Political Forums - Environment? Eminent Domain? Or Both?

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)

- Politics and the Environment (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43)

- - Environment? Eminent Domain? Or Both? (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=6938)

Environment? Eminent Domain? Or Both?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...raska/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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrylander (Post 195357)

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oerets (Post 195364)

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.

Huh. The oil companies & US government can't make the guy an offer he wouldn't want to refuse?

Not when you can get it for a song through eminent domain...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPots (Post 195451)

Not when you can get it for a song through eminent domain...

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

Today's WaPo:

Quote:

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

More, though older, fun:

Quote:

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

Carl

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.