Page 1 of 1

Proposed Pipelines Fuel Environmental Battle

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:40 am
by Appaholic
Natural gas cleaner than coal but activists want different route

BILLINGS, Mont. - Federal regulators are recommending approval of two natural gas pipelines that could sharply increase fuel shipments from the Rockies to population centers in the Midwest and on the West Coast.

The Rockies hold an estimated 375 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or almost as much as the Gulf of Mexico.

The fuel has been promoted as a less-polluting alternative to coal because it emits less greenhouse gas. Yet moves to crank open the spigot in the Rockies are getting pushback from environmentalists worried about the growing number of pipelines crisscrossing the West.

Building the pipelines — each hundreds of miles long — would entail crossing more than 1,200 streams and other bodies of water and disturbing thousands of acres of undeveloped land, according to recent environmental studies by the commission's staff.

TransCanada's $610 million, 310-mile Bison pipeline would run from Gillette, Wyo., through southeastern Montana to Morton County, N.D. From there, the line would feed into other pipelines serving the Midwest.

El Paso Corp.'s $3 billion Ruby pipeline would run from Opal, Wyo., to Malin, Ore., passing through Utah and Nevada along a 675-mile route.

Environmentalists have singled out the Ruby pipeline as particularly damaging because of its route through the remote wilds of northern Nevada. Also, horse advocates claim the project is prompting the removal of wild mustang herds along the proposed route by the Bureau of Land Management.

But commission staff concluded the environmental effects would be outweighed by the economic benefits of the pipelines, including roughly $30 million in annual property taxes. They also said the routes chosen minimized harm to the environment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34823688/ns/business/

Re: Proposed Pipelines Fuel Environmental Battle

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:42 pm
by dbackjon
No easy answer on this - the drilling/pipelines themselves fragment habitat, but are cleaner than coal mining.

I think they are underestimating the environmental impact of these - especially the one that goes through what is essentially wilderness

Re: Proposed Pipelines Fuel Environmental Battle

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:09 am
by Appaholic
Yep. I'm actually for construction of the pipelines, but not through designated Wilderness areas. Those habitats designated as such should be considered in the same vein as a residential area & the pipelines diverted to areas not designated as Wilderness. Sure, it will add expense, but this should be factored in as the cost of doing business just as it is with regard to other sensitive, residential areas.

Re: Proposed Pipelines Fuel Environmental Battle

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:11 am
by dbackjon
Appaholic wrote:Yep. I'm actually for construction of the pipelines, but not through designated Wilderness areas. Those habitats designated as such should be considered in the same vein as a residential area & the pipelines diverted to areas not designated as Wilderness. Sure, it will add expense, but this should be factored in as the cost of doing business just as it is with regard to other sensitive, residential areas.
Correct - there are already many, many transport corridors. Absolute lowest cost, just like in routing a highway, etc, should not be the overriding factor. It needs to be A factor, but not the most important.