NIT – In a controversial announcement made in recent weeks, a Texas company revealed that it has plans in motion to build an oil pipeline through Iowa.
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. calls the proposed 1,100 mile, 30-inch diameter “Bakken Pipeline” the “solution to responsibly transport US crude supplies to US markets and refineries”. The pipeline would transport crude supply from strategic receipt points in the Bakken/Three Forks production area in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois, where the Bakken Pipeline will interconnect with Energy Transfer’s existing Trunkline Pipeline.
Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) says it has already secured multiple long-term binding contractual commitments from shippers sufficient to fully support the construction of a 30-inch pipeline from North Dakota to Patoka.
The pipeline will initially provide 320,000 barrels per day of capacity, and ETP could increase the capacity of the Bakken Pipeline based on additional customer demand. ETP has already begun the process of ordering steel and negotiating construction contracts for the Bakken Pipeline, and ETP expects to have the Bakken Pipeline built and in service, and the Trunkline crude oil conversion project completed and in service, by the end of 2016.
ETP says the construction of the Bakken Pipeline project will help further develop the crude rich areas in and around the Bakken and provide additional U.S. crude supplies to U.S. markets and refineries along the East and Gulf Coasts.
“The pipeline not only supports the continued growth and production on the Bakken area, but does so in a cost effective and environmentally responsible manner by reducing the current utilization of rail and truck transportation as the predominant alternative to moving Bakken crude oil volumes to major U.S. markets,” ETP said in a statement.
The pipeline would enter Iowa from the northwest tip of the state and travel in more or less a straight line southeast, running directly between Ames and Ankeny and then all the way to Fort Madison in the very southeast tip of the state, covering 17 counties. Approval would likely be required from the Iowa Utilities Board and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and property owners along the planned route. Eminent domain may be employed if other measures fall into place. According to TheBakkenShale.net, letters were sent to landowners along the potential route in July informing them of the plans. The letters were meant to introduce landowners to the project as well as get permission to survey the land.
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad said last month at a press conference that he has “not taken a position” on the pipeline, and said he wants “to learn more about it and I want to make sure that the procedures are appropriately followed.”
Environmentalists blasted the pipeline proposal.
One group said “the Iowa Bakken Oil Pipeline will be a climate disaster. Building it could harm Iowa’s water quality, contribute to catastrophic climate change, and threaten the property rights of everyday Iowans across the state,” and urged the governor to reject the proposal. A petition was launched to convince Branstad to keep the pipeline out of Iowa.
[poll random]
Let’s see. We get less than 5 percent of our oil from them!! Where you folks been hiding. O yeah. The corn fields of iowa
Anything that gets us out of our dependency to the Muslim country’s I am in favor of.
Including electric cars and Wind / Solar Farms to power them?
@Philly-If they can make it economical enough yes. Right now they have a long way to go to get there. Solar seems to work on a individual basis and in SUN country. It does not seem to be economical in a commercial setting. Wind is worse. Very expensive to implement and cost to much to use. Without subsidy’s both would fade away.