PDA

View Full Version : Environment? Eminent Domain? Or Both?


BlueStreak
02-21-2014, 03:04 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/19/keystone-pipeline-nebraska/5616213/

Primarily, I am more concerned about the eminent domain aspect of this and secondarily any potential environmental impact. I oppose the idea of handing the "...right to acquire..." property owned by private citizens to corporate entities.

I know, the politicians involved would likely approve the exercise of eminent domain anyways. But, as a matter of principle, such important decisions as forcing the sale of land owned by American citizens, should at the very least be decided by democratically elected officials. Not corporate oligarchs acting of their own volition.

Dave

merrylander
02-21-2014, 06:06 AM
It sounds like it was decided by the Governor alone and not debated in the legislature. That should be a no no because it is very easy to influnce a single individual. As far as the environmental aspects the tar sands will go ahead regardless just with a different customer - China. As well the environmental aspects are little different than fraking in ND then shipping the oil across Canada by rail and burning down a whole town in Quebec - Lac Megantic. And it was an American rail operator's train.

Oerets
02-21-2014, 06:37 AM
It sounds like it was decided by the Governor allone and not debated in the legislature. That shold be a no no because it is very easy to influnce a single individual. As far as the envirronmental aspects the tar sands will go ahead regardless just with a different customer - China. As well the environmental aspects are little different than fraking in ND then shipping the oil across Canada by raiil and burning down a whole town in Quebec - Lac Megantic. And it was an American rail operator's train.

The oil will go to the highest bidder period! You think for one minute if a few cents more is to be made somewhere else the oil will stay in the US?

I doubt very serious though is being given to any other delivery system other then the pipeline. To much cost for the oil companies/Canada.


Barney

BlueStreak
02-21-2014, 07:29 AM
It is dirty business being TOLD that you will sell property, like it or not. I'm sure very few people have ever liked being subjected to it.

However, I understand it is sometimes necessary to acquire land for the greater good. But, I firmly object to private interests to have the ability to execute this on their own, simply because "It would happen anyways.".

It affords too much authority to unelected powers. To my mind this goes even further from the idea of "Government by consent." than any malfeasance at the hands of the elected.

Dave

merrylander
02-21-2014, 09:23 AM
The oil will go to the highest bidder period! You think for one minute if a few cents more is to be made somewhere else the oil will stay in the US?

I doubt very serious though is being given to any other delivery system other then the pipeline. To much cost for the oil companies/Canada.


Barney

It will be XL or some other name, it goes to Texas or to the west coast and China. Ninety percent of the companies working the tar sands are foreign to Canada, their Petro Canada has a small piece of the action.

Of course a pipeline is safer than rail given the state of the roadbed. Funny, you and I subsidise trucking companies by gas tax for the roads but railroads get to pay for their own rails.

Although Lac Megantic was the fault of the train operator and not the roadbed.

Let corporations decide eminent domain? Hell no, I am not even sure the government is qualified. If you want my land I will set the price. Went through that shit when we moved from Quebec to Ontario. On of the trust companies bidding was trying to butter up the company and bid way low.

djv8ga
02-21-2014, 09:53 AM
Huh. The oil companies & US government can't make the guy an offer he wouldn't want to refuse?

MrPots
02-21-2014, 02:16 PM
Not when you can get it for a song through eminent domain...

djv8ga
02-21-2014, 02:58 PM
Not when you can get it for a song through eminent domain...


If that's really the way it is, Screw the pipeline.

CarlV
03-20-2014, 02:43 PM
Today's WaPo:

You might expect the biggest lease owner in Canada's oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn't the case. The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.

The Koch Industries subsidiary holds leases on 1.1 million acres -- an area nearly the size of Delaware -- in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, according to an activist group that studied Alberta provincial records. The Post confirmed the group’s findings with Alberta Energy, the provincial government’s ministry of energy. Separately, industry sources familiar with oil sands leases said Koch’s lease holdings could be closer to two million acres.The company with the next biggest collection of oil sands leases is Conoco Phillips.

What is Koch Industries doing there? The company wouldn't comment on its holdings or strategy, but it appears to be a long-term investment that could produce tens of thousands of barrels of the region's thick brand of crude oil in the next three years and perhaps hundreds of thousands of barrels a few years after that.
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/20/the-biggest-land-owner-in-canadas-oil-sands-isnt-exxon-mobil-or-conoco-phillips-its-the-koch-brothers/)



More, though older, fun:

Let’s step back and review what the refineries actually do. The diluted tar sands bitumen (or “DilBit”) that would flow through Keystone XL is an ultra-acidic, highly viscous mess, that doesn’t at all resemble the refined petroleum products like diesel or gasoline or even jet fuel that are sold on the commercial markets. DilBit is, in the words of Keith Schneider, ”thick as peanut butter and more acidic, highly corrosive, and abrasive” than typical crude.
This tar sands DilBit needs to be refined before it can be sold. But only certain refineries are capable of handling the corrosive DilBit.

Refiners along the Texas Gulf Coast, where the Keystone XL pipeline would ultimately deliver tar sands DilBit from Canada, are eager to accomodate. The company that appears positioned to receive and refine more of TransCanada’s crude than anyone else is the Valero Energy Corporation (NYSE: VLO).

Valero "Dedicated" To Keystone XL - And Ready To Profit From It
Valero is the world’s largest independent refiner, with 15 refineries that have a collective capacity to process 2.9 million barrels per day. While their commitments to TransCanada are confidential, Valero is publicly “dedicated” to the Keystone XL project, and their 310,000 barrels per day Port Arthur, Texas refinery would receive the Alberta-born crude. Valero has invested heavily to upgrade the Port Arthur plant to handle “heavy” “sour” crude (a.k.a. tar sands DilBit) for the past few years, anticipating the pipeline’s completion.

The company has long hoped for a steady supply of Alberta’s tar sands crude, first signing on to Keystone in July of 2008. In 2010, when the Texas company was pouring money into California’s Prop 23 battle, spokesperson Bill Day urged that Alberta is “a tremendous potential supplier for us.”

While their involvement with Keystone XL has largely flown under the radar, Valero was exposed in the bombshell “Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed” (PDF) report by Oil Change International in September. The report found that, despite constant claims by TransCanada and other Keystone supporters of increased “energy security,” much of the crude that flows through Keystone XL would be exported. Valero was held up as a prime example of how and why. From that report:
Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation’s top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline’s capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free.


Shell’s subsidiary Motiva and Total, both “shippers” with long-term contracts with TransCanada, also operate in this Foreign Trade Zone, meaning that they are exempt from customs duties on imports and exports, and also from state and local taxes.

In other words: they can sell the Keystone XL crude overseas without paying American taxes. Combine that with the fact that the Port Arthur plants are conditioned to take low-grade tar sands crude and refine it to diesel--which has much higher demand overseas-- and the incentive for Valero to export the Keystone XL crude is huge.
Link (http://www.desmogblog.com/valero-positioning-export-tar-sands-oil-guarding-pot-gold-end-keystone-xl-pipeline)



Carl

icenine
03-20-2014, 03:28 PM
Is the Nebraska Public Service Commission an elected body or appointed by the Governor?

I remember a 60 Minute piece about a city near Cleveland (Lakewood?) that was trying to eminent domain a bunch of gorgeous Victorian or early 19th Century homes on the lakefront.....not because they were decrepit but because the developers who wanted to demolish them for newer homes would give the city more money in taxes.

Eminent Domain is a tricky issue the extremes at each end can be damaging to the public good.

finnbow
03-20-2014, 03:44 PM
Is the Nebraska Public Service Commission an elected body or appointed by the Governor?

I remember a 60 Minute piece about a city near Cleveland (Lakewood?) that was trying to eminent domain a bunch of gorgeous Victorian or early 19th Century homes on the lakefront.....not because they were decrepit but because the developers who wanted to demolish them for newer homes would give the city more money in taxes.

Eminent Domain is a tricky issue the extremes at each end can be damaging to the public good.

Their was a very important court case involving New London, CT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) using eminent domain to take land from one private owner and give it to another in order to spur economic development. The SCOTUS sided with the city.

"The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a temporary dump."

icenine
03-20-2014, 04:32 PM
Their was a very important court case involving New London, CT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) using eminent domain to take land from one private owner and give it to another in order to spur economic development. The SCOTUS sided with the city.

"The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a temporary dump."

a case of if it ain't broke don't fix it....just imagine all the money down the drain just in legal fees

djv8ga
03-20-2014, 07:08 PM
Florida has had a lot of activity. - http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/02/03/florida-court-allows-the-taking-of-church-land-to-build-a-major-league-soccer-stadium/

ebacon
03-20-2014, 07:28 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/19/keystone-pipeline-nebraska/5616213/

Primarily, I am more concerned about the eminent domain aspect of this and secondarily any potential environmental impact. I oppose the idea of handing the "...right to acquire..." property owned by private citizens to corporate entities.

I know, the politicians involved would likely approve the exercise of eminent domain anyways. But, as a matter of principle, such important decisions as forcing the sale of land owned by American citizens, should at the very least be decided by democratically elected officials. Not corporate oligarchs acting of their own volition.

Dave

I'm late to the thread but this is the type of issue that keeps me awake at night thinking about pros and cons of various forms of governments.

From a practical perspective I care not where gas comes from or flows through. I simply want to wake up every day and accomplish a few tasks to help my neighbors. Maybe take out some weeds, sweep a street, pick up a kid, etc.

If I have no say in the laws that let that happen then I would probably stay calm.

Money is where my thoughts get bound up. In Europe the citizens live with castles and such that, by modern rules, were built by slaves. Yet today they love their beauty and maintaining those structures. Maybe it is because they live with them every day and are anchors in their psyche. They seem to fight less about money.

A pipeline would lead to a different history. I can't imagine people weed whipping around a pipeline for 500 years and end up thanking the people at each end of it.

I dunno. Time for some country music.

piece-itpete
03-21-2014, 08:22 AM
I use oil every day.

I'm sure some people were upset about and some people made mad money off trains, but I'm sure glad they built them.

Pete

bobabode
03-21-2014, 12:56 PM
Damned old Fords leak oil all over the place, don't they? ;)

piece-itpete
03-21-2014, 01:00 PM
LOL!

Pete

JJIII
03-21-2014, 02:45 PM
Damned old Fords leak oil all over the place, don't they? ;)

That's a convenience feature, they change their own oil.:D

djv8ga
03-21-2014, 10:00 PM
Damned old Fords leak oil all over the place, don't they? ;)
That's Chevy rear main seals because they were 2 piece.

hillbilly
03-21-2014, 10:47 PM
Back during the early 90's the state decided to turn a low traffic two lane into a near thirty mile 4 lane. Houses and businesses got torn down, but they left the road less than half done. Some were on the news last year I believe saying they still were waiting on their money for property the state just had to have for a project they gave up on. Today, I drove from Watertown to Smithville on this hwy and only met three cars in like 20 miles. We needed the patially finished hwy real BAD, didn't we? But hey.. the state has this property if they ever decide to use it.

BlueStreak
03-22-2014, 06:43 AM
Back during the early 90's the state decided to turn a low traffic two lane into a near thirty mile 4 lane. Houses and businesses got torn down, but they left the road less than half done. Some were on the news last year I believe saying they still were waiting on their money for property the state just had to have for a project they gave up on. Today, I drove from Watertown to Smithville on this hwy and only met three cars in like 20 miles. We needed the patially finished hwy real BAD, didn't we? But hey.. the state has this property if they ever decide to use it.

Let's see; Unnecessary project started but never finished because they refuse to pay for it..........sort of like Iraq.....and Palins "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.....

Must be Republicans.:p

Dave