestern Wyoming to Malin, Oregon.
In the deal, El Paso plans to establish a $15 million conservation fund for the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project and a $5 million fund for the Oregon Natural Desert Association over a period of ten years.
In turn, WWP’s Executive Director Jon Marvel tells the Elko Daily Free Press, both groups have “agreed not to try to delay or litigate Ruby Pipeline.”
If completed, the pipeline will cross four Western states: Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. In its initial design capacity it could stand to transport 1.5 billion cubic feet per day. The company estimates that its installation will cost about $3 billion, according to an official project summary. The project is currently awaiting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and approval from state historical preservation offices.
El Paso Western Pipeline Group President Jim Cleary tells Adella Harding of the Elko Daily Free Press that the agreement reflects “El Paso Corp.’s industry-leading commitment to environmental stewardship and to this end represents a significant component of the unprecedented voluntary mitigation efforts being applied to Ruby’s construction and operation.”
Both organizations already have big plans for their respective funds (which will not go directly to the organizations, instead to separate funds that will be be overseen by three-member boards.)
The Oregon group’s executive director Brent Fenty, said in the same article, “Protecting the area around Hart Mountain and Sheldon Refuges is critical to ensuring the survival of high desert species like sage grouse and pronghorn antelope.” The Hart-Sheldon conservation Fund could create restoration and conservation initiatives for 5 million acres of habitat.
The Western Watersheds Project, on the other hand, plans to focus almost exclusively on using the money to retire grazing permits by buying them from willing ranchers. The organization is first working on Congressional approval to allow federal agencies to retire these permits, however.
Marvel, a longtime opponent of grazing on public lands, argues that ending grazing along the pipeline would be better for wildlife, water quality, recreation and the environment. “It’s time to end public lands grazing,” he said.
Marvel tells the Green River Star, “These funds will be used to protect sage grouse habitat and the mule deer population in Wyoming.”
The deal is precedent setting and it hasn’t gone unnoticed by the region’s ranching community, which has historically relied on public lands grazing.
David Sparks, a commentator for AgInfo.Net, lambasted the agreement, saying, “So let me get this straight. Marvel and WWP are on a legal crusade to stop the devastion of our public lands by cattlemen (who incidentally have been stewards of the land for over a century) but it’s OK to deal with oil and gas companies and let them have at the land. Gulf oil spill and the like…no big deal with $20 million in your hypocritical pocket.”
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/groups_trade_gas_pipeline_approval_for_20_million_conservation_fund/C35/L35/
Here's the comment from David Sparks;
"Ah…saving the earth and wilderness. The great earth watcher from Sun Valley, Jon Marvel, who has filed a billion lawsuits to prevent beef producers from grazing on public land has reached an intriguing agreement with the El Paso Corporation. Advocates for agriculture printed an article saying El Paso Corp. has reached a precedent-setting, $20 million arrangement for habitat protection with two environmental organizations that protested the company’s planned Ruby Pipeline that will extend from Wyoming to Oregon.
The company will set up conservation funds with the Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association, and the organizations in turn are dropping objections to the natural gas pipeline. So let me get this straight. Marvel and WWP are on a legal crusade to stop the devastion of our public lands by cattlemen (who incidentally have been stewards of the land for over a century) but it’s OK to deal with oil and gas companies and let them have at the land. Gulf oil spill and the like…no big deal with $20 million in your hypocritical pocket. Beef producers…just a thought…want your new best friends to be Marvel and WWP? Line his pockets with big bucks."
found here;
http://www.aginfo.net
Some background on the contract between El Paso corporation and BP;
"An alternative pipeline route was considered that would bypass the herd areas and go through land already disturbed, but it would have cost more. BLM approved the plan that would be cheaper for El Paso but more costly for the land.
"We are the Bureau of Land Management, not the Bureau of Wildlife, not the Bureau of Horses," said BLM district manager Gene Seidlitz.
In BLM's management of public lands, wild horses almost always lose out to economic interests, especially livestock interests. But BLM has also been good to the oil and gas industries, and the Ruby Pipeline will be a huge money maker, according to company projections, not only for El Paso but for the gas companies.
As it turns out, one of the largest users will be BP. A contract obtained by the website AboveTopSecret spells it out.
As the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis has demonstrated, the Department of Interior has previously bent over backwards to benefit BP and other oil producers. And even if it's not the case here, it's fair to ask questions.
"We have a perfect right to wonder about all this stuff," said Kathrens."
entire article found here;
http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12769788
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Here's the latest hijinks from El Paso corporation, first buy consent from previously opposed environmentalist groups by mitigation to prevent ranching on lands above Ruby Pipeline route, then buy off angry ranchers who lose their grazing lands! Bet there's plenty of money in the bank at El Paso corporation left to mitigate any future disasters from pipeline ruptures and/or leaks!!
In the probable event of a future pipeline failure, would it not be easier for El Paso corp to just mitigate with environmental groups now that the ranchers are pushed off the Ruby route from the recent mitigation deals?
"Ruby Pipeline saga continues"
Monday, August 9, 2010
By Tim Monroe
"There have been two new developments following last week's rancher dust up over Ruby Pipeline owner El Paso Corp.'s donation of $20 million to an environmental group with an anti-grazing agenda.
Early last week, ranchers in several states vociferously criticized El Paso for "buying off" the preservation groups in order to win approval for the pipeline that will carry natural gas from Opal, Wyo., to Malin, Ore., on the California border.
El Paso now has agreed to pay $15 million to the Public Lands Council, which represents livestock interests in several Western states.
Nevada State Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, said, "It's just a tentative agreement that will be decided at the Public Lands Council's annual meeting next month in Pendleton."
Rhoads also said the National Cattlemen's Beef Association will be a party to the pact. The money would be paid over 10 years. Half of the money would go into an interest-bearing account that would pay for rangeland improvements, research and office expenses.
While there is a clause in the agreement that none of the money could be used for litigation, Rhoads said the El Paso payments could be used for expenses while dues from producers could be used for litigation.
The second development at the end of the week came as the Sierra Club filed an appeal over the pipeline route with the Interior Board of Land Appeals. The appeal is against rights-of-way approvals issued by the Bureau of Land Management in Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Oregon
The Sierra Club does not oppose the pipeline, just the route, according to David Hornbeck, who chairs the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club. He said the route should use more existing road and railroad rights-of-way and existing utility corridors. The Sierra Club's proposed route would add 55 miles to the 680-mile pipeline.
It is not clear if the appeal before the administrative unit in Washington, D.C., will cause the department to issue an order staying the rights-of-way approvals. Construction on the pipeline already has begun.
When completed in the spring of 2011, the line will carry 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day from Wyoming, Colorado and Utah wells to connections in California and Oregon for delivery to gas customers on the West Coast."
article found here;
http://www.wyoptv.org/news/viewnews.php?id=253&title=Ruby%20Pipeline%20saga%20continues
In the probable event of a future pipeline failure, would it not be easier for El Paso corp to just mitigate with environmental groups now that the ranchers are pushed off the Ruby route from the recent mitigation deals?
"Ruby Pipeline saga continues"
Monday, August 9, 2010
By Tim Monroe
"There have been two new developments following last week's rancher dust up over Ruby Pipeline owner El Paso Corp.'s donation of $20 million to an environmental group with an anti-grazing agenda.
Early last week, ranchers in several states vociferously criticized El Paso for "buying off" the preservation groups in order to win approval for the pipeline that will carry natural gas from Opal, Wyo., to Malin, Ore., on the California border.
El Paso now has agreed to pay $15 million to the Public Lands Council, which represents livestock interests in several Western states.
Nevada State Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, said, "It's just a tentative agreement that will be decided at the Public Lands Council's annual meeting next month in Pendleton."
Rhoads also said the National Cattlemen's Beef Association will be a party to the pact. The money would be paid over 10 years. Half of the money would go into an interest-bearing account that would pay for rangeland improvements, research and office expenses.
While there is a clause in the agreement that none of the money could be used for litigation, Rhoads said the El Paso payments could be used for expenses while dues from producers could be used for litigation.
The second development at the end of the week came as the Sierra Club filed an appeal over the pipeline route with the Interior Board of Land Appeals. The appeal is against rights-of-way approvals issued by the Bureau of Land Management in Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Oregon
The Sierra Club does not oppose the pipeline, just the route, according to David Hornbeck, who chairs the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club. He said the route should use more existing road and railroad rights-of-way and existing utility corridors. The Sierra Club's proposed route would add 55 miles to the 680-mile pipeline.
It is not clear if the appeal before the administrative unit in Washington, D.C., will cause the department to issue an order staying the rights-of-way approvals. Construction on the pipeline already has begun.
When completed in the spring of 2011, the line will carry 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day from Wyoming, Colorado and Utah wells to connections in California and Oregon for delivery to gas customers on the West Coast."
article found here;
http://www.wyoptv.org/news/viewnews.php?id=253&title=Ruby%20Pipeline%20saga%20continues
Recent choices by El Paso corporation to route the Ruby Pipeline through the most sensitive sage grouse habitat was based upon cutting corners. Of course we remember what happened when BP chose to cut corners in the Gulf!
My personal opinion is for NO natural gas pipeline to cross though Nevada anywhere, though the "lesser evil" compromise appears to be routes along the I-80 industrial corridor. This is the position of the Toiyabe Sierra Club. However, El Paso corporation was unwilling to even compromise this much, prefering to spend money on attempts to bribe other conservation groups into dropping their opposition in exchange for mitigation agreements that would end cattle grazing on land above and along the pipeline route.
This mitigation compromise between El Paso, WWP and ONDA doesn't change any of the risks posed to sage grouse from pipeline construction now or any potential pipeline ruptures in the future (already happened 2x in TX, SLC, UT & Kalamazoo, Michigan in the last few months!)
Please do NOT try to fool me into belieiving the myth that these natural gas pipelines are safe!!
Personally i feel that Nevada ecosystems need the help of ELF or EF! activists to physically intervene in the pipeline construction as it occurs anywhere along the 680 mile stretch between Utah, Nevada and Oregon. The Toiyabe Sierra Club is pursuing litigation to appeal the FERC approval of Ruby Pipeline, though some old fashioned monkeywrenching usually does the job also!!
BTW - Guess who will be profiting from selling natural gas through the Ruby Pipeline, none other than BP themselves, the undisputed kings of corner cutting!!
LTE from Wells Progress;
" am writing out of concern about El Paso Corporation's proposed Ruby
Pipeline project. The current route chosen through far northern Utah and
Nevada is so destructive to sagebrush habitat that El Paso Corporation had
to seek out backroom deals with two conservation groups to buy their
support. Another option for the Ruby Pipeline route is along the already
existing industrial I-80 corridor, that would have avoided the problems
caused by forcing the pipeline through currently undisturbed sage grouse
leks, their only mating habitat.
However, the more environmentally sensible route along I-80 would have
cost El Paso corporation more money, so they chose the worst option from
the perspective of wildlife. In making this choice, El Paso then needed to
purchase verbal acceptance from two prominent conservation groups. The
payment for the verbal approval from these two groups required mitigation
to prevent any further grazing on lands above the pipeline route. However,
the lack of grazing does not change the fact that other environmental
groups such as Toiyabe Sierra Club remain certain that long term effects
and problems caused by the Ruby Pipeline would be far worse for the sage
grouse than the long term effects of grazing cattle ever have been or will
be. Maybe El Paso corporation is concerned of legal action from ranchers
in the event of a pipeline accident in the future, and having no cattle
present above Ruby Pipeline would better protect El Paso corporation from
litigation by angry ranchers who lost livestock from either explosions or
contaminated water?
The preferred route along I-80 would also have avoided the serious
backlash from ranchers holding grazing rights along the route following
the secret deals to remove land above the pipeline from grazing
indefinitely. It seems that the primary concern for El Paso corporation is
making profits from selling the natural gas through their pipeline to the
highest bidder, and following an eventual rupture and leakage, to pay off
any remaining ranchers or environmentalist groups with mitigation funds."
http://www.wellsprogress.com/
My personal opinion is for NO natural gas pipeline to cross though Nevada anywhere, though the "lesser evil" compromise appears to be routes along the I-80 industrial corridor. This is the position of the Toiyabe Sierra Club. However, El Paso corporation was unwilling to even compromise this much, prefering to spend money on attempts to bribe other conservation groups into dropping their opposition in exchange for mitigation agreements that would end cattle grazing on land above and along the pipeline route.
This mitigation compromise between El Paso, WWP and ONDA doesn't change any of the risks posed to sage grouse from pipeline construction now or any potential pipeline ruptures in the future (already happened 2x in TX, SLC, UT & Kalamazoo, Michigan in the last few months!)
Please do NOT try to fool me into belieiving the myth that these natural gas pipelines are safe!!
Personally i feel that Nevada ecosystems need the help of ELF or EF! activists to physically intervene in the pipeline construction as it occurs anywhere along the 680 mile stretch between Utah, Nevada and Oregon. The Toiyabe Sierra Club is pursuing litigation to appeal the FERC approval of Ruby Pipeline, though some old fashioned monkeywrenching usually does the job also!!
BTW - Guess who will be profiting from selling natural gas through the Ruby Pipeline, none other than BP themselves, the undisputed kings of corner cutting!!
LTE from Wells Progress;
" am writing out of concern about El Paso Corporation's proposed Ruby
Pipeline project. The current route chosen through far northern Utah and
Nevada is so destructive to sagebrush habitat that El Paso Corporation had
to seek out backroom deals with two conservation groups to buy their
support. Another option for the Ruby Pipeline route is along the already
existing industrial I-80 corridor, that would have avoided the problems
caused by forcing the pipeline through currently undisturbed sage grouse
leks, their only mating habitat.
However, the more environmentally sensible route along I-80 would have
cost El Paso corporation more money, so they chose the worst option from
the perspective of wildlife. In making this choice, El Paso then needed to
purchase verbal acceptance from two prominent conservation groups. The
payment for the verbal approval from these two groups required mitigation
to prevent any further grazing on lands above the pipeline route. However,
the lack of grazing does not change the fact that other environmental
groups such as Toiyabe Sierra Club remain certain that long term effects
and problems caused by the Ruby Pipeline would be far worse for the sage
grouse than the long term effects of grazing cattle ever have been or will
be. Maybe El Paso corporation is concerned of legal action from ranchers
in the event of a pipeline accident in the future, and having no cattle
present above Ruby Pipeline would better protect El Paso corporation from
litigation by angry ranchers who lost livestock from either explosions or
contaminated water?
The preferred route along I-80 would also have avoided the serious
backlash from ranchers holding grazing rights along the route following
the secret deals to remove land above the pipeline from grazing
indefinitely. It seems that the primary concern for El Paso corporation is
making profits from selling the natural gas through their pipeline to the
highest bidder, and following an eventual rupture and leakage, to pay off
any remaining ranchers or environmentalist groups with mitigation funds."
http://www.wellsprogress.com/
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network