May 26, 2011, 8:41 PM

TransCanada Pipeline Background and Resources

BOLD Nebraska

News, Energy, Environment, Pipeline

Nebraskans are speaking out and taking action to help stop the TransCanada pipeline. This page is meant to be a resource with various reports and background about this critical topic. There is a lot in here...citizens and landowners have been tracking and fighting this pipeline for over 3 years (and for some about 5 years now). If you every need a specific piece of info, just email info@boldnebraska.org and we will get it to you. Bold operates on donations, please donate here.

Here's a look at all the categories of info below:

We think the TransCanada tarsands pipeline is a risky and bad idea for our state, our land, our water and our economic activity. We do not want to see it built. We want to see investments in American-made energy, including domestic oil. We want to see regulations including an Emergency Response Plan for the tarsands oil pipeline that is already in the ground in the eastern part of our state. We also want to see our state put in place routing regulations, stronger eminent domain laws and financial responsibility for any future pipelines.

The pipeline originally was to cut across 92 miles of the Sandhills and 250 miles of farm and ranch land. TransCanada keeps changing their route--the more folks speak out, the more they move the pipe. The counties it would cross are Keya Paha, Boyd, Rock, Holt, Garfield, Wheeler, Greeley, Boone, Nance, Merrick (maybe not anymore), Polk, Saline, Jefferson, Hamilton, York and Fillmore. There are over 1,000 groundwater wells in the pipeline path and countless more smaller wells and seasonal surface water bodies. Even the reroute crosses the Sandhills and Aquifer. It still has the same entry point.

When we started this fight, Nebraska had NO regulations and no state agency to govern oil pipelines. Despite what state elected officials say, Nebraska DOES have a role in regulating oil pipelines. Our elected officials can do the following, but do not seem to have the political will to carry out their duty to protect our land and water:

  • Siting and routing of oil pipelines (the laws passed in Special Session got undone by LB 1161 and TransCanada now does not have to follow the PSC siting rules on oil pipelines. TransCanada only has to conduct an environmental review, no other laws apply to them)
  • Easement and eminent domain process and terms
  • Easement abandonment
  • Emergency response planning
  • Liability for spills
  • Bonding for road construction and/or repair
  • Regulation of neighboring land uses
  • Water testing (baseline and ongoing)

Groups raising concerns and working to stop the pipeline in our state include Audubon NebraskaBold Nebraska, GFWC Heritage League of Lincoln, Guardians of the Good Life,  Nebraska Bioneers, Nebraska Common Cause, Nebraska Farmers UnionNebraska Green PartyNebraska League of Conservation VotersNebraska Sierra ClubNebraska Wildlife FederationNebraskans for Peace and the local chapter of 350.org.

Two NRDs have passed resolutions opposing the pipeline, those include Upper Elkhorn and the Lower Niobrara. The resolution can be viewed here.

The Center for Rural Affairs' board and the National and Nebraska Farmers Union's membership formally oppose the pipeline.

Pictures and Videos

Bold's Flickr photostream (can be used for free, see photo credits on photos): http://www.flickr.com/photos/boldnebraska

Bold's YouTube video page (can be used for free): http://www.youtube.com/boldnebraska

Pipeline still crosses the Sandhills and Aquifer: http://boldnebraska.org/uploaded/pipeline/deq_unl_statedept_maps_compared_final.jpg

Cartoon description of export nature of tarsands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCq015rc_lk

DC Delegation Pictures (can be used for free, with attribution to Mitch Paine): http://tinyurl.com/NEDCpics

Pipeline Rally Pictures (can be used for free, with attribution to Mitch Paine): http://tinyurl.com/piperally 

Landowner Pictures (can be used for free, with attribution to Mitch Paine)http://tinyurl.com/piperally 

Pictures of Tarsands Mining (must be attributed to photographer on each pic): http://dirtyoilsands.org/visuals 

Video of Landowners speaking about land and TransCanada bullying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-67r8gVLDa0

Randy Thompson (with permission of National Wildlife): http://tinyurl.com/RandyNE 

Lynda Buoy (with permission of Bold Nebraska): http://tinyurl.com/LynBuoy

Susan Luebbe (with permission of Bold Nebraska): http://tinyurl.com/SusLuebbe

Actions

ACTION GUIDE: Groups put together an action guide with 10 things you can do!

CURRENT EVENTS: All events are listed here and on our Facebook page.

DONATE: Small donations keep our work going, please donate today!

PICTURES: Many folks email us asking for pictures of landowners and the Sandhills, you can get those links here. For picture of the tarsands oil process, visit http://dirtyoilsands.org/visuals. More pic links below as well.

GEAR: Nebraska groups created yard yard signs (it's a 2-sided yard sign), bumper stickers, buttons and t-shirts for Nebraskans to show their public opposition the pipeline. You can pick these up at events we hold, check our Event Page for the next one.

LETTERS: We have a letter writing action guide on our website, just click here for sample letters, contact info and more!

Background

TransCanada, a foreign company based in Canada, is trying to obtain a permit from the United States government to build a second pipeline in our state. TransCanada refers to this new, proposed pipeline as Keystone XL (the current pipeline in the ground already is called Keystone 1).

The pipeline carries the most expensive and dirtiest form of oil, called tar sands. It is a thick form of oil that requires many chemicals, high heat and high pressure to push it through the pipeline.

Because the pipeline crosses the US/Canada border, Sect. Clinton must approve the pipeline by granting a permit to TransCanada. Because of federal laws, Clinton must go through certain steps before she makes her decision, which includes various environmental studies and public hearings.

Under the Bush Administration and under Governor Heineman’s administration, a TransCanada pipeline called Keystone 1 was approved and is currently in the ground with oil flowing. That pipeline is NOT at capacity, so the obvious first question is why build another pipeline?

If the new pipeline is approved, up to 1.1 million barrels of tarsands oil, the dirtiest form of oil, will be pumping through our state everyday. The current pipeline, when at capacity, will pump 435,000 barrels of oil through our land and water.

Nebraska has only passed one law concerning oil pipelines, and it only covers reclamation and the siting laws passed do not apply to TransCanada. We have no trust fund set aside to help families if their land, water or health are affected. We have no Emergency Response Plan that has been made public. Nebraskans are, right now with the current pipeline in the ground, at risk and at the mercy of TransCanada if/when a leak, spill, blowout or anything else happens.

Additionally, numerous reports have cited increased rates of cancer at the source of the tarsands production in Canada.

Current News

Some articles of note are:

Reports and Letters

UNL Dept. Ag Economics paper on the pipeline: http://tinyurl.com/unlpipeline

NRDC does a great recap of how bad the tarsands are for America's energy independence

Sierra Club profile of individuals affected by pipeline: http://tinyurl.com/sierrareport

Investigative report by Vince Wade on safety and the route of the oil to China: View article

National Wildlife report on overview and dangers of pipeline: View PDF

Plains Justice report on expense of pipeline: View PDF

News articles on faulty steel: View Article on faulty steel, View article on TransCanada using Indian steel instead of American steel

Plains Justice faulty steel report: View PDF

Joint report on pipeline safety: http://tinyurl.com/pipelinesafety

A study that describes how Tar Sands are dirty, expensive and cause cancer: View Article

A Friends of the Earth Report on TransCanada's dirty business practices: View PDF

Letter to Sec. Clinton signed by over 32 groups asking for more time: View Letter

Check out a great letter by bold State Senators Sullivan, Haar, Dubas, Fulton, Coash to Sec. Clinton about the permit process.

The Congressional Memo that proves our state elected officials have the authority to re-route the pipeline and set regulations? Check out page five. It makes it clear that our state has the power to regulate routes of oil pipelines.

Public Hearings and Nebraska Information

The State Dept:
In May 2010, The Department of State held a series of public hearings in Nebraska to get input on their draft Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Nebraskans were able to get a copy of the draft EIS, ask questions and make comments that were all part of the official record. The Dept. of State is going through all of those comments--also made in other states the pipeline would go through--and must respond to all comments and questions. There is no timeline set on this process.

At these initial hearings, not one Nebraskan stood up in support of the pipeline. All comments made by Nebraskans were opposing the pipeline and/or expressing major concerns and asking many questions. One welder from Arkansas was at the hearings and made statements in support of the pipeline. His company got the contract to weld the current pipeline.

We would like to note that the agency that should have weighed in with official comments, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, has not said anything on this critical issue. This is one of the many red flags we see coming from the Heineman administration that they are ignoring the pipeline and Nebraskans' concerns.

After much public pressure about the inadequecies of the first draft of the EIS, the State Dept. issued a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The public comment period for the SEIS closed on June 6, and public field hearing will be announced soon.  We will update you when we find out dates and locations.

NPPD:
In July 2010, NPPD held a series of public meetings to get input on the proposed new transmission lines. The lines will cost taxpayers $49-64 million and TransCanada is supposed to pay Nebraska back on a monthly basis. The construction of the transmission lines was put on hold in early 2011 because the US State Dept. had not yet approved a permit for the pipeline. Construction resumed in Spring of 2011 but is now on hold.

State Legislation:
A quick review of state laws being proposed by the Nebraska Unicameral in the 2011 session is archived on our website and described below. However, only one pipeline bill passed the 2011 session, and it was a weak bill because the senators and citizens who cared about our land and water were simply out-lobbied by TransCanada.

On Dec. 1, 2010, Sen. Dubas and Sen. Sullivan held an initial hearing, spurred by LR 435, on the pipeline to get baseline information from advocates, landowners, water experts, Sandhills experts and oil industry leaders. The hearing resulted in a report for the Nebraska Unicameral and according to LR 435 was to be a study to include an "examination of issues relating to liability, restoration of property, and regulatory oversight." 

In Feb. 2011, the Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the three bills that would have governed and regulated oil pipelines. The room was packed with citizens, landowners and advocates who all pleaded with the Committee to vote yes on the bills. We collected testimony from Nebraskans which you can read here.

On May 26, 2011 the Nebraska Unicameral passed LB 629 sponsored by Sen. Sullivan that takes one step towards comprehensive pipeline regulations for our state. The bill looks nothing like its original form which was very strong and would have provided some safeguards for landowners. However, the lobbying forces of TransCanada were very intense and Sen. Sullivan was able to pass a bill focused on reclamation. The bill essentially says TransCanada has to replant and fix land they disrupt. We still have a LONG way to go...

You can read the floor debate on Sen. Sullivan's bill, just click on the link and look on the lower right hand side. There were three days of debate. Click Here for the floor debate

Blog post on the Department of State 2010 public hearings in Nebraska: View Post

Department of State EIS report: View Report

Farmers Union comments to EIS: View PDF

Nebraska Wildlife comments to EIS: View PDF

National coalition comments to EIS: View PDF

Much of this in Nebraska became all undone when Sen. Smith and the majority of the Unicam passed LB1161, more info here on the citizen lawsuit challenging this process.

Nebraska should be following only the PSC rules and regs on oil pipeline route review.

Nebraska Elected Officials

No elected official in Nebraska has officially stated they oppose the pipeline. Many have raised significant concerns about the route and safety of the pipeline (both the current TransCanada Keystone 1 and the proposed Keystone XL).

Gov. Heineman released his first public statement on the pipeline on Oct. 12, 2010.

Senators Nelson and Johanns have both issued press statements saying they have questions. Reps. Smith and Fortenberry have as well. Rep. Terry has not made a statement but is co-sponsoring a bill that tells the State Dept. to rush their decision.

Gov. Heineman and Attorney General Bruning have both taken potentially illegal campaign contributions from TransCanada and returned them after they were caught in Oct. 2010. Two groups filed FEC complaints against Bruning and Heineman, including Bold Nebraska.

State Senators Dubas, Dierks and Sullivan attended the Dept. of State public hearings in 2010. State Senator Ken Haar has attended several meetings and raised questions in public interviews about the pipeline.  

The State Senators that the pipeline goes through their districts include Sens. Deb Fischer, Russ Karpisek, Kate Sullivan, Annette Dubas and Tom Carlson. Dubas and Sullivan introduced bills to help regulate oil pipelines in Nebraska during the 2011 session. Only Sullivan's passed and was watered down to only cover reclamation.

Nebraska has NO regulations and no state agency to govern oil pipelines (Sullivan's reclamation bill is toothless regulation).  Despite what state elected officials say, Nebraska DOES have a role in regulating oil pipelines. Our elected officials can do the following, but do not seem to have the political will to carry out their duty to protect our land and water:

  • Siting and routing of oil pipelines
  • Easement and eminent domain process and terms
  • Easement abandonment
  • Emergency response planning
  • Liability for spills
  • Bonding for road construction and/or repair
  • Regulation of neighboring land uses

Nebraska LR 435 Interim Study on Oil Pipelines (excellent info from UNL experts): Download PDF

Nebraska State Senators' 1st Letter to Clinton: View blog post

Nebraska State Senators' 2nd Letter to Clinton calling on her to delay the permit decision: View PDF

Senator Nelson public statements: View PDF

Senator Johanns page on his statements: View page

State Senator Fulton letter to Sec. Clinton: View PDF

Gov. Heineman letter to Sec. Clinton: View PDF

Members of Congress letter to Sec. Clinton: View PDF

Additional letter from more Members of Congress to Sec. Clinton: View PDF

Senator Johanns and Nelson continue to push Sec. Clinton for a supplemental EIS. One article that covers this request and has a copy to Johanns letter: View here

Sec. Clinton responds to Senator Nelson's concerns: View letters on Nelson's website

Maps of the Proposed and Current Pipelines

The proposed pipeline would go through various counties in Nebraska: Keya Paha, Boyd, Holt, Antelope,  Greeley, Boone, Nance, Merrick, Saline, Jefferson, Hamilton, York, Fillmore, Saline, Jefferson (the current propose route no longer crosses Rock, Garfield, Wheeler, Greeley)

Bold's current map of Transcanada's reroute and still crossing Sandhills and Aquifer (updated Nov. 2012): View JPG

Dept of State map of previous proposed pipeline across US: View the MAP

TransCanada’s map previous pipeline route in NE: View JPG

TransCanada’s map of the previous proposed route across the US: View PDF

An earlier Bold map of the earlier proposed route across Nebraska and the Ogallala Aquifer: View PDF

About TransCanada

TransCanada has business dealings with numerous big oil companies worldwide. Their corporate bio says they build energy infrastructure for North America. TransCanada will not use our land to produce oil for the United States. In fact, they use North American land to process oil to sell to whoever is the highest bidder. They have also come under fire for skirting safety measures and using lower quality steel from China and India. ConocoPhillips now owns 50% of the Keystone pipeline (the current pipeline in the ground already in Nebraska).

Press release about the partnership between TransCanada and Conoco: View Press Release

BP, TransCanada and Conoco partnerships on gas pipelines: Visit Article

Friends of the Earth produced a detailed report on TransCanada's dirty business practices: View PDF

More Info on Pipeline and Tarsands Oil

Nebraska groups and citizens are taking action and speaking out to protect our resources from the risky TransCanada pipeline.  Groups have sponsored education forums, rallies, ads and lots more.  Some of the early radio ads highlighted a TransCanada Abuse Hotline: View Details. Groups involved include: 

National Websites
Many national groups are assisting our efforts in Nebraska and are working on a national level to help stop the pipeline. 

Comments

July 13th 2010

Genxer - Do you realize all the good, high paying union jobs that will be lost if this doesn't go through?

July 18th 2010

bmc201 - Do you realize that if that aquifer becomes polluted, that all the good high paying jobs won't mean a thing? Our water needs to be protected above all else.

July 19th 2010

Jane Kleeb - Actually, only 10% of the jobs will go to Nebraskans and they will be lower skilled jobs and only be for 3 months. We should be making sure permeant energy jobs are created here, not low-skill 3 month gigs. Additionally, non-union made steel was used for the first pipeline and is now being investigated. We don't want to see that happen again either.

July 20th 2010

Alex - Is it possible to simultaneously push back against the pipeline but also push for provisions if, in fact, the project moves forward? One example would be an agreement that all the steel used is 100% made in the USA. Another example provision would be that Nebraskans would be first in line for the jobs. Finally, a provision that an independent company based in Nebraska would be hired by TransCanada to oversee safety regulations associated with the pipeline. These are all just rough ideas, of course, and admittedly I'm not very familiar with this issue. However, if in fact this project moves forward it would be nice to make sure some responsible provisions are considered.

July 21st 2010

Genxer - That isn't true, it will take over a year to get the pipeline through Nebraska, and all the jobs will go to the local unions. We have been out of work for a long time because of the economy, a years worth of work might get us through to better times. We have mortgages payments too. And with using union pipe fitters there is 0% chance of a leak, all the welds will be x-rayed. I expected more from this site, we are all in this together.

July 22nd 2010

Jane Kleeb - Genxer, you do not have your facts right or someone is giving you the wrong information. We have TransCanada on tape telling us only 10% of the jobs go to local folks and that they are low-skilled jobs. Additionally, Plains Justice has a report on this that back up this info using SD as an example.

July 24th 2010

Green - The lack of local economic benefit is discouraging. Do we know what the economic benefit for local communities would be from hotels, motels, fuel, food, etc. used by the workers? Is the EIS posted on the web somewhere? It be easier to sift through what's fact and fiction if I could see what the environmental impacts would be, as stated in the EIS.

July 25th 2010

Malinda Frevert - Green, we have a link to the EIS under the "public hearings" section. You can also go to this address: http://www.keystonepipeline.state.gov/clientsite/keystone.nsf?Open

July 30th 2010

Green - Thanks for the link - initially I followed it to the permit and stopped. Looks like the impacts to aquatic resources like wetlands and streams are of most concern. Particularly with the potential for impacts to clay liners below prairie pothole wetlands. The lack of mention of sensitive Rainwater Basin wetlands is somewhat suspect, not sure if the project just misses this geographic area in Nebraska or not. Overall the threat to the groundwater appears quite low, almost non-existent. Construction impacts to the groundwater would be unlikely and the risk of contamination in the event of a leak during operation seems very low as well.

August 27th 2010

Mary Jane - Also - Genxer, Do you also realize, we can not eat, drink, or breath oil or money.

October 1st 2010

Kruse - There is no oversight for crude oil pipelines in the State of Nebraska. TransCanada buried the Keystone 1 tar sands oil pipeline on our farm. We found out there have been instances of defective steel rushed into production and installation during the same period as the building of the Keystone pipeline. Documents from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration include no evidence of defects in this pipeline, but they also include no evidence that PHMSA investigated materials that went into the pipeline. The manufacturer of the defective steel is the India company Welspun, which supplied 47% of the steel for the pipeline. We photographed the pipe before it was buried on our farm, and indeed, it’s Welspun pipe. Now, we are concerned that untested and defective pipe under our land is ready to spring an oily leak.

April 23rd 2011

Glen - I think it's a shame no one says a word about the thousands of tons of fertilizer that gets put in the ground every year so the farmers can raise crops to be subsidized by the government. The pipe line has more oversight than the Ag industry. Don't people think that that gets to the ground water. If the environmentalist are so concerned about our water maybe they need to see what is being done now, and also its time to put a stop to the controlled burns that are taking place.

May 9th 2011

Ron Cooley - Why can't refineries be built in northern North Dakota and Montana and have the oil shipped by rail to destinations...possibly through the Great Lakes by a smaller tanker? I'm ignorant to this subject but surely there is a better and safer solution than running more pipelines through the heart of our country.

May 11th 2011

Malinda Frevert - Ron, the simple answer is: China. TransCanada cannot promise this oil will be sold to the US, and the best chance they have of getting it on the international market is to pipe it to refineries in the Gulf where they can then ship it to the world.

June 23rd 2011

as promised - I am concerned by the lack of knowledge displayed in many of these comments. Malinda: ALL oil is of course sold on the open market to the highest bidder, even US oil. These companies are not in it for 'goodwill'. Secondly, they are not TAR-sands they are naturally-occuring OIL-sands. Has anyone bothered to look at the information from the OTHER side? There is a lot of propaganda that is "anti" how about some informed balance? http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/ Lastly, the state absolutely should have a real oversight committee and insist that this project become a job-creator!

June 23rd 2011

Malinda Frevert - "As Promised", my point isn't that this oil is special for being sold on the international market. My point is that the argument that it will make us energy independent is untrue. The "oil sands" and "tar sands" terms refer to the same thing. It's your choice what you want to call them. I think our position on this issue is pretty clear, and if you want "informed balance" feel free to read our blog and TransCanada's press releases. I already read all of them and have no interest in spreading their propoganda further. I'm glad that you agree more oversight in our state is needed.

September 27th 2011

Nancy S. - I'm against the pipeline. I hear the pros; I hear the cons. What I have is the solution! It's so simple I can't believe no one has thought of it. A compromise that will create MORE than 20,000 jobs, protect the environment, make gas/oil available to the U.S. , make money for the Canada firm and MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY! Here it is...Why doesn't the U.S. just build 1, 2, 3, (more?) REFINERIES along the Canadian/U.S. border? Think of the construction jobs created and the PERMANENT refinery positions created! No pipes to leak and destroy farmland and ground water! Plenty of oil/gas! No more fighting! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

September 27th 2011

Nancy S. - As I watched to TransC. Pipeline representative speak on NETV he assured Nebraskans that we have nothing to worry about since the viscosity of oil is so thick it won't reach our ground water table. #1. What about contamination of our SOIL? #2. If a multi-1000 barrel leak wouldn't be that harmful, why can't I dump my used motor oil on the ground?

October 4th 2011

Peter L - I applaud Nancy S. for trying to get the energy, the water and the jobs. My question is, why is it good to bury the pipeline? It seems that if it was above ground, we could see the inevitable leaks, rust etc. before the oil got into the aquifer.

October 20th 2011

Kyuu - Hey Republicans. This pipeline means more oil. Screw the acquifer. Screw the environment. Drill baby drill!

October 20th 2011

Kyuu - Hey Republicans. This pipeline means more oil. Screw the acquifer. Screw the environment. Drill baby drill!

February 6th 2012

Gerald - There are already dozens of pipelines crisscrossing Nebraska, yet you people carry on like this is the first. Quit lying to people.

February 25th 2012

Jeff - It's okay for Nebraska Ranchers and farmers to dump tons of fertilizer into their soil, and have cattle eat up natural occuring grassland habitats, and it's okay for them to sell their meat which has been treated with steroids and antibiotics to the general public, but when an oil company wants to build a pipeline that would 1. create real jobs 2 make us less energy dependent on nations that hate us, reduce war 3. Make gas cheaper That is then not okay! Thanks Nebraska! Because of your backwards logic not only do we have Obamacare, but the ever looming prospect of more war, expenisve gas, and high unemployment!

March 15th 2012

Marty - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=84zIj_EdQdM Please watch this TED talk for very insightful information and statistics.

May 30th 2012

Tina - I am from Nebraska and my spouse if also Nebraskan and he is a pipeliner! You people have no idea the positive impact this will be for our state!! We are in WV right now and this town has quadruple the people in it spending their money everyday!! The pipeline is observed 24/7 and withing a split second can be shut down at a specific location should something happen. The ground where the pipeline will be laid will quickly be "as it was" and it will put money in farmers pockets. Nebraska needs this economic boost and we are good people to get to know!!! Stop the fight, stop fretting over un-necessary what ifs. If we all lived life on "what ifs" that wouldn't be much of a life!!!

November 19th 2012

Anita Livelu - As a Native Nebraskan I say build away. If you are not from the Great State of Nebraska then Stay OUT of our business. The pipeline is already here and upgrading it is just fine. We need the Pipeline and the Jobs it will create. Take your Liberal views and Ideas to a Blue State and get the Hell OUT of Nebraska.

comments powered by Disqus