Dispute over refinery near national park heats up in court | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Dispute over refinery near national park heats up in court

Associated Press
925242_web1_925242-518e072beb22433ca6d7561f5dd8f2c0
AP
Parties involved in a dispute over whether North Dakota regulators should be involved in the siting of a controversial oil refinery near Theodore Roosevelt National Park, located in the Badlands of North Dakota, are battling in state court.
925242_web1_925242-5a016ee088d149f898036765702d7a6a
AP
Parties involved in a dispute over whether North Dakota regulators should be involved in the siting of a controversial oil refinery near Theodore Roosevelt National Park, located in the Badlands of North Dakota, are battling in state court.

BISMARCK, N.D. — Parties involved in a dispute over whether North Dakota regulators should be involved in the siting of an oil refinery near Theodore Roosevelt National Park are battling in state court.

The dispute is over whether state regulators should have reviewed the site of the $800 million Davis Refinery being built just 3 miles from the park.

The Public Service Commission last year declined to review the site, concluding the refinery will be too small to warrant review under state law.

Environmental groups that don’t believe developer Meridian Energy is being forthright about the refinery’s size want a state judge to order a commission hearing.

Meridian maintains the groups are on a “fishing expedition.” The commission also argues against a hearing, saying it must take Meridian at its word.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.