http://blackrockdesert.org/friends/ruby-pipleline

On 9/16/09 12:39 PM, "Arlo Stockham" wrote:

Hi Metric and Board Members,

I would like to point out a procedural issue that may be worth discussing at our meeting tomorrow evening.

In the recently distributed e-newsletter, 2 “contentious” projects are prominently presented – the proposed Jungo Flat dump and Ruby natural gas pipeline. A request for comment link is provided after negative summary statements for both projects. In my business, we call this a “push-poll” (a form of advocacy).

While it is difficult for many of us to support projects that primarily benefit outside areas and primarily impact local areas, I question if Friends should effectively take a position of opposition without a prior discussion/vote by the board. A comment link could have been provided without the leading intro. Better yet, a link to more detailed information could have been provided. If a board-level discussion has occurred, please disregard this.

I am not as familiar with the dump, but understand the local planning commission has voted in favor of it. There must be some local benefit (ie jobs, tax revenue) that they saw prior to approval.

On the natural gas pipeline, a very detailed routing study with numerous alternatives was included in the EIS for the project. This has been underway for years. After looking at alternatives in great detail, I am not convinced that the proposed route is a bad one. The comment period for the EIS may still be open – I reviewed the final EIS a couple of months ago and reviewed the draft in 2007 I believe.

If the position is one of outright opposition to utility projects crossing through Nevada, I do not support that. Nevadan’s use natural gas, just as residents of Oregon and Wyoming do. The gas that heats many of our houses originates outside Nevada and passes through other states on route to Nevada. If other states had blocked the Tuscarora gas pipeline as we seem to be suggesting for the Ruby Pipeline, many of us would likely be using electric heat (mostly from out-of-state coal) or heating oil (also from out of state). Both are much worse for the overall environment.

Similarly, if our country is serious about converting to renewable sources of energy, interstate transmission routes between major production areas (great plains for wind, southwest deserts for solar) and major population centers will be absolutely necessary. Nevada will likely benefit from the conversion to renewable energy, but the transmission routes will negatively impact other areas. I think interstate utility systems should be considered in a less parochial manner. Additionally, there are benefits for the local area, primarily involving construction and operation jobs for the project and a new source of gas to support future economic development.

If we apply the same logic to Burning Man, similar opposition would likely result. Is it right to impact and temporarily close a pristine desert to support the recreational interests of people who primarily live out of state? Doesn’t the event generate a huge amount of greenhouse gases from so many people driving old motor homes 6+ hours each way (in construction-related gridlock this year). Shouldn’t the SF Bay Area find a local place to host a ±50,000 person week-long event/party? Maybe they would put it next to their new dump site…..

Don’t get me wrong – I think burning man is a great event for the area and I’m not a fan of the dump. I do, however, think Friends as a group should view activities from a broader perspective that considers the full range of benefits and impacts. After all, BLM land management and much of the Friends budget comes from federal sources, not from the Black Rock region. The whole country has a right to use and benefit from federal lands. We’re just lucky to be closer to many wonderful federal areas.

I’ll get off my “high-horse” now – thanks for considering these thoughts.

Arlo Stockham

Alternative routes for the pipeline have been proposed, including a route through the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge which already has a right-of-way established. It would seem that using a previously disturbed route would be preferable to building in a pristine, previously undisturbed area, but there may be other consideration of which I am not aware.

The original post was not intended to be a policy statement of the Friends of Black Rock High Rock, nor to state a clear preference of one option over another. The post was simply meant to spur discussion of the topic.

http://rgj.com/article/20091210/NEWS12/91210057&OAS_sitepage=news.rgj.co...

Wyoming approves possible pipeline investment that would go through Nevada

BY BEN NEARY • Associated Press Writer • December 10, 2009

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Wyoming's top statewide elected officials on Thursday gave the Treasurer's Office authority to negotiate a $300-million state investment in a proposed natural gas pipeline that would cut across several states.

El Paso Corp. is developing the $3-billion Ruby Pipeline to carry natural gas from the Opal Hub in western Wyoming to Malin, Ore. The 42-inch pipeline would run 675 miles, crossing Utah and Nevada on the way.

Richard Wheatley, spokesman for El Paso Corp. in Houston, said construction of the pipeline could begin as soon as next spring. He said final environmental review is pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The five Wyoming officials, sitting as the State Loan and Investment Board, voted Thursday to approve the investment from the state's permanent savings funds, provided the Wyoming Treasurer's Office can reach acceptable terms.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal credited State Treasurer Joe Meyer and his staff for their work on the project.

The investment would be consistent with the state elected officials' responsibility to invest state funds prudently, Freudenthal said.

He also said it has a "great kicker — which is added natural gas production and the revenues that come from that."

Freudenthal noted that the Rockies Express Pipeline became fully operational last month. It carries natural gas from Wyoming and Colorado nearly 1,700 miles to the eastern edge of Ohio.

"The real key is that we just finished the opening of another access route into the Midwestern markets," Freudenthal said. "This would give us another access to the West Coast markets."

Natural gas prices at trading hubs in Wyoming have traditionally languished below prices paid elsewhere in the country because of limited pipeline capacity to get the gas out of the state.

"We hope over time that, as the economy comes back, it will help us capture the true value of those gas resources and help us eliminate the differential," Freudenthal said of the increase in natural gas pipeline capacity heading out of the state.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Wyoming's top statewide elected officials on Thursday gave the Treasurer's Office authority to negotiate a $300-million state investment in a proposed natural gas pipeline that would cut across several states.

El Paso Corp. is developing the $3-billion Ruby Pipeline to carry natural gas from the Opal Hub in western Wyoming to Malin, Ore. The 42-inch pipeline would run 675 miles, crossing Utah and Nevada on the way.

Richard Wheatley, spokesman for El Paso Corp. in Houston, said construction of the pipeline could begin as soon as next spring. He said final environmental review is pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The five Wyoming officials, sitting as the State Loan and Investment Board, voted Thursday to approve the investment from the state's permanent savings funds, provided the Wyoming Treasurer's Office can reach acceptable terms.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal credited State Treasurer Joe Meyer and his staff for their work on the project.

The investment would be consistent with the state elected officials' responsibility to invest state funds prudently, Freudenthal said.

He also said it has a "great kicker — which is added natural gas production and the revenues that come from that."

Freudenthal noted that the Rockies Express Pipeline became fully operational last month. It carries natural gas from Wyoming and Colorado nearly 1,700 miles to the eastern edge of Ohio.

"The real key is that we just finished the opening of another access route into the Midwestern markets," Freudenthal said. "This would give us another access to the West Coast markets."

Natural gas prices at trading hubs in Wyoming have traditionally languished below prices paid elsewhere in the country because of limited pipeline capacity to get the gas out of the state.

"We hope over time that, as the economy comes back, it will help us capture the true value of those gas resources and help us eliminate the differential," Freudenthal said of the increase in natural gas pipeline capacity heading out of the state.

Ken Ulrich, a financial consultant with El Paso Corp., said Thursday that the company believes building the pipeline would be a good opportunity for both the company and the state.

"We're going to relieve some bottlenecking in transportation capacity for production and that may have a positive impact in the state of Wyoming's royalty and severance taxes on production," he said.

Ulrich emphasized that the company is in the early stages of discussions with the state about the possible investment.

Michael Walden-Newman, Wyoming's chief investment officer, said the pipeline bond would have to be rated as investment-grade for the state to invest in it. He said the state would not put up money for construction of the pipeline but only invest in bonds secured by its continued operation after it is built.

If the Treasurer's Office decides to proceed with the investment, Walden-Newman said the office would set aside incoming revenues and money from maturing investments. He said the state could purchase the bond from the company by the fall of 2011.

Indeed there are reasons not to choose an alternate route-- it would be a few million dollars more expensive. Another suggested route along Jungo Road would certainly cost much more (something like $3 million per mile and an additional 50 miles, I'm guessing).