Keystone Pipeline

[carlfense]

If the pipeline is made to code and verified by inspection, it probably won't leak anything significant.

 

However my concern is that costs will be cut in construction, and in inspection.

This is just from this summer.

http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/07/exxons-yellowstone-oil-spill-shows-pipeline-risks.html

 

This is from the last month or so in Nebraska.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20111214/NEWS01/111219854

 

This is hardly uncommon.

[HSKR]

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve but it isn't working. We already talked about it in this thread about how the jobs thing is not going to be that big of a deal, especially for the local economies. Most of it is going to be temporary as the pipeline is being built, those jobs don't last but they are union jobs. Why do you think they brought union workers in by bus to Lincoln to protest in favor of the pipeline. The other place that will get the jobs will be the refineries in TX, also union jobs.

 

That is a great article you posted. If further backs my point that we need refineries closer to home such as SD, more jobs here and cheaper fuel. Although, I don't see how it can take jobs away because you said all the oil was being shipped overseas so how can they divert this oil from other refineries. I'm really starting to get confused here.

Well, now I'm confused. I thought OWS was backed and funded by the unions . . . but they protested strongly against Keystone. I guess the only constant is that unions make an excellent boogeyman.

 

I actually covered the Keystone hearings before the legislature several months ago. The only protesters that I personally know were brought in by bus were ranchers who were protesting the pipeline crossing their land. I actually met a few distant relatives for the first time who were not exactly happy about the government stepping in and saying that they had to allow TransCanada to come through.

 

I think you might want to look at what types of fuels are made (cost effectively) from tar sands. Hint: there is a reason why the primary markets are Europe and Latin America.

 

http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/public-voices-concern-praise-for-keystone-xl-pipeline-at-meeting/article_d5fb800e-b6e0-52b8-abdd-a049f8a843c9.html

 

All those people in the orange shirts were union workers brought in supporting the Keystone XL. It was all over the news in Lincoln for a couple of days. I will admit at the time I found it rather humorous to watch liberal union workers protesting against liberal environmentalists.

[carlfense]

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve but it isn't working. We already talked about it in this thread about how the jobs thing is not going to be that big of a deal, especially for the local economies. Most of it is going to be temporary as the pipeline is being built, those jobs don't last but they are union jobs. Why do you think they brought union workers in by bus to Lincoln to protest in favor of the pipeline. The other place that will get the jobs will be the refineries in TX, also union jobs.

 

That is a great article you posted. If further backs my point that we need refineries closer to home such as SD, more jobs here and cheaper fuel. Although, I don't see how it can take jobs away because you said all the oil was being shipped overseas so how can they divert this oil from other refineries. I'm really starting to get confused here.

Well, now I'm confused. I thought OWS was backed and funded by the unions . . . but they protested strongly against Keystone. I guess the only constant is that unions make an excellent boogeyman.

 

I actually covered the Keystone hearings before the legislature several months ago. The only protesters that I personally know were brought in by bus were ranchers who were protesting the pipeline crossing their land. I actually met a few distant relatives for the first time who were not exactly happy about the government stepping in and saying that they had to allow TransCanada to come through.

 

I think you might want to look at what types of fuels are made (cost effectively) from tar sands. Hint: there is a reason why the primary markets are Europe and Latin America.

 

http://journalstar.c...49f8a843c9.html

 

All those people in the orange shirts were union workers brought in supporting the Keystone XL. It was all over the news in Lincoln for a couple of days. I will admit at the time I found it rather humorous to watch liberal union workers protesting against liberal environmentalists.

Protesting against liberal environmentalists and sandhills ranchers . . . who would probably fight you in a bar for calling them liberal.

[HSKR]

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve but it isn't working. We already talked about it in this thread about how the jobs thing is not going to be that big of a deal, especially for the local economies. Most of it is going to be temporary as the pipeline is being built, those jobs don't last but they are union jobs. Why do you think they brought union workers in by bus to Lincoln to protest in favor of the pipeline. The other place that will get the jobs will be the refineries in TX, also union jobs.

 

That is a great article you posted. If further backs my point that we need refineries closer to home such as SD, more jobs here and cheaper fuel. Although, I don't see how it can take jobs away because you said all the oil was being shipped overseas so how can they divert this oil from other refineries. I'm really starting to get confused here.

Well, now I'm confused. I thought OWS was backed and funded by the unions . . . but they protested strongly against Keystone. I guess the only constant is that unions make an excellent boogeyman.

 

I actually covered the Keystone hearings before the legislature several months ago. The only protesters that I personally know were brought in by bus were ranchers who were protesting the pipeline crossing their land. I actually met a few distant relatives for the first time who were not exactly happy about the government stepping in and saying that they had to allow TransCanada to come through.

 

I think you might want to look at what types of fuels are made (cost effectively) from tar sands. Hint: there is a reason why the primary markets are Europe and Latin America.

 

http://journalstar.c...49f8a843c9.html

 

All those people in the orange shirts were union workers brought in supporting the Keystone XL. It was all over the news in Lincoln for a couple of days. I will admit at the time I found it rather humorous to watch liberal union workers protesting against liberal environmentalists.

Protesting against liberal environmentalists and sandhills ranchers . . . who would probably fight you in a bar for calling them liberal.

 

LOL, that is a good point. Probably not a more conservative area in the US then the Sandhills. I'd guess that even the ranchers who call themselves Democrats in that area are more conservative then many Republicans across the country. Jane Kleeb seems to have gained some political stardom out of this ordeal. I'd say she is as much of a recognizable political figure if not even more so then her husband now. Plus she is pretty easy on the eyes.

[HSKR]

Senate, done, house to be be done shortly. Now the pipeline is completely in Obama's hands. I guess we will find out if Obama is a big oil guy very soon.

[Mavric]

Court strikes down Nebraska law that allowed Keystone XL pipeline

 

A judge has declared unconstitutional a Nebraska law used to reroute the Keystone XL pipeline.

 

Lancaster County District Judge Stephanie Stacy ruled Wednesday that the 2012 law improperly gave the governor authority to approve the pipeline route, said David Domina, an Omaha attorney who represented plaintiffs in the case.

 

The judge said regulatory control over pipeline companies rests with the Nebraska Public Service Commission. She granted a permanent injunction to prevent Gov. Dave Heineman and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality from taking further action to advance the pipeline.

 

The ruling would appear to mean TransCanada, the company seeking to build the crude oil pipeline, will have to seek approval again for its route.

 

“Under the court's ruling, TransCanada has no approved route in Nebraska,” Domina said in a news release. “TransCanada is not authorized to condemn the property against Nebraska landowners. The pipeline project is at a standstill in this state.”

[carlfense]

Court strikes down Nebraska law that allowed Keystone XL pipeline

 

A judge has declared unconstitutional a Nebraska law used to reroute the Keystone XL pipeline.

 

Lancaster County District Judge Stephanie Stacy ruled Wednesday that the 2012 law improperly gave the governor authority to approve the pipeline route, said David Domina, an Omaha attorney who represented plaintiffs in the case.

 

The judge said regulatory control over pipeline companies rests with the Nebraska Public Service Commission. She granted a permanent injunction to prevent Gov. Dave Heineman and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality from taking further action to advance the pipeline.

 

The ruling would appear to mean TransCanada, the company seeking to build the crude oil pipeline, will have to seek approval again for its route.

 

“Under the court's ruling, TransCanada has no approved route in Nebraska,” Domina said in a news release. “TransCanada is not authorized to condemn the property against Nebraska landowners. The pipeline project is at a standstill in this state.”

Good news. I'm particularly surprised at the lack of outrage about the eminent domain aspect.

 

Putting aside the environmental issues . . . shouldn't small government conservatives (e.g. Nebraskans) be apoplectic about the public seizure of private lands to benefit a foreign corporation?

[carlfense]

From awhile back:

Landowners’ lawyer Brian Jorde, in a phone interview yesterday, said his clients are concerned as Nebraska taxpayers and landowners.

 

“They’re concerned about the potential environmental effects, concerned that a foreign, for-profit company, came into Nebraska with eminent domain power to take their land,” Jorde said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-27/keystone-pipeline-eminent-domain-foes-seek-nebraska-court-order

[Mavric]

Putting aside the environmental issues . . . shouldn't small government conservatives (e.g. Nebraskans) be apoplectic about the public seizure of private lands to benefit a foreign corporation?

I can't decide where the middle ground is. I work in the electric industry and there are similar issues with transmission lines. There is an ever-increasing demand for electricity and, thus, an ever-increasing need for infrastructure but many refuse to allow facilities on their property. On one hand, people should be able to make decisions about what happens on their property. But at the same time, you basically couldn't do anything without some mechanism to put them in. I don't know what the right answer is.

[carlfense]

Putting aside the environmental issues . . . shouldn't small government conservatives (e.g. Nebraskans) be apoplectic about the public seizure of private lands to benefit a foreign corporation?

I can't decide where the middle ground is. I work in the electric industry and there are similar issues with transmission lines. There is an ever-increasing demand for electricity and, thus, an ever-increasing need for infrastructure but many refuse to allow facilities on their property. On one hand, people should be able to make decisions about what happens on their property. But at the same time, you basically couldn't do anything without some mechanism to put them in. I don't know what the right answer is.

But that's a bit different . . . that's a utility with immediate and tangible benefits for the Nebraska public. Keystone XL provides immediate and tangible benefits for Canada and China.

 

What does Nebraska get besides giving up property rights and risking our land and water? Where is the public good for Nebraska?

[Mavric]

Putting aside the environmental issues . . . shouldn't small government conservatives (e.g. Nebraskans) be apoplectic about the public seizure of private lands to benefit a foreign corporation?

I can't decide where the middle ground is. I work in the electric industry and there are similar issues with transmission lines. There is an ever-increasing demand for electricity and, thus, an ever-increasing need for infrastructure but many refuse to allow facilities on their property. On one hand, people should be able to make decisions about what happens on their property. But at the same time, you basically couldn't do anything without some mechanism to put them in. I don't know what the right answer is.

But that's a bit different . . . that's a utility with immediate and tangible benefits for the Nebraska public. Keystone XL provides immediate and tangible benefits for Canada and China.

 

What does Nebraska get besides giving up property rights and risking our land and water? Where is the public good for Nebraska?

I agree. That's why I said similar. I was just talking about being able to transport some sort of commodity over a considerable distance and having to acquire land to do it.

[strigori]

Putting aside the environmental issues . . . shouldn't small government conservatives (e.g. Nebraskans) be apoplectic about the public seizure of private lands to benefit a foreign corporation?

I can't decide where the middle ground is. I work in the electric industry and there are similar issues with transmission lines. There is an ever-increasing demand for electricity and, thus, an ever-increasing need for infrastructure but many refuse to allow facilities on their property. On one hand, people should be able to make decisions about what happens on their property. But at the same time, you basically couldn't do anything without some mechanism to put them in. I don't know what the right answer is.

But that's a bit different . . . that's a utility with immediate and tangible benefits for the Nebraska public. Keystone XL provides immediate and tangible benefits for Canada and China.

 

What does Nebraska get besides giving up property rights and risking our land and water? Where is the public good for Nebraska?

I agree. That's why I said similar. I was just talking about being able to transport some sort of commodity over a considerable distance and having to acquire land to do it.

Very different though. They can already transport the oil with other methods, the pipeline is just cheaper long term for the oil company. You cant load electricity only a railcar or boat.

[carlfense]

FWIW, this ruling doesn't stop TransCanada from doing what it should have been required to do from the beginning: negotiating with individual landowners and paying an appropriate amount for this extremely profitable pipeline easement.

 

This just prevents them from using the government to force a sale against a landowner's wishes.

[Mavric]

What does Nebraska get besides giving up property rights and risking our land and water? Where is the public good for Nebraska?

To answer this question, there are a few things. There would be a short-term economic boost during construction. Also, I'm not familiar with the specs for this specific pipeline but many have large pumping stations along the route to push whatever is being transported. That would be a minimal increase in employment for maintenance but would be a very nice load addition for the local electric utility. Those stations are very low maintenance but high revenue which would be a big help to small rural electric utilities. But the biggest boost to Nebraska would be the property taxes the pipeline would have to pay. it would be a decent spike in property valuation along the route which would increase the tax base for many local entities. Particularly entities that have a levy cap - such as schools - would get a boost from the increased valuation and it may provide some measure of a decreased levy for other local entities.

[carlfense]

That would be a minimal increase in employment for maintenance but would be a very nice load addition for the local electric utility. Those stations are very low maintenance but high revenue which would be a big help to small rural electric utilities.

That's true . . . but I don't know if that is going to be particularly convincing to the landowners whose property will be seized.

 

But the biggest boost to Nebraska would be the property taxes the pipeline would have to pay.

Do you know how that works in Nebraska? I'm roughly familiar with how property taxes on pipelines are assessed in Alaska but I don't know if Nebraska is similar.