Re: Ruby Pipeline Project; Docket No. CP ; Response to Comments from Mr. Randy Largent, Landman for Newmont Mining Corporation

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Re: Ruby Pipeline Project; Docket No. CP ; Response to Comments from Mr. Randy Largent, Landman for Newmont Mining Corporation"

Donna Jefferson
5 years ago
Views:

1 March 1, 2010 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C Attention: Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Commissioners: Re: Ruby Pipeline Project; Docket No. CP ; Response to Comments from Mr. Randy Largent, Landman for Newmont Mining Corporation Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. ("Ruby") is filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("Commission") in Docket No. CP a response to comments filed by Mr. Randy Largent, Landman for the Newmont Mining Corporation ( Newmont ), concerning the Ruby Pipeline Project ("Project"). Description of Proceeding On January 27, 2009, Ruby filed its application, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, requesting (i) a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction, ownership, and operation of new interstate natural gas pipeline facilities; (ii) a blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Ruby to provide open-access transportation services with pre-granted abandonment approval; and (iii) a blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct, operate and/or abandon certain eligible facilities, and services related thereto. The Project would be comprised of approximately 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter, high pressure natural gas pipeline linking production areas in the Rocky Mountain region to demand regions in northern California, Nevada, and the Pacific Northwest. The pipeline project being proposed will be referred to as the "Ruby Pipeline Project" or "Project."

2 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -2- March 1, 2010 Description of Information Being Filed On February 9, 2010, Mr. Randy Largent filed comments in this proceeding expressing concerns about the construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project along the currently proposed route. Mr. Largent was concerned that a modification to a segment of Ruby's originally proposed route had resulted in the proposed pipeline route being in close proximity to an active mine site. Second, Ruby's proposed route was crossing Newmont's unpatented claims that are located adjacent to Newmont s Midas mine. 1 The referenced segment (between approximately Mileposts and 383.4) of proposed route is located within the Willow Creek Route Alternative which Ruby adopted in September 2009, largely at the request of the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") and Nevada Department of Wildlife. Ruby strives to be proactive in coordinating its stakeholder outreach activities in a manner that keeps all interested parties to potential rights-of-way matters informed and involved. In this regard, Ruby regrets that its communication efforts with Newmont were not better on this matter; Ruby was simply unaware of Newmont's unpatented mining claim interest in that portion of the Willow Creek Route Alternative. Immediately after Newmont s comments were brought to Ruby s attention, Ruby and Newmont representatives met to identify and confirm the areas of concern. Ruby also met with BLM Staff at the Elko, Nevada BLM office to review these concerns. The BLM advised Ruby that Newmont does have an active unpatented mining claim in the area, with an approved Plan of Operation for exploration only. 2 Furthermore, the BLM clarified that if or when Newmont seeks authorization to mine the area, Newmont will need to file a new Plan of Operation. This new plan would need BLM s review and approval. It is Ruby's understanding that the Midas Mine, as currently authorized by the BLM, would not be affected by Ruby's proposed alignment. Ruby coordinated a meeting on February 22, 2010 with BLM and Newmont to discuss resource concerns and to seek input on possible routing options to minimize potential resource impacts. Ruby is collaborating with Newmont, Barrick Goldstrike Mine (an adjacent private landowner) and the BLM to resolve Newmont's concerns. Ruby, Newmont and BLM have agreed to review different options based on the following: 1 2 For ease of reference, Ruby is attaching a copy of Mr. Largent's comments. If Newmont were to develop any new surface mine in this area, these activities would likely affect Elko County s Midas Tuscarora Road. Note that Ruby s Willow Creek Route Alternative primarily parallels the Midas Tuscarora Road and also is collocated within portions of the abandoned AT&T s coaxial cable right-of-way.

3 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -3- March 1, 2010 BLM will determine the respective rights of the parties. Specifically, BLM will ascertain whether a right-of-way grant to Ruby would be subject to the unpatented mining claims or whether the mining claims would be subordinate to valid right-of-way grants. Newmont will review its on hand geological information to determine gold trends in the area and possible areas for future mining. Ruby will review avoidance variations and review with Barrick, the private landowner most likely to be affected. o BLM will review the route variations currently under discussion to determine potential resource impacts. Ruby will continue to work with the BLM and Newmont to resolve routing issues and anticipates meeting with all of the interested parties in March Should Ruby, the BLM and Newmont agree to a pipeline reroute in this area that adequately addresses and satisfies all of the parties concerns, Ruby will seek the appropriate Commission, BLM, and landowner approvals to modify its proposed route as part of the post-certification normal variance request process. Filing Information Ruby is efiling this document with the Commission's Secretary in accordance with the Commission's Order No. 703, Filing Via the Internet, guidelines issued on November 15, 2007 in Docket No. RM Ruby is also providing an electronic copy of this filing to the Commission's Office of Energy Projects. Respectfully submitted, RUBY PIPELINE, L.L.C. Enclosures cc: David Swearingen, OEP

4 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I have this day caused a copy of the letter to be served upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Commission's Secretary in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures. Dated at Colorado Springs, Colorado as of this 1 st day of March P.O. Box 1087 Colorado Springs, Colorado (719)

5 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/9/2010 1:34:32 PM Regarding the Ruby Pipeline, Nevada: On February 4, 2010, I received a call from BLM that informed me that Ruby Pipeline alignment was just.8 miles from a Newmont active mine site. I immediately checked Rubyâ s website and printed the version of Rubyâ s alignment dated 1/23/09. Later I talked to a Ruby representative about this change and he informed me of a modification in which crosses the Newmont mining unpatented claims very close to Midas mine. Ruby had agreed prior that Newmont would be notified promptly of such alignment changes. Ruby failed to do so. The 1/23/09 alignment was satisfactory to Newmont, but a later version of was not posted on the internet and could cause problems with Newmontâ s current geologic or engineering plans. Thank you, Randy Largent Landman, Newmont Mining Corporation 1655 Mountain City Hwy Elko, Nevada 89801

6 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 2/9/2010 1:34:32 PM Document Content(s) 5044.TXT...1-1

September 21, Docket No. ER

September 21, Docket No. ER California Independent System Operator Corporation September 21, 2017 The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Re: California