Update #1
The wheels of injustice continue to grind slowly. It takes time to sort out the truth about what is really going on behind the scenes of a gigantic 42” diameter high pressure natural gas pipeline being built by two billionaires. Not surprisingly, all the PR is an elaborate deception.
When I first wrote this diary, the Big Bend Conservation Alliance was submitting more than 300 comments in the first round of comments to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Local governmental entities had joined the Alliance in asking FERC to consider the effects of the Trans-Pecos Pipeline on the 143 miles of the pipeline going from the Waha natural gas hub in west Texas (the “non-jurisdictional” part) down to, and not solely the 1,093 ft. of pipeline (the “jurisdictional” international part) that the pipeline would connect with to go into Mexico. It was hoped that the entire project would have to meet the standards of the National Environmental Policy Act, as the FERC is a federal agency charged with assuring that NEPA standards are followed.
The FERC agreed to take comments on the environmental, cultural, and socio-economic effects of the Trans-Pecos Pipeline through its entire 143-mile+ length. In the following weeks, members of the Alliance researched and, along with several outside experts, wrote comments on every endangered or threatened species, every existing or potential archaeological site, every problem with the Company’s plans to revegetate the disturbed land, and every potential adverse socio-economic effect the communities could suffer. The Alliance even submitted a plan for an alternate route that would avoid the major environmentally sensitive areas. When this campaign was over, a total of 612 comments had been submitted to the FERC–more than any other natural gas pipeline project in any state on their docket had received.
The Big Bend Conservation Alliance hoped that their high-quality comments would convince FERC to require an Environment Impact Statement for the project which would at the very least delay the project for two years. But January 4th, FERC handed down their decision, and it could hardly have been worse. They refused to rule on anything but the “jurisdictional” segment, the 1,093 ft. international portion of the pipeline, which they approved by a “finding of no significant impact” on the human environment (a “FONSI”). They deferred to the Texas Railroad Commission as the ruling authority on the 143 miles of pipeline that passes through the Big Bend, eliminating the need for NEPA compliance on that part.
The Texas Railroad Commission has an over-the-top business-friendly attitude as a regulatory agency. You want to put a pipeline somewhere in Texas? Well, “Come on dowwwnnn! “ “Permit? Nah, you don’t need no stinking permit.” “You don’t need no pesky public meetings, no damn public comments . . . Environmental oversight–no, we don’t hold with that kind of thing down here.” “Choose any route you like–nobody gets to tell you what to do!” “Nope, no debatin’ the public interest, neither . . . you are a public utility and ain’t nobody can say you’re not.”
In other words, in a state where you’d think property rights would be sacred, there is no such thing as due process. Taking private land away from a landowner under eminent domain is just fine, and the landowner can’t even negotiate for a better price. The public interest is whatever the company says it is, even if the gas goes straight to Mexico and benefits nobody in Texas except the rich guy who’s going to make an unimaginable amount of big bucks with his pipeline.
Just to make sure no one will challenge the taking of their own land, Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC, is notifying landowners that if they try to resist, they will be sued for $100,000, plus court costs.
And what about that altruistic notion of bringing “clean-burning” natural gas to the power plants and industries of Mexico? Turns out Mexico only has three coal-powered power plants, generating 4% of their total electricity output, nowhere near enough to merit a 42” diameter high-pressure natural gas pipeline. Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC, claims converting those plants will clean up the pollution haze that has long been plaguing Big Bend National Park. An extensive study putting tracer elements in the emissions of power plants all over the U. S. and Mexico showed the Mexican power plants contribute less to the haze problem than power plants in East Texas and the northeastern U.S. Moreover, the Comisión Federal de Electricidad of Mexico has not announced any intention to close the three coal-powered plants. But, coincidentally there are gas pipelines being laid in Mexico from the Texas border to the west coast of Mexico where there happen to be major shipping ports, and where there is current or planned construction of gas liquification plants. This will make it very easy for natural gas to be transported all the way from the fracking fields in the Permian Basin of Texas (and yes, “in the future” from “other sources”) to the west coast of Mexico to be liquified and put on ships for the Far East, where natural gas prices are much higher.
Of all the reasons to hate this pipeline, it’s hard to tell which is most disheartening. As member of the Alliance and prolific researcher, Coyne Gibson, puts it, “Sufficient outrage is available for us all in this horrific process.” Nothing, not concern for explosions that could destroy Alpine’s hospital or airport or burn thousands of acres unchecked, nor the destruction of habitat in one of 3 of the world’s most biologically rich and diverse desert ecoregions, nor the probable increase in fracking poisoning communities in the U.S. with toxic chemicals, nor the legalized theft of land from landowners in both the U. S. and Mexico, and especially not climate change–nothing diverts these two billionaires from their pursuit of plunder.
Do you find it irregular to consider 143 miles of this pipeline as a stand-alone intrastate pipeline–especially with a stated future of commingling gas sourced in other states? Does 1,093 ft. of pipeline underneath the Rio Grande River seem like a stand-alone international pipeline to you? The Alliance believes this not just irregular, but illegal. “Impermissible Segmentation” is a tactic used by pipeline companies to “chop up”, or segment large projects into small pieces, claiming each small part of the larger whole has no, or an insignificant environmental, cultural and socioeconomic impact. The pipeline companies use this illegal tactic to avoid environmental scrutiny under the National Environmental Protection Act (“NEPA”), thereby avoiding costly environmental impact analysis, which can significantly delay, or possibly halt, a project.
In this case, Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC, has applied to the FERC, using the tactic of impermissibly segmenting the pipeline project into two parts: the small 1,093 ft. Presidio Crossing Project segment at the U.S./Mexico border under federal jurisdiction, and the much larger, nominal 143-mile Trans-Pecos Pipeline, with claimed intrastate jurisdiction under the Railroad Commission of Texas. In its recent issuance on January 4, 2016, the FERC has allowed the company to get away with this illegal tactic–the FERC itself is violating federal law, failing to comply with 40 CFR 1500-1508, the NEPA requirements. They are ignoring prior court decisions (Delaware Riverkeeper v. FERC), and the laws, having recommended in their draft Environmental Assessment a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), by isolating their analysis to the 1,093 ft. segment at the border. They’ve ignored more than 600 public comments, ignored the law, and are trying to pull a fast one.
We are currently in another one month FERC comment period that will end February 3rd (!!). If you have ever been moved by the magic of the Big Bend, and If you would like to join us in submitting a comment based on “impermissible segmentation”, there are forms available for you to sign and mail to FERC, or to submit via the internet, on the Big Bend Conservation Alliance website at: www.bigbendconservationalliance.org On the homepage choose the menu item FERC to access the forms.
The Alliance also gratefully accepts donations for legal fees.
Thank you so much for your patience in reading this very long update.
Original Post
The situation appears bleak, but a group of feisty far west Texans, the Big Bend Conservation Alliance (BBCA), are doing their best to hold the pipeline back. Along the Mexican border, the Rio Grande takes a big slow meander southeast and then northeast before heading south again to the Gulf of Mexico. This part of west Texas bordered by the Rio Grande is called the “Big Bend” and it contains a huge area of sparsely populated, unspoiled and uniquely beautiful land that is part of the Great Chihuahuan Desert. This ecosystem is rich in biodiversity and contains every type of mountain that exists on planet Earth. Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park are but two of the places that attract tourism to this area. The small number of people out here–perhaps 20,000 total living in small towns like Alpine, Fort Davis, Marfa, Valentine, Shafter and Presidio–have suddenly found themselves in the crosshairs of Big Oil in the form of a 42” diameter high pressure natural gas pipeline that would cut straight through the heart of the Big Bend. 143 miles in length, this pipeline would transport natural gas from the gas fields of the Permian Basin to Presidio, TX, and without stopping, across the border to Ojinaga, Mexico to be used by power plants in Northern Mexico. The pipeline, named the Trans-Pecos Pipeline was presented to people here as a “done deal” with only the routes requiring firming up, the landowners given their one-time payment, and the affected counties would get lots of new tax revenue and everybody would be happy because money. Except that plenty of people are not happy at all.
This is where things get complicated. Builders of the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, claim the pipeline is “intrastate” because only 1,000’ of it crosses the border and is subject to federal approval. The Texas Railroad Commission is the ultimate authority on all matters oil and gas-related within the state, but they basically let anyone build a pipeline anywhere with no oversight. Members of the BBCA and other interested parties have petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to monitor this project to make sure all federal regulations are followed. FERC response is pending, as June 30 is the cutoff date for comments on this issue. If the FERC refuses, who will oversee this property-damaging and potentially dangerous undertaking? ETP is threatening to take private land under eminent domain, but where is the public good for Texas if the gas is going only to Mexico?
Just who is Energy Transfer Partners? The partnership includes billionaires Kelcy Warren from Dallas (oil, pipelines and the Stripes gas station chain), and Carlos Slim from Mexico. Slim trades places with Bill Gates every few years at the top of the “world’s richest man” list. Also in the group are several other companies including Pumpco, a fracking company that was recently found filling trucks with water from the well on the staging area property in Alpine where pipes are being held, possibly without the correct permit (unclear at this point). A member of the Brewster County Water Board visited the site to get information on who to contact regarding the well, and an ETP employee called the Sheriff’s Department to have him removed from the property. ETP has shown themselves to be neither friendly nor trustworthy. One rancher caught two surveyors on her land after they ignored two No Trespassing signs and a locked gate. ETP’s advertising makes it sound as though some of the gas might be used in Texas, but upon questioning they responded that there were no plans for any of the gas to go to Presidio. And to where did the idea of saving reserves for our own energy independence disappear? ETP also says they have no plans for any compressor stations, but that contradicts conventional practice where compressor stations–extremely noisy, with toxic fumes and a huge footprint–are normally located every 40 to 100 miles on a gas pipeline. Nowhere does their PR mention the RV Park they plan to build for their workers. Of the 350 jobs they promise, how many will go to local people and how many to experienced pipeline builders with no connection to this area? The Midland-Odessa corridor saw a huge rise in traffic problems with the recent oil boom, including noise, broken windshields, and worse–a rise in traffic accidents and fatalities. The biggest danger is, of course, a pipeline leak and explosion. A leak alone would release methane and toxic chemicals into the air. ETP touts their great safety record, yet as recently as June 14th, an ETP-built 42” pipeline leak and explosion occurred near Cuero, TX. It melted a half mile of the highway and many homes were evacuated. Typically the “blast zone”, the crater formed by a natural gas explosion, extends outward for three and a half football fields in length. They can only cut off the gas at its source and let the fire burn itself out—there is no fighting a fire of that kind. The pipeline that Energy Transfer Partners built near Cuero went in service in 2012. How much rangeland would be destroyed in such an explosion in the Big Bend? In 2011 an electrical spark in grass turned into a 313,000 acre wildland fire that destroyed 25 houses in Fort Davis. One of the proposed routes for the Trans-Pecos Pipeline passes uncomfortably close to the hospital and the airport in Alpine. This pipeline would absolutely affect the character of the Big Bend. During construction the noise and light pollution will spoil the magical silence and dark skies. All this natural beauty would be marred by the periodic appearance of natural gas related industrial buildings and equipment, and the 125 ft. wide bladed path of disturbed land would be an easy target for invasive plants, requiring years to revert to its natural state. It would be harder to find the unspoiled vistas of flat basins rising into the dramatic peaks and colors of mountains that we love so much. ETP says they will conduct their own environmental and archaeological studies of the pipeline route. Why do we not find this reassuring? People who come here to live make huge sacrifices for this way of life—very low salaries, fewer job opportunities, mediocre food (with some exceptions), fewer entertainment choices. But what is here is what we want. The infrastructure the pipeline would establish isn’t wanted by many residents on both sides of the border–just by those who would profit from it. There are other routes this pipeline could take around the Big Bend. And what is it with billionaires? They seem to enjoy making more billions than they could ever spend. What is the challenge in making lots of money the same old way with no imagination required? Why not be the first to make a ton of money off clean energy? Eventually fossil fuel use must be reduced or rejected to save the planet. Who is left with the job of dismantling all the old fossil fuel infrastructure? Will ETP come back and take all their stuff away? For more in-depth information about the campaign to stop the Trans-Pecos Pipeline, or to make a contribution to the legal fund, please visit the Big Bend Conservation Alliance website–www.bigbendconservationalliance.org.