DES MOINES — Almost as quickly as state regulators on Thursday unanimously approved a permit for a $3.8 billion, 30-inch diameter interstate pipeline, opponents announced plans to appeal the decision to district court, saying “this is not over.”
http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/iowa-board-approves-oil-pipeline-permit/article_301fd961-70ea-5eeb-85ae-f0d7c1bebcd9.html
The Bakken pipeline has been permitted by the State of Iowa.
No casing ? Even sewer and water lines need casing below both RRs and highways. To not case a high pressure oil and / or gas line seems just idiotic. Of course if the pipeline company would post a $100M perpetual bond ? ?
MC can the FRA step in on side of RRs ?
The issue from the pipeline industry's side is cathodic protection and degradation/corrosion of the carrier pipe. (never mind with a casing, you can easilly swap out the carrier pipe and slip in a new one)
FRA is somewhat neutral right now. PHMSA is watching. There are multiple cases in the courts right now. Pipeline industry and the railroads are butting heads over this in several places.
There is an exemption from casing for certain natural gas pipelines with extra thick wall pipe buried extra deep .
Iowa passed a law, being challenged now, that railroads don't own under their lines after a certain depth and that railroads have to virtually rubber-stamp any pipeline crossing within 14 days for a dirt cheap fee. In Iowa, utilities and pipelines are not responsible for their own lack of planning and last minute contacting of railroads and other landowners to push their lines through recklessly fast. (annoys BNSF, CN, CP and UP to no end, seems like the pipeline is under construction and the contractor is at the R/W line looking to cross before the permit application goes in)
Makes me wonder how the pipeline companies would react to a RR setting up a DC electrification over one of the pipelines....
Quite a few farmers raised concerns as about the depth of the pipeline with respect to drainage tiles. I'd also be curious about how the pipeline company would compensate for the farmers loss of productivity during the course of installation.
- Erik
Excerpt from History of Iowa Utilities Board
The Iowa Board of Railroad Commissioners, one of the oldest agencies in Iowa state government, was established in 1878.
The three elected commissioners were charged with the duty to regulate railroad passenger and freight rates and operations. This oversight of the network that transported Iowans and their products was critical to pioneer farmers and businesses.
In 1911 the Iowa Legislature established the Office of Commerce Counsel, one of the nation’s first public defender’s offices, within the Railroad Commission. With the growing use of electricity, the Board was authorized to regulate the location of electric transmission lines in Iowa. A rate department was added at that time, followed by statistics and engineering departments a short time later. The agency began licensing grain warehouses in Iowa in 1921 and was authorized to regulate passenger and freight rates for intrastate motor truck transportation in 1923. Authority to regulate natural gas pipeline construction was granted in the early 1930s. Because of its expanded authority, the agency was renamed the Iowa State Commerce Commission in 1937.
After World War II ended, sentiment grew for centralized regulation of public utilities. The governing bodies of the cities and towns had jurisdiction over electric and gas rates and services. The major investor-owned electric and gas companies had to deal individually with more than 200 town and city councils for each rate change. There was no provision for the regulation of communication services at either the state or municipal level. By 1953, Iowa was one of only two states that lacked a public utility commission. In 1963 the Iowa Legislature added the regulation of the rates and service of public utility companies to the Commission’s responsibilities. Also in 1963 the commission terms were extended from two years to six years and the positions became appointed rather than elected.
After 18 public informational meetings, hundreds of pages of pre-filed testimony and briefs, thousands of filed public comments, 12 days of a public hearing, over 3500 pages of transcript, 43 intervenors, close to 70 witnesses, and weeks of public deliberations, the Iowa Utilities Board made the decision to grant Dakota Access a permit for a Hazardous Liquid Pipeline in Docket No. HLP-2014-0001. The permit will be issued only after Dakota Access has complied with the additional terms and conditions set forth in the Board’s written order and construction may not commence until the permit is issued.
In consideration of all the evidence and arguments presented in this case the Board found that “subject to the terms and conditions the Board has adopted in this order, the proposed pipeline will promote the public convenience and necessity and, pursuant to Iowa Code 479B.9, a permit is granted and will be issued to Dakota Access after the company has complied with the filing requirements set forth in this order.”
In reaching its decision the Board applied a statutory balancing test, which found the public benefits of the project outweigh the private and public costs with the terms and conditions imposed by the Board. The public benefits were found to include (1) significant safety advantages of pipeline transportation of crude oil compared to the alternatives and (2) the jobs and other economic benefits associated with construction and operation of the pipeline, projected to be at least $787 million during the construction period alone.
The Board found the issues that weighed against the project included environmental risks associated with the pipeline and the intrusion on private landowners whose property will be affected. The Board therefore determined that the addition of several terms and conditions were required to protect landowners, attend to land restoration issues, and provide assurances addressing safety and remediation of any potential incidents. The additional terms and conditions the Board placed on the permit included changes to the involuntary easements, the land mitigation plan and parent company guarantees. Further, landowners will be compensated for any and all damages they incur.
Before issuing a permit, the Board has imposed specific terms and conditions and filing requirements that Dakota Access must successfully complete regarding the financial responsibility of Dakota Access and parent companies, environmental impacts of the project and the burden to private interests, particularly landowners, along the proposed route. For example:
• Dakota Access must obtain and maintain a general liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $25 million
• Dakota Access must demonstrate and file the unconditional and irrevocable guarantees from its parent companies for remediation of damages from a leak or spill
• Dakota Access must make modifications to easement forms on properties utilizing eminent domain to include the removal of language that would have allowed valves on any condemned parcel and the removal of language that would have allowed company access on any portion of a condemned parcel
• Dakota Access must continue to offer to purchase voluntary easements, with the same terms and conditions already offered to landowners, for the best prices that have already been offered by Dakota Access, at least until the county compensation commission meets to assess the damages for each taking
• Dakota Access must file a revised Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan to include landowner notifications and the separation of all topsoil from affected areas
• Dakota Access must file a Winter Construction Plan
• Dakota Access must file quarterly status reports
• Dakota Access must file a statement accepting the terms and conditions the Board has determined to be just and proper for the permit
With today’s Board decision any party may apply for a rehearing within 20 days and the Board must then act on the application(s) within 30 days. Upon such a request, the Board could:
• Grant a rehearing and schedule further proceedings;
• Deny a rehearing; or
• Grant a rehearing solely to allow for further consideration
Parties can also file for judicial review in district court pursuant to procedures laid out in Iowa Code 17A.
The Board intends to issue orders acknowledging receipt of documents filed as required by the terms and conditions laid out in the order. The Board will only issue the final permit upon acceptance of all required pieces. Construction cannot begin until a permit has been issued by the Board.
Due to the potential for the Board’s involvement in rehearing and/or judicial review, the Board Members will not have any additional comments in relation to the order.
The pipeline company has been stockpiling construction materials along the route for a while. Shows how worried they were about what IUB's decision would be.
At least once it's built, it will release railroad cars from hauling oil so they can be used to haul grain. I didn't know that they hauled corn (maybe creamed corn?) and beans in tank cars. But that's what a lot of opponents (some of whom should've known better) of the pipeline said would be a benefit.
I've been neutral. Of course I would rather see oil move by rail, but I'm not opposed to the pipeline. I just hope the pipeline company doesn't get any "economic incentives" to build it. I'm sure they will though.
Jeff
jeffhergertI didn't know that they hauled corn (maybe creamed corn?) and beans in tank cars.
Suspect this may be the same kind of "corn" that is on the breath - a somewhat different version of 'fluidization'. The lightest alcohol that can be sent in a 'slug' through a petroleum-compatible pipeline is butanol, so there is no 'danger' that ethanol trains are threatened by any Bakken pipeline.
That leaves the beans, which evil sarcasm might suspect of being a handy methane source if 'conventional' natural gas weren't already so cheap...
More than 200 landowners who opposed the pipeline will now be subject to eminent dpmain proceedings. Hardly a good neighor start for the project. They are the ones who will be filing appeals, especially when the pipeline company tries to low ball them on price.
mudchicken[snipped - PDN] . . . FRA is somewhat neutral right now. PHMSA is watching. There are multiple cases in the courts right now. Pipeline industry and the railroads are butting heads over this in several places. . . . Iowa passed a law, being challenged now, that railroads don't own under their lines after a certain depth and that railroads have to virtually rubber-stamp any pipeline crossing within 14 days for a dirt cheap fee. . . .
Iowa passed a law, being challenged now, that railroads don't own under their lines after a certain depth and that railroads have to virtually rubber-stamp any pipeline crossing within 14 days for a dirt cheap fee. . . .
That Iowa law is a sitting duck for a de facto taking or inverse condemnation claim. (Almost everyplace the landowner owns "to the center of the earth" unless the mineral rights have been severed and conveyed away - common here in Pennsylvania, but not in Iowa.) I'd bring it in a Federal court under the 5th Amendment's "no taking of property without just compensation" clause. If it apples to all the miles of railroad in the state . . . we'll see if Iowa has enough money to pay for that.
Although regulation of utility - rail crossings are usually under the jurisdiction of a state public utilities commission or similar, here the crossing is more one of competitiors than a water, sewer, or electric line, etc. Perhaps the STB should step in as one regulator of interstate commerce - in cooperation with the PHMSA - and set some rational standards and procedures so that there's an assured level of safety and reasonableness on all sides.
- Paul North.
You're asking the two sides to be rational - It's well beyond that now (IMHO the pipeline side has gone totally spreadsheet blind and common sense stupid. They don't really care about what happens around them.) .... Then trying to condemn an easement (easement being a dirty word to railroads, they lose control & accountability accross their railroad R/W corridors) ought to be fun to watch.
"Rational" as with an uninvolved (no $ at stake) but informed referee who cares about the safety and reliability of the result, not giving too much weight* to the economy of it - i.e., a government regulatory function. (*which is Flint, Mich. situation).
The condemnation action I mentioned would the RRs vs. Iowa, not the other way around - but based on Iowa having involuntarily appropriated some of the RR's bundle of rights in the ROW by that law (i.e., control of the underground part). Said another way, that law has already attempted the condemnation - the questions now are: Is it valid ? (needs to be as against several different legal-type tests), and: How much and how is the state going to pay for it ?
Come to think of it, major condemnations - as in killing off the RR - have to be approved by the STB. I wonder how much of a partial condemnation would be tolerated before the STB would step in - or if it will step in for any condemnation. Such as, either in space (like a parallel strip on the edge of a wide ROW), or overhead air rights, or of some of the rights of ownership, here mainly the right to exclude others from the (underground) portion of the ROW.
Wizlish jeffhergert I didn't know that they hauled corn (maybe creamed corn?) and beans in tank cars. Suspect this may be the same kind of "corn" that is on the breath - a somewhat different version of 'fluidization'. The lightest alcohol that can be sent in a 'slug' through a petroleum-compatible pipeline is butanol, so there is no 'danger' that ethanol trains are threatened by any Bakken pipeline. That leaves the beans, which evil sarcasm might suspect of being a handy methane source if 'conventional' natural gas weren't already so cheap...
jeffhergert I didn't know that they hauled corn (maybe creamed corn?) and beans in tank cars.
Once when I was hitchhiking home from Bristol, I was picked up somewhere north of the Tennessee-North Carolina line, and when I asked the driver what work he did, he did not answer me until we reached the state line, where another car had backed in off the highway. My man backed up beside the other car, and told me to stay in my seat. After he he had opened the trunk, I felt the rear end of the car gradually rise up in several stages as something was removed. When the transfer was completed , the man told me that he had me a ride to Asheville. I do not doubt that White Lightning had been transferred from one car to the other.
Edited to correct punctuation and spelling.
Johnny
For about a year now, BNSF Logistics has been involved in moving a mountain of pipe for this project to a storage area near Worthing South Dakota. The pile of pipe is as big as our local mall and its parking lot. I'd guess that put in 30 to 40 full trains of pipe. Wouldn't that sort of business partnership have some effect on how BNSF deals with the pipeline that crosses their lines all along the route?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
quoted from previous post by Deggesty (Johnny)
"...I have long understood that Mason jars were the preferred means of packaging corn.
Once when I was hitchhiking home from Bristol, I was picked up somewhere north of the Tennessee-North Carolina line, and when I asked the driver what work he did, he did not answer me until we reached the state line, where another car had backed in off the highway. My man backed up beside the other car, and told me to stay in my seat. After he he had opened the trunk, I felt the rear end of the car gradually rise up in several stages as something was removed. When the transfer was completed , the man told me that he had me a ride to Asheville. I do not doubt that White Lightning had been transferred from one car to the other..."
Johnny: It would seem that you and Junior Johnston have at least walked similar paths at one time. It just seems that the choice of career paths was slightly different!
Murphy Siding Wouldn't that sort of business partnership have some effect on how BNSF deals with the pipeline that crosses their lines all along the route?
Nope (anybody notice SFPP suing UP over a former Southern Pacific Pipeline in southern CA right now.) ...and the last vestigages of Elkins would frown on that anyhow.
DES MOINES — State regulators Tuesday discussed imposing penalties on a Texas oil company planning to build an interstate crude oil pipeline for beginning construction early.
Dakota Access LLC received key approvals necessary to construct a $3.8 billion pipeline from North Dakota, through South Dakota and Iowa, to a terminal in Illinois. But it hasn’t yet met certain requirements before the permit is official in Iowa.
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/did-bakken-pipeline-construction-jump-the-gun-20160329
Removing trees is done by landowners and loggers all the time and is not considered construction.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.