That’s not true. It becomes a political issue because it crosses an international border which requires federal approval. Without that border crossing, this portion of the pipeline would have already been built just like all the other segments.
TransCanada is absolutely not seeking federal assistance to gain easements or anything like that. They do negotiate with all of the landowners involved just like with every other pipeline project. I’m sure the vast majority of rights of way are secured through a voluntary contract without the use of state eminent domain laws.
Yeah, from what I can tell the closest TransCanada has come to using eminent domain was a political attempt in Nebraska to essentially give the Governor power to seize land for eminent domain to use for the pipeline. However, the Nebraska courts struck this down. Typically State Public Service Commissions can require a landowner come to terms on utility infrastructure, but it’s less commonly used for pipelines, more commonly used for electric power transmission lines and such. It’s not in the interests of the public for example to allow one guy with an annoying parcel of land to require the electric company to build a 30 mile bypass of his property, even if he’d really like to not have transmission lines on his property.
But most importantly public service commissions and utility regulations are essentially State government activities, they have nothing to do with the Federal government. The Federal government is really only needed here because it crosses an international border, most pipelines are built with limited Federal oversight of the process. Sure, the pipeline companies have to follow environmental laws and safety regulations, FERC regulations (especially on operation of the pipeline once it’s operational) and et cetera, but those bodies generally can only stop pipeline construction over narrowly tailored reasons. But international border crossings, the State Department can essentially decide based solely on whim, which is what makes this pipeline political while most others are not.
They used the threat of eminent domain. I was not at all thrilled. I gave in at that point because I figured they could afford better lawyers than I could. I didn’t mind the pipeline so much. I do mind the giant, landscape-scarring, noisy compressor station right at the edge of my property.
According to the local news, several landowners took it all the way to court, and lost. The southern leg of the Keystone pipeline is in the ground and pumping.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the government still needs to pay a fair market price for land taken via eminent domain? Granted the landowner may want more but after paying lawyers to fight it not sure how much better off you could expect to be.
Of course there is the, “I don’t want to sell at any price” issue but of course that is why eminent domain was invented.
Yes. Land isn’t just stolen. At least in Alberta, companies have to negotiate with landowners if they want to drill on that land to gain access and right of ways. The landowner mostly has to comply because while they own the land, they don’t own the resources under it. But there are boards, regulations and eventually the legal system to work through disputes.
Because the only reason this is being discussed is because it crosses a border. Whether it is a good idea isn’t relevant because as long as a company wants to build it, is willing to pay for it, and follows all the laws in doing so, then they can. It is their money.
And how is fair market price determined? By negotiating with the sellers to determine how much they want for it. If eminent domain truly entailed paying a fair market price, the process wouldn’t be needed. If a landowner wants more than what the government’s paying, then what the government’s paying isn’t the true fair market price after all.
Not exactly…if said landowner can actually GET that price from someone other than the government THEN they aren’t paying fair market price. To paraphrase the Pawn Stars, you can ask anything you want for your land, but it’s worth what you can get for it.
First of all, I’m not looking for personal benefits, like low gas prices, but for societal benefit.
A couple years ago, the pipeline would have had more benefit. Now that the railroads have ramped up their capacity, the benefit is much less.
It is true that the political issue is dragging on longer than the reality of current importance. But, although I’m basically an Obama supporter, I find his statement that there still hasn’t been enough time for "thorough consideration of complex issues"preposterous. Pipeline transport is cheaper than rail, safer for people than rail, and more energy efficient.
No. The sneaky assumption in that statement is that “all the laws” as they currently exist are perfectly crafted to balance corporate interests with the larger long-term public good. They are not, and they never have been. Without increasingly stronger laws, usually enacted long after the fact and much too late, we’d have even worse toxins in our air and water and general pollution than we do now, and even worse climate change problems.
The oil pipeline touches on important public policy issues, and these have already been mentioned throughout this thread. These are just two very recent stories about some of the public policy questions being buried in the political machinations:
The problem with KXL is that it constitutes an immense capital investment in a major piece of infrastructure that incentivises all the wrong behaviors for generations to come.
I don’t see the connection between the tar sands being used and the pipeline being built. Evidence that Canada is exploiting the tar sands, without the pipeline being built, is overwhelming. See:
A combination of low oil prices (big factor) and no Keystone (small factor) is slowing down tar sands extraction a little. But slowing down a bit for a year or two doesn’t mean less being extracted.
Does this mean that reversing global warming, other than by risky climate engineering, is hopeless? I know that would be emotionally quite difficult for a lot of people to accept, but that’s probably the case.
The fact is that environmentalist success in stopping this pipeline has done just about zero to stop global warming. Opposition is a feel-good cause creating economic harm – and political harm to the Democratic party – without helping the environment.
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
Climate change study says most of Canada’s oil reserves should be left underground
[/QUOTE]
Except, it won’t be.
Except the converse, that blocking KXL will de-incentivise won’t really work…all it will do is marginally cut into transport costs while adding additional risks. I suppose, on the up side, the more oil spilled because of using rail (except when there are large fires due to derailment or other train related accidents) will mean less gets burned. So, silver lining…
(It will also make environmental types feel good about themselves and their efforts…sort of like the anti-nukes)
Valid concern, but has nothing to do with the KXL, since this is what Canada is already doing, and presumably will continue to do with or without the pipeline. I guess we’ll see how it plays out with the vote though.
“What a landowner wants” isn’t market price in any case. That’s like saying if my house burns down, and it was worth “fifty billion” to me, then if I get a check for $300,000 from my insurance that I’ve been robbed of the true fair market value of the home. That’s nonsense.
I’ll repeat–the only reason you guys have heard of this pipeline is because a political department, the State Department, reporting directly to Obama, gets to decide if it’s built across the international border or not. You wouldn’t hear about it otherwise, the eminent domain issues have really nothing to do with the State Department or the debate. The Federal government would be unlikely to be able to stop a pipeline being built in the Midwest somewhere, at least not without flagrantly breaking the law, as long as the pipeline builders were following the appropriate processes.
The eminent domain issue is a matter really of State by State law here, and it’s not at all why the State Department is involved, and it’s only because the State Department is involved that this is a public issue.
Keystone and Keystone XL aren’t the same thing, by the way. But I don’t feel any pity for you. This is infrastructure, no different than water lines or electricity transmission lines. We need this stuff, and recalcitrant landowners cannot be allowed to stand in the way or make transmission costs exorbitant for the rest of society.
You hold your land fee simple, which means you own it at the government’s pleasure (subject to our laws, of course), you don’t hold it in allodium, giving a right of way for valid societal infrastructure projects was never really yours to give or refuse.
Kelo aside, in general if Wal-Mart or some real estate developer wanted your land for private purposes you could be as recalcitrant as you wanted, but it’s not a valid thing over infrastructure projects.
The National Academy of Sciences study on the effects of dilbit (diluted bitumen–what the KXL will carry) on aquifers will START sometime in 2015. The KXL is planned to cross one really major aquifer system–the High Plains system, aka Ogallala–yet we have almost no firm evidence on what would happen to drinking and irrigation water supplies if they had a spill in a particularly bad spot. Is that not a complex issue deserving of study?
Sure it’s different. Water and electricity are conveyed for the benefit of all of us at large. The oil is being conveyed so the Canadians make more money. Most of what it transports isn’t intended for us in the first place–the U.S. is now the world’s largest exporter of diesel, and the KXL will let the Canadians and the oil companies even export more of it (incidentally while raising the price of gasoline in the Midwest, or did you miss that part of TransCanada’s reasons for wanting the KXL?).
This project IS for private purposes, no different than if Wal-Mart wants my land for a new distribution center.
Don’t the rail lines coming down from Canada also cross the Ogallala, at least potentially? Do you know what route the oil is currently taking? What about existing pipelines in the US…none of them cross the Ogallala at all? It seems to me that most of the rail lines for things like oil tankers would go through either NE, KS or OK if they are wanting to get from Canada to Texas without having to go through the major eastern city hubs (most of which look to be Amtrak, though that might just be the map I’m looking at).
Never mind…here is a map of current US pipelines that also shows the planned route for KXL. Here are the freight line rail transport maps. You know what they both have in common?
Yes, some of the rail lines cross the Ogallala. When a trail derails, though, somebody usually notices fairly quickly (like the guy running the train, or the dispatchers in radio contact, or the various transponders). The KXL could be leaking 12,000 barrels a day before its leak detection is designed to trigger.; what happens if it starts leaking 5000 barrels/day in a field in the middle of nowhere, and nobody notices for awhile?
(The Kalamazoo spill, whose cleanup cost over a billion dollars and climbing, was 20,000 barrels; a typical railroad tank car carries about 750 barrels.)
A rail spill would be very very bad; a pipeline spill could be much much larger, and could be ongoing for much longer before any efforts at containment, much less cleanup. That difference in scale makes a lot of difference in the potential danger.
