SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Protesters gathered in downtown Portland, Maine in January 2013 (Photo: Gregory Rec/AP)
Green Group Sues US Govt For Hiding Tar Sands Plan
National Wildlife Federation says State Department concealed public records about possible plan to move dirty oil through New England
Apr 25, 2014
The National Wildlife Federation filed a lawsuit this week charging the U.S. State Department is refusing to disclose public information about a pipeline company's possible plans to transport dangerous tar sands oil from Montreal to the coast of Maine.
The lawsuit takes aim at the oil industry's repeated claims that there is no plan to transport the dirty oil through New England, despite numerous indications that such a plan indeed exists.
A 70-year-old, 236-mile pipeline, owned by Portland Pipeline Corporation (which is majority owned by Exxon-Mobile), currently transports crude oil from freighters in the city of South Portland, Maine to Montreal.
Yet, environmental and community organizations say there are strong signs that PPL and parent company Montreal Pipe Line Company is planning to reverse the flow of the pipeline in order to transport tar sands oil from Canada to South Portland where it would then be distributed to international markets via oil tankers and an upgraded terminal.
NWF is accusing the State Department of refusing to respond satisfactorily to a Freedom of Information Act request (pdf) filed over two years ago for public documents about such plans.
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, the NWF charges that the State Department has neglected to hand over a "key 2008 document from Exxon-owned Portland Pipe Line Corporation's attorney detailing a previous plan to reverse the pipeline for tar sands use"--information the environmental group says provides critical information about the company's future intentions to move tar sands.
"The public has gotten very little information about what the true the intentions are," said Miles Grant, senior communications manager for NWF, in an interview with Common Dreams. "This should be public record."
According to NWF, more than 40 towns in Northern New England have passed resolutions against moving tar sands through the region. In South Portland, a local effort to pass a zoning ordinance to block a future tar sands terminal was narrowly defeated last year after the oil industry poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a campaign to squash the measure. South Portland organizers have vowed to continue the fight to keep tar sands out of their city.
While PPL claims it has no current plan to reverse the pipeline, critics charge that their refusal to share information about their plan casts doubt on this claim.
"Information is power, and that is why they are trying to hide their plans," Robert Sellin, from the group Protect South Portland, told Common Dreams.
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
The National Wildlife Federation filed a lawsuit this week charging the U.S. State Department is refusing to disclose public information about a pipeline company's possible plans to transport dangerous tar sands oil from Montreal to the coast of Maine.
The lawsuit takes aim at the oil industry's repeated claims that there is no plan to transport the dirty oil through New England, despite numerous indications that such a plan indeed exists.
A 70-year-old, 236-mile pipeline, owned by Portland Pipeline Corporation (which is majority owned by Exxon-Mobile), currently transports crude oil from freighters in the city of South Portland, Maine to Montreal.
Yet, environmental and community organizations say there are strong signs that PPL and parent company Montreal Pipe Line Company is planning to reverse the flow of the pipeline in order to transport tar sands oil from Canada to South Portland where it would then be distributed to international markets via oil tankers and an upgraded terminal.
NWF is accusing the State Department of refusing to respond satisfactorily to a Freedom of Information Act request (pdf) filed over two years ago for public documents about such plans.
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, the NWF charges that the State Department has neglected to hand over a "key 2008 document from Exxon-owned Portland Pipe Line Corporation's attorney detailing a previous plan to reverse the pipeline for tar sands use"--information the environmental group says provides critical information about the company's future intentions to move tar sands.
"The public has gotten very little information about what the true the intentions are," said Miles Grant, senior communications manager for NWF, in an interview with Common Dreams. "This should be public record."
According to NWF, more than 40 towns in Northern New England have passed resolutions against moving tar sands through the region. In South Portland, a local effort to pass a zoning ordinance to block a future tar sands terminal was narrowly defeated last year after the oil industry poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a campaign to squash the measure. South Portland organizers have vowed to continue the fight to keep tar sands out of their city.
While PPL claims it has no current plan to reverse the pipeline, critics charge that their refusal to share information about their plan casts doubt on this claim.
"Information is power, and that is why they are trying to hide their plans," Robert Sellin, from the group Protect South Portland, told Common Dreams.
_____________________
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
The National Wildlife Federation filed a lawsuit this week charging the U.S. State Department is refusing to disclose public information about a pipeline company's possible plans to transport dangerous tar sands oil from Montreal to the coast of Maine.
The lawsuit takes aim at the oil industry's repeated claims that there is no plan to transport the dirty oil through New England, despite numerous indications that such a plan indeed exists.
A 70-year-old, 236-mile pipeline, owned by Portland Pipeline Corporation (which is majority owned by Exxon-Mobile), currently transports crude oil from freighters in the city of South Portland, Maine to Montreal.
Yet, environmental and community organizations say there are strong signs that PPL and parent company Montreal Pipe Line Company is planning to reverse the flow of the pipeline in order to transport tar sands oil from Canada to South Portland where it would then be distributed to international markets via oil tankers and an upgraded terminal.
NWF is accusing the State Department of refusing to respond satisfactorily to a Freedom of Information Act request (pdf) filed over two years ago for public documents about such plans.
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, the NWF charges that the State Department has neglected to hand over a "key 2008 document from Exxon-owned Portland Pipe Line Corporation's attorney detailing a previous plan to reverse the pipeline for tar sands use"--information the environmental group says provides critical information about the company's future intentions to move tar sands.
"The public has gotten very little information about what the true the intentions are," said Miles Grant, senior communications manager for NWF, in an interview with Common Dreams. "This should be public record."
According to NWF, more than 40 towns in Northern New England have passed resolutions against moving tar sands through the region. In South Portland, a local effort to pass a zoning ordinance to block a future tar sands terminal was narrowly defeated last year after the oil industry poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a campaign to squash the measure. South Portland organizers have vowed to continue the fight to keep tar sands out of their city.
While PPL claims it has no current plan to reverse the pipeline, critics charge that their refusal to share information about their plan casts doubt on this claim.
"Information is power, and that is why they are trying to hide their plans," Robert Sellin, from the group Protect South Portland, told Common Dreams.
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.