It's "extortion"

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 12:52:24 PM MST

"Extort" on M-W:

"...to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power..."

"Blackmail" is totally different.

The Bozeman Chronicle in a rare moment of clarity:

Schweitzer is apparently seeking some kind of vengeance against political opponents, but if they refuse to write the letters he demands, the people he will actually be hurting by denying their fair share of federal stimulus money are his constituents, the voters of Montana - some of whom have supported him on various issues and some who have opposed him.

This is not a black-and-white world. It is a world of many shades of gray. And the welfare of our representative democracy depends on our freedom to disagree about and debate a whole range of issues.

Drop the silly demands that these elected leaders grovel in front of you, governor, and start practicing some statesmanship.

Did Brian Schweitzer Just Jump the Kingfisher?

by: Matt Singer

Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 08:37:37 AM MST

But prioritizing public infrastructure projects in terms of local governments' support for political agendas is just beyond the pale.

This whole thing has left a really terrible taste in my mouth. I know I'm not alone on that front.

George Ochenski's editor has termed it "blackmail." I think the term they were looking for is "extortion."

Land Board Dems to Rule, Again, on Otter Creek Coal

by: bhash

Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 18:36:05 PM MST

The oppugning voices also condemned Otter Creek's parasite, the proposed Tongue River railroad. This thoroughfare, required to get the coal to market, must exercise eminent domain to cleave ranches and farms with a 121-mile stretch of track - each mile costing over $5 million and, if completed, wreaking disaster on the valley's water quality and irrigation, and threatening the spawning grounds of the endangered pallid sturgeon.

Fast-forward to February 8: Otter Creek's bid deadline closed quietly, without a single offer. But the lack of interest at 25 cents per ton didn't mean a lack of interest. DNRC knew this. The Governor knew this. And Arch Coal knew the state knew. And we knew that Arch knew the state knew. And somewhere Donald Rumsfeld was smiling. So DNRC wasted little time recommending the Land Board drop the minimum bid price 10 cents to better attract a suitor.

And the Land Board did just that, but not without holding another meeting on the newest proposal. This is, after all, a public process. And again, this time on February 16, the majority of oral and written testimony staunchly opposed leasing the land for a coal mine. And again the Land Board voted, this time 3-2 with A.G. Steve Bullock opposing, against public interest and in favor of sending a billion plus tons of carbon-heavy coal to out-of-state planet-warming power plants.  

Fast-forward to today (or rewind to February 8?): The bid process is underway with a deadline Tuesday, March 16. Are bids expected? Not likely considering the Governor announced at February's meeting the new minimum bid price of 15 cents per ton was still more than double the state's appraised value of the coal. Will Arch Coal hold their cards for an even lower bid price? If so, they also run the risk of another Land Board member defecting and swinging a 3-2 vote against them. Or perhaps one of the five Democrats will motion to table the issue once and for all.

There is much at stake here: ranches, farms, a watershed, our health, our climate, and setting a course that promotes clean energy over filthy fossil fuels. With continued pressure on the three coal-friendly Land Board members, the next meeting on Thursday, March 18, could yield a different result. And Otter Creek, its ranches, farms, fish and wildlife could remain for now and future generations.  

To help lay to rest this myopic endeavor you can attend and testify at the Land Board hearing this Thursday, March 18, beginning at 9 a.m. in room 137 of the Capitol building. You can also participate in one of two actions in Montana on Tuesday, March 16:

• In Missoula meet at the XXX's on the north end of Higgins Ave. at noon and march  four blocks to the bridge to rally.
• In Billings rally at 1 p.m. at the Yellowstone Valley Courthouse Park

The Coal Cowboy

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 07:07:20 AM MST

The so-called champion of alternative energy - what he called "clean and green" -- led the charge of the State Land Board in lowering the minimum bid price for the Otter Creek coal from 25 cents to 15 cents a ton.

His actions and his vote were bad enough. But they were accompanied by this outrageous statement:

"The policy deciding whether there will be coal-mining is not set in Helena, it is set in Washington, D.C.," he said shortly before the vote. "If this board votes not to lease coal at any price, there will still be development at Otter Creek."

So, if I understand this correctly: Policies emanating from Washington, DC, are good and must be followed?

Seems like this is the guy who has made a career of running against Washington, DC, often referring to it as a cesspool. After all, he proudly thumbed his nose at the feds over REAL ID and told the US government to shove it up its ass. He didn't like it and wasn't afraid to say so.

Hell. He was all over the national media. He basked for weeks in the glow of the spotlight even though it was a legislative resolution and he had no official role in it whatsoever. The resolution required no action on his part. None. A safe and sanitary act of defiance.

Observers erroneously concluded this bright star from the West was the real hero. Sorry. The hypocrite that he is was just acting. Most of his five years in office have been an act.

"Clean and green"? Foreget it. That was a sideshow and grist for the 2008 election cycle. No, for this guy, some national energy policies must be followed, now matter how ill-advised, no matter how dispicable. With the dirty corporate coal lobbyists leading the way, national energy policy ensures dirty coal is king. They have hundreds of millions to spend to fight any Congressional effort, no matter how lame, to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

And, the "Good Gov," as he is so reverently referred to in the postings on LiTW, did what he said he wouldn't do: Give our resourves away. Where he could have made a difference, he chose to lead by following corporate dogma and money.

Has he ever said he believes that coal contributes to climate change and global warming Don't think so. His escape is 'clean coal technology' and and a boondoggle known as  carbon sequestration.

So, tell me, Governor, when an 80-car coal train passes through Helena, how many thousands of tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented because of clean coal technology? Or, sequestered by carbon sequesatration?

Like you, he knows the answer. None.

The Otter Creek episode is a tragedy that will unfold for decades and centuries to come. The December and February votes represent pandering to corporate interests at its very worst.

Off course, the issue was framed as one in support of economic development and job creation for eastern Montana. But, tell me: Is there an example of a coal-producing anywhere on this planet where coal mining produces prosperity in the region where the mining takes place?

Yes, it took two other votes to deliver the coup d grace. One Democrat led two others into the abyss. With a 66 percent approval rating, this guy can do no wrong. Or, so it seemed. Just imagine what would have happened had five Republicans occupied these statewide offices.

Oh, and one last thing: What happens when there are no bids at the 15 cent minimum bid?  It is abundantly clear that the coal industry colluded not to bid at 25 cents. Since the December vote, it has had us by the testes.

In unison now, along with the the Schweitzer trio,"We want to show we can be just like Wyoming and give away our resources. Just name your price. We'll approve it. Trust us. If it doesn't all work out, we'll blame it on Washington, DC."

Does the bullshit from this guy never end?

Why does Brian Schweitzer love coal?

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 15:27:26 PM MST

A divided state Land Board today voted to lower the minimum bid for leasing 570 million tons of state-owned coal in southeastern Montana's Otter Creek Valley, dropping the upfront payment from 25 cents per ton to 15 cents a ton.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer, part of the board's 3-2 majority in favor of lowering the bid, told a packed hearing room at the Capitol that the 25-cent minimum set by the board in December was like the opening call at an auction, and that auctioneers usually lower the price when there is no takers....

State Auditor Monica Lindeen and Secretary of State Linda McCullough joined Schweitzer in supporting the new bid minimum.

Steve Bullock joined Denise Juneau in voting against the price cut.

George Ochenski saw a double standard in the governor's vote after the recent deal with British Columbia to halt resource extraction on the Canadian side of the Flathead Valley:

Travel now to southeast Montana, far from the rich and famous of the bustling Flathead Valley to the Tongue River Valley. While there's a distinct lack of real estate activity, new subdivisions and upscale McMansions, the area is home to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and family ranches that span generations. This serene landscape of gently rolling hills stands in contrast to Glacier's rocky, snow-covered peaks and, unlike the Flathead's west slope, precipitation is sparse and welcome. As a result, both surface and groundwater are very precious commodities for agricultural and domestic use.

Why is water for Flathead Valley Montanans worth saving, but Tongue River Montanans get their scarce water sacrificed to coal mining? That's our dirty double standard. And why, after endlessly touting himself as "clean and green," would Schweitzer vote for mining coal that is likely going to Pacific Rim customers' dirty power plants?...

Honestly, I just don't understand why Schweitzer is so interested in developing Otter Creek coal. (McCullogh, on the other hand, always has been irrationally pro-resource-extraction, and Lindeen -- a team player - has Walt in her office.)

It can't be for political considerations: this is Schweitzer's last term. Unless he's eying a Senate seat - Baucus'? - his political future, if any, is on the federal level, in the Cabinet or as a presidential candidate. (Sure, Sec's of the Interior are usually pro-coal Westerners, but the Good Guv's already established himself on that front. Otter Creek won't help.) But...there's been absolutely no rumor of his running.

Does Schweitzer believe development of Otter Creek would be good for Montana? Possibly. It would bring money and jobs to the area - but resource extraction in no way is the best or even efficient means of bringing money into a community. Check out this Grist report on an MIT study on jobs. Investing in coal is one of the least efficient means of producing jobs. One of the best? Land restoration:

Conservation-investing in, for instance, the expansion of National Parks and other local, state, and federal recreation areas through, for instance, the Land and Water Conservation Fund-isn't too far behind. Some of the direct jobs in this sector include park rangers, park transportation workers, and other park personnel.

Relative to other spending options, investments in forests and parks tend to go towards wages rather than capital investments-providing the greatest benefit to communities, especially in economically difficult times (since Nature largely provides the materials that go into making a tree or a prairie grow for free, you don't need the same kind of capital as you do for, say, building a highway).
The actual jobs impact of forest investment is actually significantly greater than what's represented in the above table. A variety of other studies have analyzed job creation through conservation and found dramatic indirect effects. Expand a national park, national forest, river or local recreation area, and spending on and employment in outdoor recreation-everything from birdwatching and hiking to fishing and hunting - is dramatically increased.

Schweitzer's a smart guy. He knows this stuff. After all, Pat Williams has been talking about a "Restoration Economy" for some time.

There is a weird obsession in Montana with resource extraction, probably because it's so entwined with Montana's history and, consequently, its self-identity, where past is romanticized hopelessly beyond recognition. Just as a trust-fund hobby sheep farmer and real-estate developer wears cowboy boots to claim authenticity, so politcos adopt pro-coal positions to prove their connection to this unreal past.

Of course reality is different from it's romantic memory. After all, the biggest hero from the state's mining history is a man who was hung from a railroad trestle for demanding a living wage and safe working conditions for coal miners.

New Republican strategy same as the old one

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 12:06:59 PM MST

Of course, the political reality doesn't support these allegations. Under Democratic leadership, the state has done fairly well compared with the rest of the country. The state has run budget surpluses under its Democratic governor and the state has had sound fiscal management. A good response should be to remind folks (especially some of our own) that Democrats and leftys believe, not in bigger government, but better government. That we want to build a party for the people, not the plutocrats.

And, yes, I'm aware that the present state of the Democratic party falls short of those ideals.

And then there was this:

Senate Majority Leader Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo, ripped into the Democratic-controlled Land Board, saying it "turned its back on responsible natural resource development" last month by voting to set overly high lease prices for state coal in eastern Montana's Otter Creek Valley.

"We're committed to developing our energy resources and putting Montanans back to work," he said.

I don't want to toot my own horn, but...what did I tell you?

Republicans will push against the Land Board, claiming they set the price too high on purpose to prevent the coal from being leased. After all, why not? They have a tendency to treat public land as corporate America's backyard, why not try to pressure the Land Board to essentially give away the state's coal tracts? It's good for teh childs! Well, not so much.

The Republicans are dutifully stepping up to play their part in the Otter Creek Kabuki. Man, don't you just hunger for someone, anyone in politics - Republican or Democrat - and just say this whole deal is bullsh*t, and have done with it?

Otter Creek coal too expen$ive, says energy man!

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 09:06:05 AM MST

The head of the company that owns more than half the coal in southeastern Montana's Otter Creek Valley said this week that he'll be surprised if anyone bids on state-owned coal there, because the Land Board probably set the minimum price too high.

Chuck Kerr, president of Great Northern Properties in Houston, also told the Gazette State Bureau that the state is asking a lot by requiring potential coal developers to pay an entire "bonus bid" up front.
"I think that's going to be a stretch," he said. "I think 25 cents (per ton) is too high. But we could be surprised."

Get it? Republicans will push against the Land Board, claiming they set the price too high on purpose to prevent the coal from being leased. After all, why not? They have a tendency to treat public land as corporate America's backyard, why not try to pressure the Land Board to essentially give away the state's coal tracts? It's good for teh childs! Well, not so much.

But then that's assuming the fuss and bother over Otter Creek coal isn't just Kabuki theater for the masses. Again, see George Ochenski's short history of the coal tracts: there are probably too many obstacles in the way of coal development in Otter Creek. Here's what he said then:

Unfortunately, it's a fool's game initiated by Republicans but now being perpetuated by Democrats, who hold every seat on the state's Land Board. Ironically, as the nations of the world meet in Copenhagen to wrestle with the disastrous impacts of climate change, Montana's top elected officials continue to greenwash the mining and burning of the most polluting fuel on the planet.

To get back to the physics of politics, it's clearly time for the Democrats on the Land Board to pull the plug on Otter Creek, write off our losses, bring this bad idea to a dead stop, and move on to the change we were promised and so desperately need.

But somehow the coal tracts have come to represent commitment to Montana's rural educational system. If, god forbid, you oppose development in Otter Creek, you hate children in Eastern Montana. It's as simple as that. And as an additional bonus for the Krayton Kernses of the world, by fighting for development in Otter Creek, you can stick it to those know-it-all scientists and their global warming plots to take over the world. You don't even have to develop the coal, all you need to do is make skittish Democrats vote for coal, too, and that's enough.

About that 4-to-1 vote on the Otter Creek coal tract

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:55:22 AM MST

Bear in mind, the shareholders were divided over the advisability of the lease.

Nonetheless, the five got together to strike an agreement regarding the terms of lease and the minimum price.

During the meeting, it was clear that one of the five opposed the lease. Without a great deal of discussion, it was also clear that three of the five seem to agree that a minimum bid of, let's say, $250,000.00 was acceptable, while the fifth said the minimum bid should be, say, $350,000.00.

As the lease was subject to a recorded vote, the outlyer made a motion: Lease the mineral rights for for $350,000.00 and not a penny less. None of the others liked the motion and did not second it. And, the proposal to lease for $350,000.00 died.

So, later, when the time came to vote on a motion to lease the rights for $250,000.00, what did the sponsor of the $350K motion do?

Before you answer, think about it.

Land Board votes to lease Otter Creek coal, 4 to 1

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 21:56:31 PM MST

Personally, I can't see anyone actually digging for coal there anytime soon. George Ochenski explains the history of the Otter Creek tracts and the roadblocks that thus far have prohibited development - a needed, expensive, and unbuilt rail line and the coal's poor quality, to name two - and probably will indefinitely in as the future of coal looks bleak.

That's not to say the vote was disappointing. As Yellowstone Kelly pointed out, most of the votes were politically motivated, not practical. Sadly, they're caught up in the false conservative rhetoric that pits rural school children and blue collar workers against environmentalists; voting "yes" is necessary if you don't like makng good, bold policy suggestions that benefit both. Like advocating for a restoration economy, or spurring a renewable energy industry in the east, or providing state loans for home energy efficiency, the interest of which would go straight to schools...

Prediction: Land Boards sides 4 to 1 with coal

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:53:42 AM MST

The background information, issues and elaborations have been outlined and expounded elsewhere. There is no need now to regurgitate all of it here.

Suffice it to say that the vote on Monday represents a choice about Montana's energy future.

Supporters argue a 'yes' vote is a vote for jobs and economic development in an economically depressed region. This position also references the fact that the revenues from the coal mining go to fund education.

Opponents of a 'yes' vote make the environmental/ stewardship arguments. Opponents supplement their position by referencing the preponderance of scientific data making the connection between coal combustion and elevated carbon and climate change and global warming.

Unfortunately, none of the compelling information affects the vote. It won't be about responsible public policy. It will be about politics, plain and simple.

Each member has made up her or his mind.

And, the vote will be 4 'Yes' and 1 'No.'

Analysis of the votes below the fold.