DENVER — Widespread opposition has developed in Colorado to federal approval allowing construction of Utah’s Uinta Basin rail line, with opponents voicing environmental concerns over the rail line that could see shipment of up to 350,000 barrels of crude oil daily, or about 10 unit oil trains.
The Denver Post reports 42 Colorado cities, 11 counties, and 20 water sanitation districts have followed the lead set by Eagle County, Colo., which voted earlier this year to pursue legal action over the Surface Transportation Board’s approval of the project [see “Colorado county plans to challenge approval …,” Trains News Wire, Feb. 2, 2022].
Eagle County’s suit in federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., filed last month, has since been consolidated with one field by the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups [see “Environmental groups sue over STB approval …,” News Wire, Feb. 14, 2022]. Other governmental bodies in the state have asked Colorado U.S. Sens. Michael Bennett and John Hickenlooper to intervene.
The opponents argue that the STB’s approval failed to consider downstream impacts on Colorado, as well as the widespread impact of increasing fossil-fuel production from the Uinta Basin, which currently produces about 80,000 barrels of waxy crude per day.
Mike McKee, executive director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which has overseen the proposal to build the 85-mile rail line, told the Post he disagreed that regulators did not fully understand the environmental risks but otherwise declined comment.
Colorado is not downstream it is is upstream from the project. The watershed goes south directly into the Green and Colorado Rivers in Utah. Eagle County Colorado is in the middle of the state.
No bad from this Coloradan. Bring it in. Ship it through. Use Tennessee Pass if need be. We need our own energy and now!
Does the line run anywhere at all through Colorado or any of those Colorado counties? If not, toss the their objections out the window, they have no say in the matter, at least they shouldn’t have any say in the matter.
The proposed newly built 85 mile line does not run at all in the state of Colorado, but it ties into the former Rio Grande (current day UP) line from Salt Lake City to Denver. The Colorado environmentalist folks, believe UP will route these trains east along that ex-Rio Grande line through the Moffat Tunnel and into Denver. Those same environmentalist don’t seem to realize that UP could just as easily take the loads north to Salt Lake and onto Ogden then cut right and go east on the easily traversed UP Overland Route to Cheyenne instead of going through the heart of that Rockies. From Cheyenne, the loads could go south along the Front Range to Denver then Pueblo and southeast towards the Gulf Coast it go east from Denver to KC. So all this fuss could be about a routing these loads will never take. From my experience, railroads don’t always take the most direct route to the loads’ final destination.
The NIMBYs have (d)evolved to NISEBYs (Not In Somebody Else’s Back Yard).
Meantime, while this all gets sorted out, Please, no Colorado folks complain about the high fuel costs right now…O K??
No can do, Steve. We need to import more oil from Russia and Iran to fuel their thirsty SUVs. Can’t provide our own resources. BANANAs!
Of course we could convert to electric vehicles and power them with either renewable energy or coal– preferably the first
Not clear why anyone is investing in the Unitah basin, given the need to convert to clean energy as fast as possible and the fact that will save consumers money in the long-run.
Jacob, that is the big question ( the economics of investing in Uintah Oil). There appears to be demand in the petro coast for this substandard oil.
Drink that Biden Kool-Aid…
This is normal. When someone opposes a STB decision, the next step is Federal Court. They (the courts) typically have not blocked common carriers from shipping items, including fossil fuels. The only exception in recent memory was spent nuclear fuels and DOE covers that now.