Former Clinton Honcho Now Key TransCanada Lobbyist

Speaking of lobbyists, Hillary Clinton isn't to be trusted, either.

Via Great Plains Tar Sands Pipelines, I learn that Friends of the Earth is alarmed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn't one of them. Apparently, one Paul Elliott was national deputy director and chief of staff for delegate selection for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. Paul Elliott is now a chief lobbyist for TransCanada in Washington, D.C. TransCanada needs Secretary Clinton to approve construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

“TransCanada clearly sees an opportunity to get this dangerous pipeline approved through Secretary Clinton's relationship with Paul Elliott,” said Alex Moore, dirty fuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “Mr. Elliott’s influence in the State Department’s consideration of the pipeline is yet another reason we believe that the White House should reassign review of this project. The stakes for the public are too high to have anything but rigorous and fair scrutiny of the environmental risks of this controversial pipeline and tar sands oil” [Friends of the Earth, press release, 2010.12.13].

Friends of the Earth says Clinton should recuse herself from the Keystone XL decision-making process. Clinton has already caught heck from Nebraska's leaders for saying she's inclined to approve the pipeline. Is there any chance our current South Dakota Congressional delegation, or maybe our lobby-favorite Congresswoman-elect, will join in turning up the heat on Clinton for her Big-Oil-lobbyist connections?

TransCanada Digging Up Keystone Pipeline, Checking for "Anomalies"

That Sioux Falls paper reports that TransCanada is digging up six 120-foot stretches of the Keystone I pipeline here in South Dakota, three sites in Nebraska, and one in Missouri. TransCanada reports "anomalies" in the pipeline:

During a November inspection of the 1,087-mile pipeline, the company found some places where the pipe may have expanded. Exploratory digs are required whenever an inspection shows that a pipe may have expanded beyond allowable limits [Cody Winchester, "TransCanada Inspecting Portions of Keystone Pipeline in South Dakota," that Sioux Falls paper, 2010.12.09].

Expansion anomalies? Where have I heard that term before?

The documents provided show that PHMSA investigated a total of seven pipelines, four constructed by Boardwalk Partners, LP (Boardwalk), and three by Kinder Morgan, Inc. (Kinder Morgan). PHMSA confirmed that five of these pipelines contained significant amounts of defective pipe. Specifically, the documents show that the pipe stretched under pressure, creating “expansion anomalies” that indicate use of low-strength steel. To repair their pipelines, the affected companies removed and replaced hundreds of pipe joints.

A number of companies are implicated in producing defective pipe, but it appears that Welspun Corp. Ltd (Welspun), an Indian steel pipe manufacturer, produced most of it. For example, according to released documents, Welspun was responsible for 88% of pipe with expansion anomalies provided to Boardwalk ["Use of Substandard Steel by U.S. Pipeline Industry 2007 to 2009," Plains Justice, 2010.06.28].

Expansion anomalies. Defective pipe joints. Welspun. TransCanada. Remember this story? Plains Justice sounded the alarm about defective steel from Indian pipemaker Welspun back in June. Welspun supplied 47% of the steel for the Keystone I pipeline during the same period that it supplied defective steel other U.S. pipelines.

Correction! 2010.12.10 12:20 CST: The original documents Plains Justice analyzed to alert us to the Welspun defects did not indicate that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration had taken any action on the issue with respect to TransCanada. However, PHMSA has indeed ordered these tests and digs in response to the discovery of the Welspun defects in other pipelines. However, as Phillip O'Connor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch notes, TransCanada would be digging up a lot more pipe if the Obama Administration hadn't eased pipeline regulations in October 2009.

How did the South Dakota media respond to these concerns? Mostly with silence.

How did TransCanada respond?

TransCanada officials said they had not reviewed the Plains Justice report but offered assurances the pipeline was safe. They noted that TransCanada's contracts with mills outline specifications above industry standards, and the company reviews manufacturing processes and quality control tests conducted by the suppliers. In addition, the company performs its own quality assurance checks after manufacturing.

"Our pipeline has been fully tested, and it is safe," spokesman Terry Cunha said [Phillip O'Connor, "Group Fears Leaks in New Oil Pipeline," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2010.07.03].

...fully tested and it is safe. Then what the heck are the backhoes doing at ten sites digging it up?

Do I get to say, "I told you so" yet?

TransCanada, find the problem, fix it, and tell us exactly what you find and what you do to make sure you've solved the problem. PHMSA, impose a litle oversight here. Secretary Clinton, look inot this and think long and hard before you approve that Keystone XL permit.

And South Dakota media: pay the heck attention! If you'd have hopped on the Welspun-TransCanada-Keystone story back when I told you about it, if you had done your watchdog job and turned up the heat on Big Foreign Oil, maybe the nice fellas on the backhoe crews could have done their work on a nice sunny day in July instead of having to freeze their cans busting frozen sod in December.

-----------------------
Update 17:18 CST: TransCanada has found anomalies at 12 sites in South Dakota, 14 in Nebraska, 12 in Kansas, and 9 in Missouri. Someone get me a map! The evaluation of the tests from the ten dig sites may take several weeks, but TransCanada fearlessly continues to pump 250,000 barrels a day through the Keystone pipeline. TransCanada is also filling the pipeline's Cushing extension, which branches from Keystone I at Steele City, Neberaska, and runs to Cushing, Oklahoma.

The three sites being dug up in Nebraska are all in Cedar County, near the site of the fourth documented TransCanada Keystone pump station leak, which came to light Tuesday.

Nebraska Farmers Union Opposes Keystone XL

Governor Heineman Washes Hands of Dirty Oil,
Disses Constituents with Double Standard

Nebraska is a welcome hotbed of activity on the Keystone XL pipeline. The Nebraska Farmers Union packed the house last Friday with a debate on the proposed tar sands pipeline. TransCanada spokesman Jeff Rauh squared off with Plains Justice advocate Paul Blackburn. Robert Pore's account in the Grand Island Independent is worth reading. Plains Justice apparently won the day: afterward, the Nebraska Farmers Union passed a resolution formally opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.

Also speaking on Keystone XL (among other topics) at the Nebraska Farmers Union annual meeting was Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman. During a Q&A, a member of Keystone XL opponent Bold Nebraska asked Governor Heineman to join Senator Mike Johanns in calling for a better study of the pipeline's potential impact on the Nebraska Sand Hills and Ogallala Aquifer.

Governor Heineman's response:

But Heineman accused Bold Nebraska of playing politics with the pipeline issue. Heienman then referred to the Democratic administration in answering the question.

"This is a federal regulatory issue," Heineman said. "There are two people who can stop it -- President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- and that is where our focus ought to be."

Heineman said he appreciates Johanns' efforts and is supportive of it and has sent correspondence to Clinton expressing concerns Nebraskans have about the pipeline project and its proposed route through the Sandhills and across the Ogallala Aquifer.

"Maybe that route needs to change or maybe they don't even go forward with it," he said. "But that is where the decision is -- it is a federal regulatory issue and there's nothing we can do at the state level, at this time, to prevent that. Maybe in the future, but not on this particular one" [Robert Pore, "Merits of Proposed Oil Pipeline Debated at Farmers Union Convention," Grand Island Independent, 2010.12.03].

Fascinating: a Republican governor who doesn't think state-level activists should "play politics" with federal issues. This from a member of the Republican Party that is playing politics with unemployment benefits, the START treaty, and everything else on Congress's agenda in order to get huge tax breaks for rich people who don't need them and won't stimulate the economy. This from a governor who himself is playing politics with federal health care legislation and with the clearly federal issue of immigration.

Governor Heineman has acknowledged environmental concerns about TransCanada's Keystone XL. He now needs to get consistent and apply some of that Republican states-rights backbone to this issue and fight for a better route for the pipeline... or no pipeline at all.

TransCanada Keystone Leak #4: Hartington Pump Station Spews

Check that: it's apparently not the pipeline we have to worry about; it's those darn leaky pump stations.

Carrie La Seur of Plains Justice gets the scoop on the fourth documented leak along TransCanada's Keystone I tar sands pipeline. According to incident report #951480 filed by the U.S. Coast Guard's National Response Center, Keystone Pump Station 24 near Hartington, Nebraska, sprang a leak. The report says, "caller stated a check valve on a pressure transmitter located on the suction side of a line pump stuck open releasing 5-10 gallons of crude oil onto the ground.

The leaks must be working their way south. Check out TransCanada's Keystone system map:

Map of Documented Keystone I Pipeline Pump Station Leaks
May–August 2010 (click image to enlarge)

The previous three Keystone leaks happened at the Carpenter Pump Station in Beadle County in May, then the Roswell Pump Station in Miner County in June, then the Freeman Pump Station on August 10. Was the pipeline passing a stone or something?

Once again, let us review TransCanada's June 2006 pipeline risk assessment:

...the estimated occurrence intervals for a spill of 50 barrels or less occurring anywhere along the entire pipeline system is once every 65 years, a spill between 50 and 1,000 barrels might occur once in 12 years; a spill of 1,000 and 10,000 barrels might occur once in 39 years; and a spill containing more than 10,000 barrels might occur once in 50 years. Applying these statistics to a 1-mile section, the chances of a larger spill (greater than 10,000 barrels) would be less than once every 67,000 years [ENSR Corporation for TransCanada, "Pipeline Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequence Analysis," Document No. 10623-004, June 2006].

Given four incidents in three months, we are now in the clear on small leaks for 260 years. Thanks for getting those out of the way, TransCanada!

Enbridge Oil Spill: Safety Measures Only Work If You Pay Attention

I'm reading the latest Plains Justice report on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline and its threat to the land and water of the Northern Plains. The report includes this alarming timeline of the big Enbridge pipeline spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan this summer:

Sunday, July 25, 2010

• 5:58 PM: Pipeline pump automatically shuts down when Enbridge control center in Edmonton, Canada, receives low pressure alarm; the control center attributes the alarm to a “column separation,” meaning that they thought a vapor bubble formed in the pipeline.
• 9:25 PM: First 911 calls from residents near the rupture due to odor
  

Monday, July 26, 2010

• 4:04 AM: Enbridge restarts pipeline
• 4:12 AM: Volume balance alarm (less oil in pipeline downstream than upstream)
• 4:17 AM: Second volume balance alarm
• 4:22 AM: Third volume balance alarm
• 4:36-4:57 AM: Several more volume balance alarms
• 5:03 AM: Enbridge control center turns off Pipeline pumps
• 6:30-8:00 AM: Residents notice strong odor on way to work
• 7:00 AM: Local resident collects oil sample from Talmadge Creek
• 7:10 AM: Enbridge restarts pipeline pumps
• 7:12-7:42 AM: Five additional volume balance alarms
• 7:55 AM: Pipeline pumps shutdown and downstream valve closed
• 9:49 AM: Technician called to check a pump station about three-quarters of a mile from the rupture
• 11:18 AM: A gas utility calls Enbridge to report on oil in Talmadge Creek
• 11:20 AM: Enbridge begins closing valves upstream and downstream of the rupture
• 11:41 AM: Enbridge personnel confirm leak and begin to respond to the spill
• 1:29 PM: Enbridge reports spill to the federal government

The Enbridge bosses in Alberta (that's where the TransCanada offices are, too) got warnings from their system Sunday afternoon. Neighbors smelled oil from the leak. The Enbridge bosses then turned the pipeline back on—twice. Before they had verified the cause of their own alarms, they pumped oil through a broken pipe for another 104 minutes. They didn't close valves in the area of the break until over 17 hours after the initial alarms.

TransCanada assures us they have the plans and equipment in place to address a major spill on the pipeline. TransCanada says they can shut down the pipeline and isolate trouble spots within minutes. As TransCanada pumps 435,000 barrels a day under eastern South Dakota in Keystone I and schemes to build an even bigger Keystone XL to pump 900,000 barrels per day under western South Dakota, I hope they pay attention to their alarms and safety plans better than Enbridge did last July.

Learn more about the Enbridge spill and TransCanada's inadequate pipeline safety plans: read the Plains Justice report!

Nebraska Politicos Speaking up on TransCanada; SD Pols Asleep at Switch

Opposition is rising to the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska, and it's prettyhard to dismiss these folks as "extreme environmentalists." U.S. Senator Mike Johanns has demanded more information and a different route for the pipeline to protect the sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills and Ogallala Aquifer. Nebraska farmer and State Senator Annette Dubas is leading an interim legislative study of Keystone XL's potential impacts on the state (see the documentation on LR435 here). That committee plans to look into liability, restoration of property, and regulatory oversight.

Nebraska State Senator Tony Fulton apparently shares concerns that Keystone XL could be bad for his state. Even Governor Dave Heineman is worried about Keystone XL's environmental impacts, although he thinks (erroneously) that Nebraska may lack the authority to impose its own environmental regulations over federal rules. (Where there's a will, there's a way, Gov. Heineman!)

This growing opposition comes on the heels of a new report from Plains Justice that finds TransCanada isn't putting enough resources into pipeline emergency response here on the Plains. According to Plains Justice, in all of Nebraska and the Dakotas, TransCanada has in place "one spill response trailer and one boom trailer that together contain 5,000 feet of boom, two skimmers, two portable tanks, and a variety of hand tools and equipment. It has also provided a 14 ft. and 18 ft. boat." Compare that to the Enbridge spill near Kalamazoo, Michigan, last summer. In response to a rupture in a 30-inch oil pipeline, same size as Keystone I and smaller than the 36-inch Keystone XL, Enbridge deployed "over 2,000 personnel, over 150,000 feet (28 miles) of boom, 175 heavy spill response trucks, 43 boats, and 48 oil skimmers." Given those numbers, TransCanada looks woefully underprepared to respond to a pipeline spill here on our prairie.

Nebraska lawmakers are at least willing to ask Big Foreign Oil some hard questions. It's too bad South Dakota lawmakers won't show similar moxie:

• Governor-Elect Dennis Daugaard has defended big tax rebates for the construction of TransCanada's pipelines, rebates that neither Nebraska nor North Dakota offer.
• State Senator and Majority Leader Russell Olson thinks those rebates and those pipelines are wonderful. He has consistently resisted efforts to impose pipeline taxes to establish environmental clean-up funds. Maybe Rep.-Elect Patricia Stricherz can straighten him out.
  
• Neither Senator John Thune (of course not) nor Senator Tim Johnson (Tim! You're our only hope!) signed on to a letter from eleven fellow senators criticizing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her apparent pro-pipeline bias.
• I can't find any public comment on Keystone XL from Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin or Rep. Elect Kristi Noem.

Is South Dakota so desperate for economic development that we can't ask a foreign oil corporation to take sufficient precautions to prepare for the inevitable accidents on its pipeline? Nebraska evidently doesn't suffer this spinelessness; South Dakota should find its voice and join the calls to put our environmental and economic well-being above TransCanada's drive for maximum profit.

Tar Sands Bad for South Dakota: Three Neighbors' Stories

Hat tip to Great Plains Tar Sands Pipelines!

The Sierra Club documents how the push for toxic Canadian tar sands oil threatens the health and welfare of South Dakotans. The environmental organization profiles three South Dakotans who have fought Big Oil: Kent Moeckley of Britton and Carolyn Harkness and Ed Cable of Union County.

Moeckly was a notable opponent of TransCanada's Keystone I pipeline, which is now buried under his farmland in Marshall County. When TransCanada announced the pipeline route, Moeckly and his neighbors asked TransCanada to consider alternative routes. He says an oil leak in his neighborhood's sandy, permeable soil could threaten the aquifer that feeds the local rural water system, an objection much like that curently raised by Nebraskans worried that Keystone XL could damage the Sand Hills and the massive Ogallala aquifer. TransCanada paid no attention:

Moeckly says pipeline consultants didn't even survey his land before they reported it as "low consequence" status, which allowed TransCanada to build the Keystone I through the aquifer in 2009, using thinner pipe and higher pressure than any other pipeline before it. When farmers in the area requested thicker pipe to reduce the risk of water contamination, their concerns went unheeded.

"TransCanada absolutely ignored us. They plowed on through," Moeckly says ["Toxic Tar Sands: South Dakota," Sierra Club, Nov. 2010].

TransCanada finished the pipeline last year. They left debris and dirt piles on Moeckly's land that have trapped water and left 15 acres unusable. (Where are the conservative property rights hawks speaking up for Moeckly's rights under the takings clause?)

Harkness and Cable are trying to save Union County from even worse disruption at the hands of the still-pending Hyperion refinery. This tar sands refinery would tear up thousands of acres of prime farm land and threaten the aquifer, air quality, and even the simple view of the stars at night.

Carolyn Harkness would find her farm home 300 feet from the refinery. She doesn't want to give up land that is everything to her family, her home, business, and retirement. She also sees a higher obligation to keep the refinery from tearing up Union County:

"This land belongs to God and it is our responsibility to save it for future generations. It has treated us well," she says. "We need to return the favor" [Sierra Club, Nov 2010]

Ed Cable lives three miles from the proposed refinery site and share's his neighbors' concerns about pollution that owuld ruin one of the cleanest places in the country. Cable has led the legal fight to block construction of the refinery. His group, Save Union County, has played a key role in pushing South Dakota's regulators to do something like due diligence in, if not stopping the refinery, at least making sure the Texas dreamers behind it get their enviromental ducks in a row.

Oops—did I say ducks in a tar sands story?

Moeckly, Harkness, and Cable understand that increasing our dependence on dirty foreign oil is not good for our way of life. As we see from the Keystone I pipeline, the tar sands are already damaging our fair state. We should say no to any more development of this unsustainable resource.

TransCanada Notes: Nebraska Regulations, SD Pipe Yard... and Oily Wind?

At least some Nebraska counties are taking action to keep TransCanada in line if it builds the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline through their territory. In York County (down where US 81 meets I-80), corn producers are asking the county commission to regulate the construction timeframe, pipeline depth, and pipeline reclamation to protect local agriculture. Holt County in north central Nebraska has already passed some significant pipeline regulations in anticipation of Keystone XL.

Meanwhile, TransCanada keeps trying to force landowners into silence about the project, something one Ernie Fellows of Keya Paha County doesn't much care for:

Fellows, a Keya Paha county landowner who lives near Mills, said he believes the company’s tactics and closed meetings with Landowners for Fairness (LFF) violate his rights.

“I belong to LFF. I have the right to say no. I have the right to speak. Having to sign a nondisclosure statement violates my civil rights,” he said [LuAnn Schindler, "Proposed Pipeline Has Some Property Owners Asking Questions," Norfolk Daily News, 2010.10.26].

Meanwhile, TransCanada is still getting its Keystone XL ducks in a row here in South Dakota. TransCanada rep Michael Calhoun checked with Butte County commissioners last week to make sure his company had the right permits for a pipe yard that mostly out-of-state workers will use as a staging ground for construction of the pipeline. Butte County has no zoning regulations, so TransCanada is good to go...

...assuming, of course, that the State Department approves TransCanada's permit request. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made some pro-Keystone XL noise last month, which earned her guff from both of Nebraska's U.S. Senators and some other folks... but no word that I've heard from South Dakota's Congressional delegation.

On the bright side, even as TransCanada threatens to profit from prolonging our addiction to dirty foreign oil, the Canadian company is also boosting wind power here in the States. At the beginning of the month, TransCanada finished construction on the 132-megawatt Kibby Wind project in Eustis, Maine. When those windmills are at full tilt, they'll provide enough juice for 50,000 homes.

Dang it: even those land-grabbing Canadian fossil-fuel peddlers can do something right every now and then.

TransCanada Inflates Keystone XL Job Predictions

Hat tip to Great Plains Tar Sands Pipelines!

In September, I reacted with skepticism to very optimistic economic impact study TransCanada paid for to make its proposed Keystone XL pipeline look good. Now so has the National Wildlife Federation, which says TransCanada is exaggerating Keystone XL's job-creation potential by an order of magnitude in order to exploit American economic anxiety. They find private consultant Perryman Group inflating job numbers nearly 13 times over State Department estimates:

Comparison of State Department and Perryman Group Jobs Estimates for Keystone XL Pipeline, from National Wildlife Foundation, "TransCanada Exaggerating Jobs Claims for Keystone XL," November 2010 [click image to enlarge].

NWF also emphasizes the facts that TransCanada does not: that as few as one in ten jobs on the pipeline will go to local folks (just as we saw with the original Keystone pipeline), and that most of the jobs are temporary.

Of course, TransCanada isn't lying to us. They're just offering "forward-looking statements," which they can trumpet in their propaganda yet happily disown with the same fine-print disclaimers they use to avoid legal liability for anyone who loses money taking TransCanada at its word and investing accordingly. Even TransCanada will tell you that if you believe TransCanada (and its local quislings) and then don't get the benefits you were promised, you only have yourself to blame.

Tar Sands Oil Kills Ducks; TransCanada Spoils Roads

If you still aren't mad at TransCanada for slurping up $10.5 million in tax refunds that South Dakota could have used to fund education and roads (see Rep. Mitch Fargen's duly indignant comments at the Madison Chamber forum last week), how about getting mad at them for poaching ducks?

Well, I suppose it's not poaching, and it's not TransCanada directly, but they are part of tar sands industry that is killing ducks without a hunting license, ducks that you and your law-abiding, South Dakota license-holding pals could joyfully and legally blast from the sky. Reports Plains Justice:

Just a week after paying a CAN$3 million fine for the deaths of 1600 ducks that landed on its tailing ponds in 2008, Canada tar sands extractor Syncrude had to euthanize 230 ducks that landed on its tar sands tailing ponds this week (there was good coverage of the story out of Calgary). To look at their website, you’d think Syncrude was an environmental organization, but they’ve been unable to resolve the lethal combination of highly toxic tailings ponds and a huge migratory waterfowl corridor. In spite of reassurances from industry and the Canadian government that the 2008 event was a mistake that would never happen again, here we are [Carrie La Seur, "230 More Ducks Dead in Tar Sands Tailing Ponds," Plains Justice Today, 2010.10.28].

TransCanada is more directly responsible for some road wreckage here on the Great Plains. Just as has been the case in South Dakota, Kansas officials and residents are struggling with road damage caused by construction last year of TransCanada's Keystone pipeline.

So thanks to our addiction to foreign oil, you'll have fewer ducks to shoot and you'll burn more gas trying to get to those ducks as you detour around wrecked roads on TransCanada's pipeline route.

Center for Rural Affairs: Keystone XL Wrong Solution for U.S. Energy, Prairie Economy

Hat tip to Great Plains Tar Sands Pipelines!

Remember that corporate claptrap our state senator Russell Olson (R-8/Madison) was spewing about why he voted to give TransCanada millions of dollars in tax refunds for the Keystone I pipeline so South Dakota could enjoy all sorts of economic and energy security benefits, even though North Dakota and Nebraska got the same benefits without giving away any such refunds?

Well, the Center for Rural Affairs weighs in on the pending Keystone XL pipeline to say those benefits don't outweigh the risks to our environment and our economic future. Last week, the Center for Rural Affairs declared its opposition to Keystone XL:

"America must focus on better approaches to securing the energy it needs by developing renewable energy, especially renewable approaches to fueling cars," said John Crabtree, Media Director at the Center for Rural Affairs. "We support developing clean energy resources that we have right here in Nebraska, like wind energy, not increasing our reliance on dirty, foreign energy that we have to pipe in from afar."

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that securing oil from tar sands and delivering it to U.S. refineries results in nearly double the greenhouse gas emissions as other oil delivered to U.S. refineries.

According to Crabtree, in the long-run, hybrid electric cars powered by renewable sources such as wind and low carbon biofuels will create more jobs and far greater economic opportunity in rural America while confronting the very real threat of climate change [Center for Rural Affairs, press release, 2010.10.12].

Crabtree cites TransCanada's willingness to cut corners with thinner steel and its strong-arm tactics against Nebraska landowners as further reason that Big Oil boosters like Senator Olson are putting the interests of foreign oil corporations ahead of the interests of rural America.

Olson and Bjorklund Quislings for TransCanada

Fargen, Lange, Schmidtke, Stricherz Recognize Oil Tax Breaks Wrong

KJAM asked our District 8 House and Senate candidates what they think of the millions of dollars South Dakota gave away to TransCanada this year as an incentive for building the Keystone pipeline (second question on each interview, minute or two in). The answers are instructive about who's looking out for South Dakota and who's making excuses for Big Oil.

Republican Senator Russell Olson offers no surprises with his passionate advocacy for Big Oil, saying the tax refund was "absolutely" good. He hews closely to the company line (TransCanada's and his boss's at Heartland Consumer Power District), telling us the Keystone I pipeline was an $800-million stimulus for South Dakota.* TransCanada is now the biggest property tax payer in the state, says Olson, pumping more money into school and county budgets than any other industry could. Every barrel of oil from TransCanada, says Olson, is one less barrel from petrodictators like Hugo Chavez. And TransCanada got $30 million less in refunds from Pierre than they originally projected. Olson says TransCanada has brought our state a "phenomenal amount of money," and the "economic benefit certainly outweighs the one-time $10 million rift that everybody is so worked up about."

That's a strong answer. Too bad it misses the point. Olson's Independent Democratic challenger Clark Schmidtke points out that we didn't need to hand out that $10 million in the first place. Both Schmidtke and incumbent Democratic House candidate Rep. Mitch Fargen note that neither North Dakota nor Nebraska offered such cushy tax breaks to TransCanada. If Russ's analysis of local benefits from the pipelines is correct (and I question even that), North Dakota and Nebraska got similar benefits for free. We could have gotten the same benefits and still kept that $10 million for education or health care or other local priorities, just as North Dakota and Nebraska did. Oops.

Schmidtke does answer the broader question about state incentives in general for economic development by saying he can support applying and even expanding these tax refunds to ethanol companies, since ethanol does more direct good for South Dakota farmers and workers. Fargen adds that the refund program TransCanada exploited was developed to support South Dakota's ethanol, soy diesel, and wind energy companies. He and Schmidtke agree that TransCanada's refund was a giveaway that produced few jobs for South Dakotans.

Posed the same question, incumbent Democratic candidate for House Rep. Gerry Lange doesn't hesitate to brand the TransCanada giveaway a bad idea. Lange recognizes the value of this tax incentive for the local energy projects for which it was originally intended, like the soy diesel plant. But that contractors' excise tax that we refunded to TransCanada is the same tax that hits school districts and counties when they build public improvements. Why, asks Lange, hit South Dakota taxpayers with that expense for building schools and roads and bridges, then turn around and give back millions to a foreign company for building a pipeline (which I will note gets no public use)?

Republican House candidate Patricia Stricherz (who, yes, is currently a paying advertiser here on the Madville Times) is just as forceful and unhesitant as Lange in saying the TransCanada tax refunds were "Absolutely not" a good idea. She notes that TransCanada has already had leaks in South Dakota and says companies that want to come here should have to prove themselves worthy.

So where does that leave Independent/9-12 candidate for House Jason Bjorklund? Let's read the transcript of his response to the question:

Admittedly I'm not entirely up on TransCanada. I haven't been in the Legislature obvioulsy, so I'm not privy to all the information they've had, but as far I understand this is a done deal and at this point there's nothing we can do about it. Do I think this is best way to bring buinsesses and jobs to South Dakota? No, not necessarily. We need to look at ways to encourage businesses to come here without spending the... limited resources that we have. Now this TransCanada thing it appears to be a done deal, they've got the money, there's nothing we can do at this point but sit back and look at the numbers how many jobs did it create in the state, was this a good move for us to do, and keep that in mind as we make future decisions [Jason Bjorklund, interview with Lauri Struve, KJAM Radio, 2010.10.13].

Here Bjorklund has a golden opporunity to put his 9-12 Project principles into action. He could rail against wasteful government spending and crony capitalism. He could show that he can translate the slogans he gets from national talk radio into real solutions that put South Dakotans first. Instead, he hems and haws and provides more cover for the Republican regime in Pierre than the declared Republican on the House ballot offers. Not necessarily... it's over and done... there's nothing we can do about it....

Bull-roar. A legislator not beholden to the GOP or Big Oil could do lots about it. He could declare it bad policy and a waste of money, as Schmidtke and Fargen do. He could point to other priorities where the money would be better spent, as Lange does. He could highlight the dangers posed by the pipeline, as Stricherz does. He could look ahead and vow to repeal the refund for the Keystone XL pipeline and recoup the money with a pennies-per-barrel pipeline tax (a good idea that Senator Russ Olson killed this year).

Schmidtke, Fargen, Lange, and even Stricherz are making clear that, on this issue, they recognize that we should put South Dakotans ahead of foreign oil corporations. Olson is proving once again that he's in the pocket of Big Oil. Bjorklund is hinting that he's more interested in covering for the mistakes and corporate giveaways of the Republican machine in Pierre than in challenging the powers that be and sticking up for average South Dakotans.

Olson-Bjorklund: The TransCanada Ticket

*So if Kristi Noem can look at South Dakota's current economic situation and say the federal stimulus failed, can we say Olson's imputed "TransCanada stimulus" also failed?

Senator Johanns: Move Keystone XL Away from Ogallala Aquifer and Sand Hills

Hat tip to Great Plains Tar Sands Pipelines!

Here's what I've been waiting for: A Republican to stand up to TransCanada and try to protect his constituents from the Keystone XL pipeline. Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week to declare that he cannot support the Keystone XL pipeline based on the information thus far presented by TransCanada and the State Department in its inadequate draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

Routes of TransCanada Keystone pipeline system, with initial/projected maximum oil capacities. Image from Great Plains Tar Sands Pipelines.

Senator Johanns shares the concern of many Nebraskans and other folks who drink water that Keystone XL poses an unacceptable risk to the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies (Johanns quotes from the DEIS) "78% of the public water supply and 83% of irrigation water in Nebraska." Johanns also objects to the absence of substantial discussion of the unique Sandhills ecosystem, whose sandy soils might allow oil spills to penetrate the soil faster than they would elsewhere.

Senator Johanns hammers on the point that the DEIS assumes Keystone XL must cross the border at Morgan, Montana. He acknowledges that the nearly straight line from Morgan to Steele City, Nebraska, crosses the least land and thus poses what on paper looks like less environmental impact than routes that detour here and there from that straight line.

So the Senator from Nebraska proposes a whole 'nother route:

Understanding the primary role that distance plays in the consideration of pipeline alternative routes, I was disturbed by the fact that the DEIS contains no substantial discussion of a route that would run parallel to the existing Keystone route from Steele City, Nebraska, north to the U.S. border in Cavalier County, North Dakota. This route would be far shorter than the proposed route, and shorter than every alternative considered in the DEIS. And if—as the DEIS has argued—shorter distance generally coincides with a less severe environmental impact, then one could conclude that such a route would be better for the environment [Senator Mike Johanns, letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2010.10.14].

Uff da. Check that map: The purple dashed line is the hypotenuse Johanns doesn't like. The red line is the Keystone I route that runs through eastern South Dakota.

Now there's a tricky question: do we cause less environmental damage by digging a new, shorter route or by laying Keystone XL along the longer existing route? Do we double the leak risk for eastern South Dakota, or do we split the risk with our West River neighbors? Do we subject a whole new crop of landowners to TransCanada's intrusions, or do we subject landowners on the Keystone I route to another year of the same distress they went through in 2009?

You know, we could avoid difficult questions like this altogether by simply denying TransCanada the permit for its harmful, unnecessary, and potentially defective pipeline. Senator Johanns isn't quite to that point: he says "it is in our national interest to obtain oil from allies" and that "appropriate use and construction of oil pipelines can directly meet this national interest." But if the State Department doesn't consider the Keystone I parallel route for Keystone XL, the Nebraska Republican may be ready to join the chorus saying a flat No to Keystone XL.
---------------------------
Update 19:14 CDT: The State Department has given no indication of when it might approve the Keystone XL permit [James MacPherson and Josh Funk, "Canada-US pipeline on hold amid oil's recent woes," AP via Rapid City Journal, 2010.10.17].

Heidepriem Cites Keystone Leaks; Daugaard Digs Dollars Über Alles

Jon Walker wrote up our gubernatorial candidates' views on energy in that Sioux Falls paper Monday. Among other important issues, Walker asked the candidates whether they support TransCanada's Keystone pipelines.

Democrat Scott Heidepriem, who represented South Dakota landowners in their fight against TransCanada's eminent domain effort, hits all the right notes—not just green notes, but red-blooded South Dakotan notes:

Heidepriem: I can't argue it's a good thing particularly from the three leaks. Land was disrupted. It took a lot of fertile farm ground with almost no jobs created. They used a heavy hand to do that with eminent domain. That's not being a good corporate citizen. There should be no incentive on contractor excise and sales tax. Why does South Dakota feel the need to hemorrhage citizen tax dollars? [quoted by Jon Walker, "On Energy, Candidates for Governor Vow to Be Strong Voice," sidebar, that Sioux Falls paper, 2010.10.04]

Hey, Scott! Where'd you first read about those three leaks? Oh yeah....

Republican Dennis Daugaard apparently isn't worried about oil leaks, continued addiction to dirty fuel, weak job production, tax refunds for foreign oil corporations, or violations of South Dakotans' property rights. He thinks those property tax dollars make everything hunky-dory:

Daugaard: It's good. It allows us to reduce our dependency on oil from unfriendly nations. Most landowners I've spoken with are happy to have the pipe under their property. ... They still pay us $25 million a year in property taxes [quoted by Walker, 2010].

Pay close attention, fellow voters: the Republican here is saying something is great because it pumps more money into the government coffers, while the Democrat is speaking up for individual property rights instead of tax breaks for foreigners.

Does anyone else smell irony there?

More Landowners Organize to Stop TransCanada, Eminent Domain, and Tar Sands

Our friends at Plains Justice put up some useful information on the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline:

1. First, Plains Justice lists the chemical cocktail TransCanada wants to run under our farmland and across our aquifers. And TransCanada has the gall to say the risk is theirs, not the landowners'.
2. Plains Justice also links to a new online documentary from the Center for Energy Matters. The video shows Oklahomans and Texans who are disgusted by tar sands, eminent domain, shady business, and TransCanada's threat to clean water.
3. If you're on the Keystone XL route and TransCanada's land agents are trying to push you around, Plains Justice points to a website that may help. TransCanadaAbuse.com has set up a hotline to take reports on TransCanada's heavy-handed land-grab tactics and other abuses of landowner rights. Don't let TransCanada give you the shaft: call TransCanadaAbuse.com at 1-866-363-4648 and stand up to foreign oil!

Here's the Clean Energy Matters video:

TransCanada Brings Economic Benefits...

...for Consultants Who Say TransCanada Brings Economic Benefits

Yesterday I offered some counterpoint to the pro-pipeline corpspeak parroted by HeartlandCPD GM Mike McDowell. Mr. McDowell does offer a bagful of impressive numbers, including $470 million dollars in business activity and $685.6 million in property tax, all from the Keystone XL pipeline. McDowell says these figures (at least the former; I'm assuming the latter) come from an "independent study."

Hmm... I go looking around for $685.6 million... there it is! The figures cited appear to originate from this June 2010 economic impact analysis by the Perryman Group of Waco, Texas... an analysis paid for by TransCanada.

Now Mr. Perryman's math may still be correct, regardless of who paid him to do that math. But consider: Scott Heidepriem hires Steve Jarding for political consulting and analysis. Steve Jarding is smart, but if I wrote a blog post on Heidepriem and cited Jarding as an independent analyst, I'd be laughed off the porch.

By the way, Perryman's figures on business activity, tax revenues, and other goodies to come from Keystone XL are calculated over the lifetime of the pipeline, which is about 100 years. Citing the entire lifetime dollar figure makes the argument sound better—sort of the flip-side of how opponents of the new health care reform law like to shout about the trillion-dollar price tag, although that's over ten years, meaning we will spend much less to implement that law each year than we do to kill people and break things with our military budget. So to keep the direct, indirect, and dreamingly tangential economic impact of Keystone XL in a practical, annual perspective, be sure to divide TransCanada's rosy numbers by 100.

TransCanada Pipeline a Big Bad Deal for South Dakota

...and for America, Canada, Ducks, First Nations....

Mike McDowell, general manager of Heartland Consumer Power District and my state senator's boss, parrots the corporate line that the TransCanada Keystone pipelines are "good for South Dakota and good for America." McDowell waves dollars and the Hugo Chavez boogeyman in our faces while failing to acknowledge that...

1. South Dakotans don't get many jobs from TransCanada;
2. Any jobs we get will be offset by jobs Canadians lose: refining jobs move south of the border, and the Canadian oil boom inflates the loonie, hurts Canadian exports, and kills Canadian manufacturing jobs (400,000 lost over the last decade);
   
3. China is buying most of TransCanada's tar sands oil;
   
4. TransCanada acts just as dictatorially and socialistically as Chavez in running roughshod over American landowners with eminent domain;
5. Decent American businesses like Walgreens are boycotting the tar sands oil TransCanada wants to sell us;
6. TransCanada still wants to build Keystone XL with thinner pipe with steel from Welspun, a company that supplied lots of defective steel to other pipelines;
   
7. Refiners say the tar sands pipeline system is unnecessary;
8. We could fully replace the capacity of both Keystone pipelines by fully recycling our motor oil (something I learned from McDowell himself);
   
9. Tar sands oil production and transportation threatens our prairie aquifers through industrial consumption and pollution (see also the Enbridge spill in Michigan);
10. Tar sands oil kills ducks (many more than industry data suggest).. and maybe First Nations people.

Ah, yes, our First Nations neighbors, the nice people who have to live with and get cancer from the immediate effects of tar sands oil production. I reported last April that TransCanada is party to genocide against some native peoples in Canada. Last week, some representatives of Canada's and America's First Nations traveled to Washington to press the case that the Keystone XL pipeline will only do more damage to the tribes' way of of life. They complained that while the Alberta government wines and dines American senators who live nowhere near the pipeline routes, First Nations concerns are ignored.

As McDowell says, the TransCanada pipeline is a big deal... a big bad deal for South Dakotans, for Americans, for Canadians, and for the First Nations people who have to live with the environmental destruction wrought by the tar sands oil a few corporate mouthpieces pretend is so wonderful.
-------------------------------
Bonus economic query: McDowell contends that the electricity demands of the Keystone pipelines and pumping stations will strengthen our rural electric cooperatives. But co-ops have to build more infrastructure and generation capacity to handle TransCanada's power demands. Ratepayers and taxpayers are subsidizing some of that construction. Once all that new capacity is installed, TransCanada's electric bills should pay back the investment but if the volatile oil market dips, local ratepayers may end up paying for it. And if TransCanada uses all that power, doesn't that mean the rural electric co-ops will be pushed to peak demand more often, have to use more expensive peak generation, and thus send us all higher electric bills?
-------------------------------
But don't worry. As Great Plains Tar Sands Pipelines notes, TransCanada will respond quickly to any spill... if it's not stormy out. And we have keen government oversight from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration... which is run by a former oil company lawyer.

Keystone Pipeline Brings Few Jobs for South Dakotans

Plains Justice puts out important information about TransCanada's empty promises of economic gains from the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The foreign oil company likes to tell us South Dakotans and others along the Keystone XL route that the pipeline will bring lots of well-paying construction jobs. Sure will... and TransCanada will bring lots of workers from other states to take those jobs and most of that money right back out of South Dakota.

Says who? TransCanada itself. In response to a Plains Justice inquiry, TransCanada provided this data on whom it hired to work on the Keystone I pipeline in eastern South Dakota through July 2009. Out of 2580 workers laying pipe in South Dakota, only 282—just under 11%—were permanent South Dakota residents. TransCanada breaks down the jobs in the following table:

Position	SD Residents	Non-SD Residents	Total Jobs
Supervision (Superintendents, foremen, office manager, clerical, etc.)	20	281	301
Welders, Welder Helpers, Pipe Fitters, etc.	3	395	398
Truck Drivers	32	241	273
Equipment Operators	27	542	569
Laborers	110	691	801
Construction Management, Surveyors, Inspectors, etc.	90	148	238
Total	282	2298	2580

The biggest categories for South Dakotans was the least skilled, general laborers, and even in that category, TransCanada only bothered to fill 13% of its need with our people. The only category in which we came out with a majority of the jobs were in management, surveying, and inspection. We missed out on most of the big money to be had in skilled work like equipment operation and welding (only three welders in all of South Dakota got work from TransCanada? Come on, TransCanada, share the wealth!).

Now let's check: Keystone I crosses 10 South Dakota counties: Marshall, Day, Clark, Beadle, Kingsbury, Miner, Hanson, McCook, Hutchinson, and Yankton. South Dakota Department of Labor numbers tell me that in July 2009, those ten counties had 1870 unemployed people. I'm thinking at least 800 of them would have been fit to operate a shovel. Out of the remaining 1000... well, take any 1000 South Dakotans at random, and I'll bet you can find more than 32 who can drive a truck, and more than 27 who can drive a skidsteer.

When I visited the Keystone I construction site in Miner County last year, I found Michels Pipeline Construction of Brownsville, Wisconsin, in charge. I have no reason to suspect these pipeliners weren't decent men doing good work to earn a living. But having a few more South Dakotans working on a big oil pipeline running through our state would do more than circulate more money in our economy. It would bring a little more comfort knowing that more of the workers building this environmentally hazardous project will be sticking around to live with the consequences of their handiwork.

Now building a pipeline does create temporary jobs. 282 jobs is certainly better than none. But the jobs data on Keystone I makes clear that TransCanada does not transmit the bulk of the benefits of pipeline construction to the South Dakota labor force.

Breaking Good News: Lower Niobrara Natural Resource District Opposes Keystone XL

Friends south of the border let me know that the Lower Niobrara Natural Resource District has passed a resolution opposing the construction of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline through their district in northern Nebraska. The resolution received unanimous approval at last night's meeting. No one spoke up with any plus side to running a tar sands pipeline right over the Ogallala Aquifer. Residents don't even see the pipeline adding any tax revenue to their coffers: they expect that if the pipeline is built, state officials will reduce aid to counties by exactly the amount counties see their local revenues increased by the pipeline.

According to my correspondent, the Lower Niobrara Natural Resource District has already helped some landowners get some changes in the pipeline route. If the District can put up serious resistance to the project as a whole, we may see some significant route changes. Of course, the better outcome would be for other landowners and citizens to recognize that they can align with groups like LNNRD to tell TransCanada we don't need their dirty foreign oil sustaining our fossil fuel addiction and spoiling our water and land. Keep up the fight, Nebraska! We're with you!

Obama Admin Easing Pipeline Regs

Yo, Barack, where's the green love?

Unlike the South Dakota press, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch continues to give well-researched coverage to mounting concerns over the integrity of the Keystone pipeline. Reporter Phillip O'Connor finds that the Obama Administration is going softer on pipeline companies than the Bush Administration did:

Pipeline safety officials first learned of problems with defective steel while conducting tests on several projects built during a pipeline construction boom from 2007 to 2009. An investigation revealed that several lines contained significant amounts of defective pipe that stretched under pressure. The problems were traced to defective steel produced by several mills, but mostly by Welspun Power and Steel, a manufacturer based in India.

Almost half of the steel in the 30-inch Keystone pipeline came from Welspun and was manufactured about the same time the company provided defective steel on several other pipeline projects.

In some cases, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration took remedial action.

In April 2009, for example, the agency ordered the Houston company, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, to replace more than 300 sections of newly built 42-inch gas pipeline, about half of which had expanded by as little as 0.6 percent.

But then in October 2009, the pipeline agency issued new guidelines. From that point on, only pipe that expanded by at least 1.5 percent would need to be replaced. Companies were told they needed to notify the agency only of expansions of 1 percent or more [Phillip O'Connor, "Concern Mounts over Oil Pipeline Safety," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2010.09.01].

October 2009. Nope, can't blame Bush for that one. Plains Justice rightly alerted all of us to the huge amount of Welspun steel in the Keystone pipeline. The Welspun steel now carrying 435,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day across eastern South Dakota clunked out of Indian foundries about the same time as the batches in which inspectors found hundreds of defects. The rules of the previous administration forced pipeliners to dig that bad steel up. Then President Obama's people changed the rules and said the same potential danger in a pipeline across South Dakota wasn't worth digging up.

TransCanada thanks you, I'm sure, Mr. President, but we're the ones whose votes you need... and who live atop hundreds of miles of potentially leaky Indian steel (not to mention pump stations blowing gaskets almost every month). Let's bring back the Bush-era rules and check out that pipeline!