Texas pipeline benefits promoters more than Iowans

Dakota Access/Energy Transfer and its Phillips 66 partner are seeking to install a 30-inch diameter crude oil pipeline through our state, impacting 18 counties.

Its team of attorneys, lobbyists and business consultants are actively promoting the project in community information meetings across our state.

The oil and gas groups behind this project are not government entities, yet are seeking rights of eminent domain.

The Siegelman Report, commissioned by interested Texans, recently depicted the purported benefits to Iowa of that pipeline. The same report did not mention the huge financial benefit to the project promoters, nor the cost to Iowa of that line if it is approved and installed.

Even though regulatory authority from the Iowa Utilities Board has not yet been received, Energy Transfer's Web page says the company 'has already begun the process of ordering steel and negotiating construction contracts for the Bakken Pipeline, and ETP (Energy Transfer Partners) expects to have the Bakken pipeline built and in service and Trunkline crude oil conversion project completed and in service, by the end of 2016.”

Apparently, Energy Transfer has concluded state regulatory approval and positive landowner reaction to the project are a certainty.

But what is the cost to Iowa for that crude oil superhighway through our state and is there a public need and necessity, transporting a product likely never to be sold here?

This is the same oil and gas industry that so regularly challenges the Renewable Fuel Standard in Washington, D.C., political circles over ethanol and biodiesel issues. That group recently threatened litigation to terminate the RFS.

In Iowa, however, far from the beltway, they seek cooperation from Iowa corn and soybean farmers in allowing access through their land for their crude oil pipeline.

What the promoters never talk about in the public information meetings is the huge benefits to the pipeline owners and users, should installation be allowed. Up to 570,000 barrels per day of crude oil will pass through Iowa that will save $8 a barrel or more in transportation costs, compared to delivering the same oil by rail car. If a 25-year permit is authorized by the Iowa Utilities Board, it will save the proponents some $40 billion in transportation costs.

Since this line was originally designed, oil has plummeted from over $100 a barrel to $64 a barrel. That dramatic oil price decline calls into question the long-term viability of this line. Have the original design assumptions so drastically been altered to result in significantly reduced need for this private line installation?

To obtain approval in Iowa, Energy Transfer must establish a public 'convenience and necessity” satisfactory to the Iowa Utilities Board.

There will, of course, be capital and operational expenditures in our state during the two-year construction period. Once that cycle has been completed, then what?

' Energy Transfer contends that it will improve safety to the public and our environment over rail and truck delivery of oil. Is that true?

According to the U.S. DOT, spill rates for pipelines are three times higher than rail, based on crude shipments between 2002 and 2012.

And, one oil leak in Tioga, N.D., occurring in the fall of 2013 will take until late 2015 or longer to clean up a wheat field left steeped in some 20,600 barrels of oil. The soil contamination ran some 30 to 50 feet deep and will cost over $20 million to mitigate.

The nation's top federal oil and gas pipeline safety official was quoted in late 2013 as saying: The regulatory process he is overseeing 'is kind of dying.” He went on to admit that his federal oversight agency has 'very few tools to work with in enforcing safety rules.”

' The promoters claim the line will ease transportation constraints for agricultural products. Is that accurate?

The Des Moines Register reported on Dec. 1 that: 'Grain elevators around Sioux City say their rail shipments of grain this year have been mostly on time, and they are cautiously optimistic about handling the big 2014 harvest over the next few months.” That does not sound like a rail car shortage for grain products.

l Finally, the company suggests that installation of this private line will increase America's energy independence. Is that claim fact-based?

The claim that we need a pipeline through Iowa to reduce dependency on foreign oil is a tired and outdated myth. The United States presently imports less than 33 percent of the petroleum it consumes, the lowest annual average since 1985 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Bloomberg reports in an article dated Dec. 11 that the U.S., in 2014, supplied 89 percent of its own energy. Two of the top three countries we import from are Canada and Mexico, not countries associated with any domestic threat to our country. Those two friendly nations accounted for over 60 percent of U.S. oil imports, in September.

At $64/barrel, oil prices are the lowest in years. U.S. crude output is the most shown in government data that started in 1983. There is a global glut of oil and demand is weakening. Our country is not foreign oil dependent.

Instead of promoting this private line to serve the 'public convenience and necessity”, the facts appear to show otherwise. There is clearly a private benefit to be garnered by the Texans in saving some $40 billion in transportation costs if the line is approved.

The pipeline permits should be denied and the power of eminent domain refused this group. Their attempts to contort and misuse our state regulatory process, landowner rights and environmental landscape should not be rewarded.

One example makes clear how little those pushing for this pipeline know about their plan of line installation. They have repeatedly stated at public meetings they intend to place the line two feet below farm tiles so as not to interfere with the latter's efficiency.

When one landowner asked in a private conversation with project supervisors if they knew how deep Iowa tile was placed, they responded: 'about three feet, right?”

When told it might be as deep as 20 feet, they appeared shocked. Little design consideration has apparently been given to trenching 22 feet below the surface to place a 30-inch diameter pipeline through Iowa farmland.

World-class Iowa agricultural land should not be used by private companies to experiment with placement of a line serving no apparent public need or purpose.

' Fred L. Dorr is a Cherokee County landowner whose land is on some versions of the proposed pipeline route. Comments: (515) 283-1801.