Inergy unit slams EPA for saying environmental assessment ‘inadequate’

PITTSBURGH, Pa. - A New York company has come out swinging against comments made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding a proposed gas pipeline it wants to build in north central Pennsylvania. The pipeline is the 39-mile-long Marc 1 Hub pipeline project.

Central New York Oil and Gas, which is a subsidiary of the Kansas City-based Inergy, wants to construct an interstate pipeline through Lycoming, Sullivan and Bradford counties, Pa.

Environmentalists say the pipeline will not only hurt ecosystems, but also speed up the development of an industry they think needs greater oversight. So their strategy is to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do a more extensive environmental impact study. That would slow down the project, and slow down drilling.

The EPA says the initial FERC environmental assessment was inadequate and asks for a more thorough and time-consuming review. But a response filed by Central New York Oil and Gas questions why the EPA has taken the unusual step of weighing in on the pipeline fray when no federal funding is involved. CNYOG accuses the EPA of succumbing to environmental lobbyists.

Central New York Oil and Gas says the environmental law firm Earthjustice, which represents several local groups, has created a controversy where none exists. "…it is difficult to envision how any future pipeline project will be able to surmount opposition armed with a computer and a blog capable of generating tens of thousands of electronically generated, unsigned letters of opposition from individuals located literally anywhere on the planet," the company countered.

U.S. State Department sued over Hillary Clinton's correspondence with TransCanada Pipeline lobbyist

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. - Environmental and legal watchdog groups sued the State Department on May 19 to get copies of any communications between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a lobbyist for a Canadian oil company seeking approval of a massive proposal oil pipeline.

The lobbyist, Paul Elliott, formerly worked as the national deputy director for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign. Elliott was then hired by TransCanada Pipelines, Ltd, the company behind the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would run through America's Great Plains to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Elliott registered as a lobbyist only after news organizations reported on his lobbying activities on behalf of TransCanada in December 2010. TransCanada needs a permit from Secretary Clinton to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

The suit follows a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Friends of the Earth, Corporate Ethics International, and the Center for International Environmental Law late last year seeking to uncover any communications between Elliott and the State Department that would reveal whether Elliott's former position as campaign director for Secretary Clinton resulted in bias in the permitting process. The State Department initially denied the request for those records on January 5, 2011. A few weeks later, the Department reversed its decision to deny the request but has delayed processing the request, and has not indicated whether or when it will release the information.

The State Department is heading a multi-agency environmental review of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Canadian crude oil from Alberta's tar sands to the Texas coast.

"Why is the State Department refusing to release these communications? This calls into question the agency’s decision to rush the review of the Keystone XL pipeline, despite its massive environmental risks and bipartisan opposition to it," Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said in a statement.

Before deciding whether to grant a permit, the State Department must analyze the pipeline's risks and finalize an Environmental Impact Statement. After the Environmental Protection Agency told the State Department its draft environmental impact statement was inadequate, Secretary Clinton nonetheless said, last October, that the State Department was "inclined to approve" the permit.

Secretary Clinton's agency has been criticized by farmers and ranchers in the pipeline's path for rushing the review process and not holding hearings on the department's latest draft analysis. The State Department plans to make a final decision about the Presidential Permit before the end of 2011.

"Clearly, TransCanada hired Mr. Elliott to take advantage of his previous service to Hillary Clinton," said Kenny Bruno with Corporate Ethics International. "We think the public has a right to know in what ways TransCanada and Mr. Elliott have attempted to influence Secretary Clinton's view of this controversial project."

The public interest law firm Earthjustice represents Friends of the Earth, Center for International Environmental Law, and Corporate Ethics International.

"This raises important questions of transparency and fairness," said Sarah Burt, an Earthjustice attorney. "If a decision to approve a transcontinental pipeline is made based on relationships and access to Clinton, while completely overlooking the significant environmental and public health dangers posed by the pipeline, the public needs to be aware of it."

Read the complaint here.(Source: Earthjustice news release)

Enbridge Alberta Clipper permit sparks criticism in Canada and U.S.

FORT McMURRAY, Alta. - The U.S. presidential permit granted Aug. 20 for Enbridge's controversial Alberta Clipper pipeline has launched environmental protests on both sides of the border, with opponents vowing a legal challenge.
According to a coalition of environmental and Native American groups, the decision goes against U.S. President Barack Obama's promise to cut global warming pollution and America’s addition to oil while investing in clean energy.
The groups - Earthjustice and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy as well as the Canadian and American offices of the Sierra Club and the Indigenous Environmental Network - have vowed to challenge the decision in court.
In addition, the indigenous network based in Minnesota is looking into the validity of the permit, as it wasn't signed by Hillary Clinton, U.S. secretary of state, as required. Marty Cobenais of the network said it was signed by the deputy assistant director instead, and he wants to check its validity. Cobenais says the coalition, especially the Leech Lake Band, which stands to be the most affected by the pipeline, is in for a David and Goliath fight with a multibillion-dollar industry and the American government.
“This fight isn't even just about the pipeline. We're fighting this fight down here … because we're against the expansion of the (Alberta) tar sands also,” said Cobenais.
The $3.6-billion Alberta Clipper pipeline will carry oil sands product from Hardisty, Alta. It will extend 525 kilometers from the U.S.-Canadian border near Neche, N.D., across northern Minnesota to an Enbridge terminal in Superior, Wis. The project also includes associated pumping and terminal stations. Scheduled to be up and running in 2010, the pipeline will have an initial capacity of 450,000 b/d of heavy bituminous syncrude. A second 51-centimeter parallel pipeline, Southern Lights, will extend 307 kilometers from Superior to an Enbridge terminal in Clearbrook, Minn.