|
|
Farmers
|
Contact Fax: 402-476-8859 Cell:
402-580-8815 |
October 8, 2011
Attn: Kerri-Ann Jones
Dear Mrs. Jones,
Nebraska Farmers Union is a
general farm organization whose mission since 1913 has been to protect and
enhance the economic well being of family farmers, ranchers, and their rural
communities. We have more than 5,300
farm and ranch family members in our organization. Of that number, more than 50
of our members that own farm or ranch land are in the direct path of the
proposed pipeline. Some of our members
have signed easements with TransCanada, some have not.
Conflict of Interest Issues
Given the troubling conflict
of interest questions that are now receiving national attention as the result
of the State Department’s ill considered decision to hire Cardno Entrix for the
EIS and public hearings despite their long standing consulting relationship
with TransCanada, I offer you the comments of Nebraska Farmers Union on the
proposed TransCanada XL Pipeline directly.
As a former public official
who hired consultants on a regular basis, I am at a loss to understand or
defend the State Department’s process used to hire Cardno Entrix. It was an inexcusable mistake in ethical and
procedural judgment for the State Department to allow TransCanada, the company
to be studied, to solicit and screen bids for the environmental contractor to
study itself. The State Department should never hire a consultant who has a
financial interest in the outcome of the project to be studied relative to its
own future consulting interests. In this
case, that includes both TransCanada and the State Department.
For public perception
purposes, there is no substantive difference between conflict of interest and
the appearance of conflict of interest. The
State Department has put into question its impartiality and the validity of its
entire EIS process, and public input gathering process. The long standing consulting relationship
between Cardno Entrix’s and TransCanada has tainted the entire process. Neither TransCanada or
State Department press releases can now un-ring the bell that has been so
loudly rung.
The October 7, 2011 New York
Times news article: “Pipeline Review is
Faced With Question of Conflict” should make it clear to the State Department there
is now a major public concern about the conflict of interest concerns about hiring
and using Cardno Entrix. If the State
Department ignores the conflict of interest concerns now is
public view, it does so at the risk of further eroding the public confidence in
the State Department.
Nebraska Farmers Union
believes it is not in the national interest to further erode the public credibility
of the U.S. State Department, and consequently urges the State Department to
deny the TransCanada proposed pipeline permit.
At a bare minimum, the State Department must re-start the process with a
new consultant that is viewed as independent, competent and neutral.
Past Behavior Is The Best
Guide To Future Conduct
Regardless of whether our
landowners have signed easements or not, they complain bitterly about the high
pressure and less than ethical tactics the company has employed to acquire the
easements. From the start of this project,
Nebraska Farmers Union has fielded numerous landowner calls on the pipeline route. Our
landowners complain that the company has misrepresented the content and
provisions of the easements themselves, misrepresented who has already signed
the easements, misrepresented their current legal standing and ability at the
point of negotiation to use eminent domain to acquire the easements, and
misrepresented the particulars and outcomes of the eminent domain process.
In addition to the persistent
pattern of deception and misrepresentations, they use heavy handed high
pressure arm twisting tactics. This
process is instructive because it goes to the credibility of TransCanada and
its commitments to landowners and honoring their easements.
Our organizational view based
on the views of our landowners is that if TransCanada is willing to take
ethical shortcuts to get landowners to sign easements, why should landowners
expect TransCanada to act in good faith and honor their easements when pipeline
based problems develop? TransCanada has a negative perception with
landowners as the direct result of how the company has chosen to do
business. TransCanada is getting burned
in self boiled water.
If the State Department
approves this project, they also approve the business practices of
TransCanada.
This project is not a short
term project. The lifespan of the
pipeline project may well exceed a lifetime.
The relationship between TransCanada and its landowners in
Economic, Environmental, and Sociological Impacts Are
One And The Same
The EIS tries to separate out
the various impacts. For the landowners
of the pipeline, these impacts are one and the same. It is impossible to separate the economic, environmental
and sociological impacts relative to this proposed pipeline because the
landowners will be directly impacted by future spills and leaks, and wind
erosion.
When a leak happens, it will
be their drinking water, their livestock water supply, and their irrigation
supply that will be contaminated. Their
economic well being is directly impacted by spills and leaks.
When a leak happens, it will
directly impact the quality of the environment in which they live and upon
which they depend. When their marginal
sandy soils are disturbed, and their marginal sandy soils are exposed to wind
erosion, they will be the ones who are left to pick up the pieces and work to
control the growing blowouts for the next 100 years. They know that the Legislature can pass laws,
but they cannot make grass grow over the fragile sand dunes of the
Sandhills.
The sociological impact
resulting from leaks and wind erosion is directly tied to the economic impacts
it has on landowners and the environmental impacts it has on the land and water
on which the farmers and ranchers depend for their quality of life and economic
existence.
The relationship between land
and people is far reaching, but not well understood. For many of our farmers and ranchers, farming
and ranching is about more than just operating a business although it is
obviously a business. It is also their
way of life. It is how they make their
living. It is how they define themselves
as human beings. It is their
inheritance. It is their legacy. The complicated and far reaching relationship
between land and people not only defines farmers and ranchers, it also defines
us as a people, as a society, and as a nation.
Whether we as citizens clearly understand it or not, we are to varying
degrees defined by our relationship with the land from which we come, and to
which we will someday return.
Nebraskan citizens regardless
of location universally care deeply about our Sandhills, whose natural beauty
touches our souls. Our Sandhills are
vulnerable, thinly vegetated sand dunes overlaying the largest aquifer in the
nation. The Sandhills of Nebraska are a state and national natural resource based
treasure. It is not in our national
interests to unnecessarily put our state and national natural resource treasure
at risk.
Socioeconomic Impacts
- The population information used by the EIS is
from 1999-2000, with no attempt to factor in recent economic declines. The
information is inadequate at best and frankly misleading at worst.
Considering the fact that the pipeline is being sold as an economic
development engine, it’s inexcusable that no effort has been made to use
the 2010 census.
- The counties impacted by the Keystone XL Pipeline
are consistently found to be poor and unemployed, depopulated and losing
economic ground, and lacking services, particularly regarding the more
western route through
- Altogether, the Keystone XL Pipeline is projected
to create 7,551 person-years of employment over a 50 year timeframe. (In
fact, the EIS suggests that the timeframe is actually 100 years!) Since
TransCanada estimates 15% of the workers will be local hires,
- Most economic benefits in
- In the event of accidents or spills, the
emergency aid providers in many if not most
Our Groundwater and Surface Water Are One And The Same
All of the hydrologists that
have studied the Sandhills region of the state that lies in the path of the
proposed TransCanada pipeline agree that in this part of the state, our
groundwater and surface water are one and the same. Our landowners who have been making their
living for generations working with our water resources are the real experts on
water issues. They know what works, and
what does not. They know their sandy
soils are prone to leaching. They have
dealt with the leaching problems caused by the over application of nitrogen on
their crops and pastures. The ground
water level is above the surface of the ground in the spring of the year, which
causes the “wet meadows”. For much of
the proposed Sandhills pipeline route, it will not be a matter of how many feet
from the pipeline to the underground water level, but a matter of how many feet
under water the pipeline will be. This
pipeline will literally run through the water of the aquifer for much of its
proposed route.
The overwhelming majority of
Nebraskans, urban and rural, regardless of whether they support or oppose the
route of this proposed pipeline because they rightly believe it is an
unnecessary risk to run the pipeline through the Ogallala aquifer, the largest
aquifer in the country. The current
pipeline route is not prudent, not safe, and unnecessarily puts our primary
water supply at risk.
Other Land Use Impacts
- “Private roads …would only be used with the
permission of the affected landowner…” If a landowner declines, will
eminent domain be applied? Who
bears the cost associated with use?
- “Temporary” loss of the agricultural productivity
of the land is acknowledged. At issue are topsoil degradation, soil
compaction and introduction of rock. Keystone pledges to put it all back
the way it was: soil, vegetation, etc., but historic experience with large
scale soil disruption (e.g., the mining industry, road-building, etc.) has
demonstrated the tragedy of this kind of overly simplistic and optimistic
faith in the ability of human beings to recreate what nature took millions
of years to produce. Regarding agricultural productivity, Keystone agrees
to pay for the differential between pre- and post-construction earning
capacity for three years, at 100% for losses in year one, 75% in year two
and 50% in year three. Any damages after three years “would be
negotiated,” according to the EIS; the key word here is “would,” which
does not mean “must.” This is absolutely not acceptable.
- The pipeline crosses and impacts, six National
Historic Trails. Four of these trails are in
- Contrary to pipeline proponents claims to the
contrary, there are no oil pipelines through the Sandhills. There is no real oil pipeline experience
on which to derive any appropriate comparative data. There is no good information on which to
make assessments as to the impacts on either re-vegetation or water
quality issues.
- The heat of the pipeline itself will have an
additional and unknown impact on efforts to re-establish appropriate
vegetation. Addressed elsewhere,
note that the pipeline will cross 146 rivers and streams, wetlands and
sub-irrigated meadowland in the Sand Hills and 89 miles of the
All Pipelines Leak
The
Despite TransCanada’s
assurances, we know there will be leaks and spills. All pipelines have some sort of leak during
their operating lifetimes. To assume otherwise is an insult to our
intelligence. It is not a matter of if,
it is a matter of when, how often, and how much leakage there will be. As a result, the route itself becomes of critical
importance. It is not prudent to tempt
fate. The current route is not the
safest route. The current route is an
environmental, economic, and sociological disaster waiting to happen. While it is not possible to prevent natural
disasters, it is possible to reduce the number of man-made environmental disasters.
It Is Not In
The ownership of the Canadian
Tar Sands makes it quite clear why the Canadian Tar Sands are not headed to
|
Oil sands snapped up |
||||
|
Year |
Buyer |
Seller |
Stake |
Value in millions ($CDN) |
|
2010 |
Korea Investment Corp |
OSUM |
Private placement |
$98 |
|
|
PTTEP ( |
Statoil |
40% Kai Kos Dehseh |
$2,336 |
|
|
China Investment Corp. |
Penn West |
45% Seal Project JV |
$817 |
|
|
Sinopec ( |
ConocoPhillips |
9% Syncrude |
$4,657 |
|
|
BP ( |
Value Creation |
75% Terre de Grace |
$1,145 |
|
|
Devon ( |
BP |
50% Kirby |
$665 |
|
2009 |
Suncor/Petro-Canada |
Merger - $19.3 billion |
incl. oil sands assets |
|
|
|
Korea National Oil Co. |
Harvest Energy |
Incl. oil sands assets |
$4,100 |
|
|
Petro |
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. |
60% |
$1,900 |
|
|
Imperial /ExxonMobil ( |
UTS |
50% Lease 421 |
$250 |
|
2008 |
Nexen ( |
OPTI |
15% |
$924 |
|
|
Occidental Petroleum ( |
Enerplus |
15% Joslyn |
$506 |
|
|
Total ( |
Syneco |
Synenco |
$470 |
|
2007 |
BP ( |
Husky |
|
$2,400 |
|
|
Petro-Can/Teck Cominco ( |
UTS |
10% Fort Hills |
$790 |
|
|
Marathon ( |
Western Oil Sands |
Company |
$6,500 |
|
|
MEG ( |
|
Surmont |
$322 |
|
|
Statoil ( |
NAOSC |
Company |
$2,290 |
|
|
Teck Cominco ( |
UTS |
50% lEASE 14 |
$206 |
|
|
Enerplus ( |
Kirby Oil Sands |
90% of Company |
$185 |
|
SOURCE: Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers |
||||
Based on the October 2, 2011
New York Times Editorial: “Say No to the
Keystone XL”, three fourths of the oil to be transported by the TransCanada XL
pipeline is destined for export. These
two sources of information cause us to ask:
Does the State Department know who owns the oil and its
destination? If the State Department
does not know, it is imperative that it finds out. The final destination of this oil goes to the
heart of the matter relative to national interests. The pipeline proponents have claimed the
pipeline will improve our national security and reduce our nation’s reliance on
Nebraska Farmers Union urges
President Obama and Secretary Clinton to do what is in the nation’s best
interest, to give our farmers, laborers, and citizens a future with an
abundance of opportunities. We urge you to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline
now. It is not, in any way, in the best
interest of the
Sincerely,
John K. Hansen
President,
Attachments:
- October 7, 2011 New York Times news article: “Pipeline Review is Faced With Question
of Conflict”
- April 22, 2011
- October 2, 2011 New York Times editorial: Say No to the Keystone XL”