PLEASE DON'T LET IT BE A TREND
El Paso Partnership: Bribery, Extortion No Way to be Green
The ramifications of the El Paso deal with green groups are far reaching to say the least. Does anybody care?By Bill Schneider, 8-04-10
Ruby Pipeline route.
I haven’t seen much of an uproar over the rather startling news of two green groups essentially extorting $20 million (later revised to “at least $22 million") from Big Oil. So, I’m wondering if I’m the only greenie choking on it.
On July 18, El Paso Corporation, one of America’s largest natural gas pipeline builders, and two fairly small green groups, the Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Foundation, announced a “partnership.” (Click here)
These groups were among those fighting El Paso’s 680-mile Ruby Pipeline project, which would carry natural gas through a 42-inch pipe from Malin, Oregon to Opal, Wyoming. The pipeline would cut across some of the most pristine and remote lands in Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming, cross more than a 1,000 rivers and streams, disrupt the critical habitat of several endangered species, and suck more than 400 million gallons of water out of the semi-arid environment it passes through.
When the deal was struck, the company was on the verge of getting its coveted permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), but that approval was in doubt because these two environmental groups were threatening to petition FERC for a re-hearing and perhaps initiate other legal action to stop or delay the massive construction project. Even if the company prevailed in all administrative and legal battles, the $3 billion project would’ve been likely delayed for several years. During the delay, the cost might jump up a billion or two.
So, a meager $22 million “partnership” to make sure the company gets the permit sure sounds like a real deal, eh?
Well, that’s what happened. The two groups agreed to drop their opposition to the pipeline if the company set up multi-million “conservation funds,” which would eventually be used to retire public land grazing leases from willing sellers.
And it worked. FERC issued El Paso the permit on July 30 and construction of the Ruby Pipeline began hours later on July 31.
Wow! What a deal. I have several thoughts on it.
First, from the company’s standpoint, no matter how you sugarcoat it, it’s little more than the age-old business strategy called bribery.
Second, from the environmental group’s standpoint, no maTter how you sugarcoat it, it’s little more than an unacceptable strategy called extortion.
Third, this officially announced partnership is a few steps below the common but less visible practice of green groups, usually the big ones, soliciting large contributions from corporations involved in natural resource extraction and then quietly going soft on them when a future opportunity to oppose their projects comes along. Witness the $10 million BP donated to The Nature Conservancy through the years.
Fourth, it shows the power David has over Goliath. It’s called The Delay. Waiting for court battles to play out costs companies untold millions and has become the primary weapon of many green groups, especially smaller, more aggressive organizations.
Fifth, what was El Paso thinking? Dozens of other green groups had the same concerns over the Ruby Pipeline and can make the same moves to delay the project. El Paso can’t buy them all off. So, no surprise, on July 30, the same day FERC issued the permit, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit directly with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to stop the project.
Sixth, I bet the greens never get the money.
Seventh and most important, I understand how cash-strapped small green groups can be. Most can’t even pay their dedicated workers, let alone fund a tiny fraction of what they need to do. But is this the way to do it?
We don’t want this to become a trend, and I fear this could happen. El Paso claims this partnership illustrates the company’s “commitment to environmental stewardship.” I dearly hope that’s true, but I suspect it’s just business. A significant delay would cost the company far more than $22 million, so could this be little more than a good investment?
Interestingly, there is an alternative, less environmentally destructive route along I-80 for the pipeline, but the company opposes it because it increases costs, so as usual, cost-cutting trumps environmental safety. There have been at least four ruptures in natural gas pipelines already this year (Michigan, New Mexico and two in Texas) causing significant damage to nearby watersheds.
We have a current example of what happens when cost cutting outweighs environmental safeguards, right? After four months of fumbling, millions of gallons of oil has finally stopped pouting into the Gulf of Mexico because a big energy company cut corners. Oh, incidentally, guess who is signed up to use the Ruby Pipeline? You guessed it, BP.
I know it isn’t easy being green, but let’s re-think the El Paso “partnership” and definitely don’t let it become a trend.
Footnote: Fortunately, the game isn’t over. The 9th Circuit Court could stop the project, of course, and El Paso also needs permission from the Bureau of Land Management to cut through federal lands along the route. That decision is expected in May, so we’ll have to wait to see if El Paso’s momentum carries it over the finish line.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Because the BLM pretty much functions as though it was a private rather than public agency, using tax money to boost rather than regulate and police public lands ranching, the Western Watersheds Project is very much like a public agency. I mean WWP is like the police.
It is indeed too bad that WWP can't use any of this money for running their organization. If is were so, then the payment could be seen merely as a tax to assure the provision of a public service -- effective rangeland management.
P.S. Natural gas floats. How does it "destroy watersheds"?
Your point's well taken and I agree with you. Money corrupts, and lots of money corrupts a lot. It's precisely this kind of corruption in the conservation community--they are all non-profit CORPORATIONS after all, so why are we surprised when they act like for-profit corporations--that has caused me to give up conservation as a vocation. I'm still an honest man.
We are also seeing here, aside from the financial corruption on the part of WWP, one of the other fundamental problems of the conservation institution, and that is compartmentalization of issues in a way that damages conservation overall.
WWP's schtick is livestock grazing, so it's more than happy to sell people concerned with oil and gas pollution down the river. Conservation suffers from drawing boundaries between and among issues. It's for the money, of course.
Another example that really angered me is when Defenders of Wildlife gave Montana's Department of Livestock (DOL) $100K to fund a wolf depredation compensation fund. This is the same DOL that has slaughtered thousands of bison over the years in the name of "disease prevention," which I call the brucellosis fraud. A number of us at the grass roots of bison conservation immediately saw the hypocrisy of Defenders' decision to "collaborate" with DOL. Clearly, Defenders didn't, but then, money and political influence blinds people to ethical concerns. That's the problem.
And, of course, let us not forget when the National Wildlife Federation stood up for delisting the grizzly bear even as more and more evidence of the negative impact of the decline of whitebark pine and other critical food sources on grizzly bear demographics and behavior was appearing. The federal courts placed the bear back on the ESA list mainly because the US Fish & Wildlife Service completely ignored the whitebark pine problem, trying to explain it away by grossly overemphasizing the role of bears' ability to switch foods. However, the NWF likes its "insider" status, which brings it plenty of money, even if it damages grizzly bears.
This shameless pursuit of money is happening at all levels of conservation; it's only the big instances such as you're discussing here that get into the public eye. I personally am fed up with it.
RH
RH
http://www.thenation.com/article/wrong-kind-green?page=full.
RH
As usual logger is posting propaganda and foto is advocating "beneficial logging of roadless wilderness" no matter the topic.
Screw their pipeline thats some of the last wild, high desert country left.
We don't need this pipeline period.
"Sixth, I bet the greens never get the money.
Seventh and most important, I understand how cash-strapped small green groups can be. Most can’t even pay their dedicated workers, let alone fund a tiny fraction of what they need to do. But is this the way to do it?"
It is true. WWP will never "get the money", because that isn't what they agreed to (note - extortionists usually ask the money to be paid to them). The mitigation fund is just that -- mitigation for the environmental harm associated with the pipeline. Is it really fair to equate this with BP donating $10M to TNC?? Does it matter how "cash-strapped" WWP is if not a penny will actually be paid to WWP? WTF?? The debate we should be having is this: is it ever appropriate to negotiate with Big Energy over mitigation associated with a project as opposed to seeking to delay the project through the courts in the hope that some mitigation might be forthcoming? This is an important debate to have with Obama pushing so-called "alternative" energy, like gas, wind, etc., and pushing hard for energy corridors like this one. Does anyone want to have that debate? Or should we instead erect straw men and equate apples with oranges in order to accuse each other of imaginary crimes and call one another names. WWP is a sell out? Really, Robert?? Are you basing that on the facts, or on Wild Bills' uninformed, illogical thought balloons? Is it even possible to have grown up conversations anymore?? I guess that's a rhetorical question...
thats you foto constantly advocating "logging" or "thinnig in roadless areas"
No kidding you can't log in wilderness
Logger- How dare you quote "Like A Hurricaine" by Neil Young he does'nt stand for your wing nut dribble.
BTW when are foto and logger not trolling newwest spewing their usual dribble?
This is an article about a pipeline mostly through northern nevada's prisitine northern great basin country.
Yet logger is talking about board feet and foto is spewing the usual abnd you wonder why it upsets this old BAERH??
The CBD recently signed a "memorandum of Understanding" with a developer of a proposed OSB (oriented strand board) mill in Arizona. The MOU declares they won't oppose-and in fact will actively endorse- the mill and logging on 30,000 acres/year. This is an attempt to "attract financing" for bankers leary of anything dependent on USFS wood. I'd say their action of suing El Paso and ruining their "collaboration" with Watersheds, just about sums up how worthless their own MOU will be.
P.S. Natural gas floats. How does it "destroy watersheds"?
By Fotoware, 8-05-10
Tester and Wyden seek to bribe green groups with wilderness in exchange for the mere potential for beneficial and restorative logging. This pits conservationists against preservationists and much handwringing. Obviously, our lawmakers often cave in to this form of extortion, not seeing that a wilderness bribe isn't enough for the preservationists to even consider logging of any kind. I simply don't see this style of compromise to be a good "trade", in that forest management is already possible according to law.
Why are u 2 just constantly spewing this dribble no matter the to[pic just give it a rest!
Sooooo, tell me, Baerh....When do you go into hibernation?? I'm giddily awaiting that day, amongst others!
El Paso's pipeline is a three-billion-dollar project. Assuming the capital is lined up, the meter is ticking at at least $150 million a year as long as things sit still. Add in the throughput not happening ($7.5 million worth of gas a DAY will be pumped upon completion) and 22 million was chump change.
It wasn't chump change to either WWP or ONDA, which want the money to compete with ranchers for grazing leases, by first using the funds to lobby for the authority to fight for targeted grazing allotments. El Paso did the math, it worked for them. Or so they thought.
I can't help but wonder what CBD is trying to do....line up for their own blood money?
Of course, none of this would be happening if the slags in Congress would reform environmental laws so that wonderful people like Jon Marvel wouldn't be Masters of the Universe By Default.
As for El Paso, skank you very mutch, you morons.
Bahahahhahhaa
yeah it's sop hard to make the connection between tester's bill and the extortion going with tihs pipeline, it's just beyond this senile old Baerh as you say mr. insult. Curious how i've always campianged against any sort of public lands trade or wilderness trade. Also toto you hatye wilderness so your more than willing to trade it away for multiple use lands.
Northern Nevada is as pristine as anywhere left in the west, and yes i've seen the grazing. Have you ever even been to these areas toto? Nevada is rated as the least impacted state by humans.
The real question is when is Toto and logger going to stop living their lives on newwest commenting on every article with their same agenda.
You're only hurting your misguided causes, and I'm just not seeing anyone else complaining, or even debating against my middle-of-the-road ideas. You keep trying to stereotype me but, it only makes you look like a manical extremist who refuses to bring any facts to the table, relying on insults, instead.
i've been through this with you beofre the lanugage is "not signifigantly impacted by man"
you intepret it as you like meaning no more wilderness.
Your not middle of the road I am toto.
BTW not seeing you comment on my northern nevada facts.
Bahahahah toto
have fun posting your dribble endlessly here at newest
just get a life toto mr. insult
"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."
I've already stated my opinion on this pipeline, and any "fact" you bring up is questionable, as you have proven to be often ignorant of real facts. YOU are the one who has had comments deleted because of insults. People with open minds easily see through your belligerent and uninformed ramblings, especially when it is liberally laced with insults.
Reminds me of the Glen Canyon / Dinosaur trade the Sierra Club made. Another place nobody knows. Another slice of the bologna. To boot, it is a kind of extortion and bribe hybrid, as described by the original poster. Sleazy from all angles. Worthy of media attention, a minimum High Country News piece. The ranchers recently got their share. I understand that the Native Americans are next.
In fact, if ONDA, WPP and others were interested in the REAL big picture, why not propose legislation for a national park, monument or preserve from Abert to Alvord? Hold out and use your clout, let them pay. Particularly when the costs in the big picture are so great - from Opal, Wyoming to Coos Bay, Oregon.
In any case, the next question is whether or not this funding will be coming. It is still quite possible that the pipeline will not come if the CBD's suit is successful. Process and purpose is where the plan succeeds or fails. Given this was a Cheney Energy Task force project and that the federal government is already oftentimes not only political but moreso understaffed at the human resource and scientific expertise levels, my guess is non-adherence to some process will delay the pipeline for at least a year - if not two. All the time the research and political winds will shift to the benefits of utilizing an existing corridor along I-70 or 80.
I'm disappointed and these "environmental" organizations should be ashamed. So much was given for so little in return.
I don't mean to minimize the benefits to Hart Mountain - it is the primary beneficiary. In holdings are important to acquire for all the reasons we know but we also know that they are very difficult to develop and "languish" as mostly wildland nonetheless.
Nonetheless, even with the money, Congress STILL needs to act for the acquisitions to occur.
To restate: Congress should, instead, be acting on a truly massive park/preserve/monument bill fostered by all these groups.
It is too bad they are so myopic - and disappointing.
Kind of like Mr. Obama's presidency.
Fact is, it's just the way of the world - and the best example is what goes on in Washington every day. Doesn't make it right, but don't be so surprised if those same tactics are embraced by conservation groups. They'll make a buck any way they can, especially in this 'recovery' economy.