Oil more important than property rights.

[RandomGuy]

A new conundrum for the Drill Here, Drill Now crowd.

The celebrated Keystone pipeline is having to ride roughshod over at least one farmer who won't sell using eminent domain.


After Crawford repeatedly refused to allow TransCanada onto her land, the company sought eminent domain last fall. Crawford is appealing that claim of eminent domain in a court hearing scheduled for late April.

In the meantime, she sought a temprorary restraining order against the company. Just days after the restraining order was removed last week, the company announced it intended to go ahead and start construction on a southern portion of the pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas.

The reinstated restraining order this week from the Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District in Texarkana says that TransCanada “is restrained from entering on the Crawford Family Farm Partnership land and from performing any and all on-site activities that disturb the surface or subsurface of the land.” TransCanada has five days to respond to the restraining order.

Fuck the farming jobs, we need oil jobs. Right?

Oh wait, the government isn't supposed to pick winners and losers...

http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/03/03/farmers-restraining-order-reinstated-against-keystone-xl-pipeline/

[Winehole23]

if the restraining order is still in effect, what's your gripe? it is unclear to this reader.

who has been harmed?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was reading about this. The pipeline was not approved but despite it not being approved, the oil companies who need more crude in the American south so they can refine and export the gasoline already started the ED process.

Now how on Earth can they claim ED for a public works progress that has not even been approved. Its like the RR barons of the 19th century.

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't they just run it along the route of the original Keystone pipeline?

[CosmicCowboy]

if the restraining order is still in effect, what's your gripe? it is unclear to this reader.

who has been harmed?

Well, if the railroad commission is consistent the temporary restraining order will be just that....temporary.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

if the restraining order is still in effect, what's your gripe? it is unclear to this reader.

who has been harmed?

Its multiple states and jurisdictions and they are trying it all over the place and seeing what sticks. Might as well use the lawyers if your paying the retainer anyway i suppose. There should be punitive action taken.

[101A]

Now how on Earth can they claim ED for a public works progress that has not even been approved. Its like the RR barons of the 19th century.

Asked and answered.

Good job.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why can't they just run it along the route of the original Keystone pipeline?

Because it stopped in Oklahoma.

[Winehole23]

Well, if the railroad commission is consistent the temporary restraining order will be just that....temporary.then what?

[RandomGuy]

if the restraining order is still in effect, what's your gripe? it is unclear to this reader.

who has been harmed?


After Crawford repeatedly refused to allow TransCanada onto her land, the company sought eminent domain last fall. Crawford is appealing that claim of eminent domain in a court hearing scheduled for late April.

No one yet.

It does appear the company is looking to do so though. The restraining order is temporary, the real fight seems to be the eminent domain fight.

[CosmicCowboy]

then what?

Lets just say that the RR commission has favored the pipelines in ED lawsuits by a huge margin.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Asked and answered.

Good job.

Ahh you going to troll me now? Well I am guessing you think that i answered my own question but how is saying that it seems like something doing that? Seeming is not equating or are you saying that I missed the answer somewhere?

[Winehole23]

Lets just say that the RR commission has favored the pipelines in ED lawsuits by a huge margin.homeboy effed up by holding out too long?

[RandomGuy]

Lets just say that the RR commission has favored the pipelines in ED lawsuits by a huge margin.

Hard call for me.

I *really* dislike weakening property rights, but I do have to allow for the occasional ED when it comes to energy supplies, simply for the greater good.

In this case though, the energy will still be produced, one way or another.

The only thing that will be effected is where the Canadian eventually ends up.

Given that, I think that property rights should win out here.

[CosmicCowboy]

homeboy effed up by holding out too long?

I suspect the final solution will involve more money than has been offered but the easement will be granted.

[coyotes_geek]

Well, if the railroad commission is consistent the temporary restraining order will be just that....temporary.

From the link in the OP, the appellate court has it, so I think it's out of the RRC's hands.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I suspect the final solution will involve more money than has been offered but the easement will be granted.

The basis of the restraining order is that the project does not have approval and private firms do not have the ability to declare public works otherwise. if the pipeline is approved then the RR commission will rescind the order that day.

[ChumpDumper]

Because it stopped in Oklahoma.I'm talking about the part that gets to Oklahoma, genius.

[CosmicCowboy]

The basis of the restraining order is that the project does not have approval and private firms do not have the ability to declare public works otherwise. if the pipeline is approved then the RR commission will rescind the order that day.

I assume you are referring to the Denbury ruling. I suspect that TC will sidestep that by producing a contract to carry a little oil for someone else, thus qualifying them as a common carrier.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm talking about the part that gets to Oklahoma, genius.

We were talking about a lawsuit involving the pipeline in Texas. Try to keep up, genius.

[ChumpDumper]

We were talking about a lawsuit involving the pipeline in Texas. Try to keep up, genius.Eminent domain is an issue every place this pipeline will run. There are already pipelines between Texas and Oklahoma too. Why not use existing right-of-ways?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I assume you are referring to the Denbury ruling. I suspect that TC will sidestep that by producing a contract to carry a little oil for someone else, thus qualifying them as a common carrier.

A contract with a private firm? I don't see a less significant private work passing muster given the language that I have read but in this state's legal system I would be disappointed but not surprised to see ti happen.

[CosmicCowboy]

Eminent domain is an issue every place this pipeline will run. There are already pipelines between Texas and Oklahoma too. Why not use existing right-of-ways?

Because those right of ways were granted specific to the pipeline they contain. New pipeline, new ROW.

[CosmicCowboy]

A contract with a private firm? I don't see a less significant private work passing muster given the language that I have read but in this state's legal system I would be disappointed but not surprised to see ti happen.

The trick is that common carriers AUTOMATICALLY get eminent domain. TC will just have to come up with some transport contracts to qualify as a CC...maybe even from some oil fields in Oklahoma.

[ChumpDumper]

Because those right of ways were granted specific to the pipeline they contain. New pipeline, new ROW.So there's no actual reason to not use the same land. Just red tape.

OK.

[coyotes_geek]

Why not use existing right-of-ways?

No room for another pipe in the easements. Eminent domain laws require the condeming authority to only acquire the minimum amount of land that they need. Plus, the condemning authority isn't going to want to pay for land they don't need. A pipeline easement isn't any wider than the width of the pipe plus the greater of the horizontal clearance needed from that pipe to another pipe, or the amount of space required for an inspection/maintenance vehicle to get through.

[ChumpDumper]

No room for another pipe in the easements. Eminent domain laws require the condeming authority to only acquire the minimum amount of land that they need. Plus, the condemning authority isn't going to want to pay for land they don't need. A pipeline easement isn't any wider than the width of the pipe plus the greater of the horizontal clearance needed from that pipe to another pipe, or the amount of space required for an inspection/maintenance vehicle to get through.Yeah, I was imprecise. Why not new ROW next to existing ones? That would eliminate the whole Nebraska issue altogether.

[coyotes_geek]

Yeah, I was imprecise. Why not new ROW next to existing ones? That would eliminate the whole Nebraska issue altogether.

That's certainly the preferred way to do it, but you'll run across situations where you can't or don't want to. Things like development on both sides of an easement creating a pinch point where you can't acquire adjacent ROW, different pipelines needing to go to different locations, being able to cut a shorter route through new land, etc.

Haven't followed the Nebraska issue close enough to know whether or not any of those concerns exist there.

[ChumpDumper]

That's certainly the preferred way to do it, but you'll run across situations where you can't or don't want to. Things like development on both sides of an easement creating a pinch point where you can't acquire adjacent ROW, different pipelines needing to go to different locations, being able to cut a shorter route through new land, etc.

Haven't followed the Nebraska issue close enough to know whether or not any of those concerns exist there.Well it would definitely be a shorter route, but it could be argued that following the existing route would help distribute North Dakota shale oil, etc.

I think Keystone needs to justify not doing it that way, really.

[coyotes_geek]

Well it would definitely be a shorter route, but it could be argued that following the existing route would help distribute North Dakota shale oil, etc.

I think Keystone needs to justify not doing it that way, really.

Agreed. The whole thing has been horribly over-politicized IMO.

[FromWayDowntown]

Kelo is absurd, except where it isn't.

[Winehole23]

Not intuitively clear to me, but I'm fairly sure you know what you mean.

What do you mean?

[101A]

Ahh you going to troll me now? Well I am guessing you think that i answered my own question but how is saying that it seems like something doing that? Seeming is not equating or are you saying that I missed the answer somewhere?

No, not trolling (or trying to pick a fight - we have common ground, here); I felt you answered your own question - didn't have time to bold part of it.

[Agloco]

Kelo is absurd, except where it isn't.


Not intuitively clear to me, but I'm fairly sure you know what you mean.

What do you mean?

Um yeah, what do you mean FWD?

[TeyshaBlue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[Agloco]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

You again?

:lol

Thanks info. :toast

[Das Texan]

I guess the same argument could have been made when the interstates were being built.


Roads more important than property rights.

Its not like you wont ever be allowed to plant crops over this pipeline again and i'm sure this family is being more than fairly compensated, of if they wouldnt be such a bitch about it would have most definitely been more than fairly compensated for the loss of their land for a season or three.

Now they wont get shit other than the minimum required by law as compensation.

At least with these pipelines you can still use the land once the pipeline is completed.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol
I'm slammed this morning...not much time to interpret the decision. It is, however, pivotal in the determination of public welfare benefits via eminent domain.

FWD has the goods.:toast

[FromWayDowntown]

Not intuitively clear to me, but I'm fairly sure you know what you mean.

What do you mean?

Without wading too deeply into this, given that I haven't devoted much time to studying the issues carefully, what I gather from the discussion here reminded me of the uproar when Kelo was decided a few years ago.

The citizenry were apoplectic that the Supreme Court would permit the use of governmental eminent domain power to obtain property which would then be used by private entities for their own economic betterment. There were cries to amend the Constitution, States reacted swiftly with laws prohibiting such efforts, to impeach Justice Stevens, and to do all sorts of other things. Kelo was decried as one of the worst bits of judicial activism ever. The rationale of Kelo was utterly absurd.

Now, it appears that the rationale of Kelo isn't really that absurd -- why can't we take private property from one, compelling him to accept "just compensation" for it, and turn it over to a private entity that "needs" the property to further its own economic interests?

[coyotes_geek]

Now, it appears that the rationale of Kelo isn't really that absurd -- why can't we take private property from one, compelling him to accept "just compensation" for it, and turn it over to a private entity that "needs" the property to further its own economic interests?

http://www.bwduncanville.com/images/CommanFile/EVTCowboy_StadiumCowboys_Stadium_2.jpg

[cheguevara]

"drill slut, drill"

[vy65]

Without wading too deeply into this, given that I haven't devoted much time to studying the issues carefully, what I gather from the discussion here reminded me of the uproar when Kelo was decided a few years ago.

The citizenry were apoplectic that the Supreme Court would permit the use of governmental eminent domain power to obtain property which would then be used by private entities for their own economic betterment. There were cries to amend the Constitution, States reacted swiftly with laws prohibiting such efforts, to impeach Justice Stevens, and to do all sorts of other things. Kelo was decried as one of the worst bits of judicial activism ever. The rationale of Kelo was utterly absurd.

Now, it appears that the rationale of Kelo isn't really that absurd -- why can't we take private property from one, compelling him to accept "just compensation" for it, and turn it over to a private entity that "needs" the property to further its own economic interests?

Just straight up utilitarianism: greatest good for the greatest number. You could make the same argument about tax revenue/welfare tbh ...

[cheguevara]

or communism

[vy65]

or communism

That's kinda the point ...

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.bwduncanville.com/images/CommanFile/EVTCowboy_StadiumCowboys_Stadium_2.jpg

I find your lack of faith...disturbing.

http://mycrocosmos.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/death-star1.jpg

[DarkReign]

Ahh you going to troll me now? Well I am guessing you think that i answered my own question but how is saying that it seems like something doing that? Seeming is not equating or are you saying that I missed the answer somewhere?

You answered your own question again.

You pointed out the similarities in use of ED vis a vis the Railroads and now the Pipeline.

He is saying you have asked and answered your own question, meaning the Pipeline will go through just the same as the RRs were, regardless of property rights along the way.

[coyotes_geek]

I find your lack of faith...disturbing.

http://mycrocosmos.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/death-star1.jpg

:lol

The cowboys definitely went Alderaan on some Arlington residents who didn't want to give up their property for Death Star construction.

[TeyshaBlue]

My daughter lives in that complex in the foreground. I've got free parking, baby!

[coyotes_geek]

You support Darth Jerry the death star!?!?!?!

I knew you were VRWC! :p:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You answered your own question again.

You pointed out the similarities in use of ED vis a vis the Railroads and now the Pipeline.

He is saying you have asked and answered your own question, meaning the Pipeline will go through just the same as the RRs were, regardless of property rights along the way.

I said that their actions reminded me of those stories not that the means they used to achieve their ends were the same as those stories. When I ask questions like that i am looking for specifics. Its a simile not a definition or an explanation.

The RRs got cooption from the feds and states in building their lines. That is not the case here. Having since looked it up, the basis for the injunction is that the pipeline has not been approved thus it is not a public work. They are trying to do it it anyway and if the courts do allow them to claim land anyway that bodes very ill for the future of property rights in this country

[belindaB]

Gas prices are currently on the upswing and prices are feared to hit $5 per gallon by summer. In response, according to the Los Angeles Times, a group of 70 lawmakers in the United States Congress sent a letter to the CFTC, asking them to enact the “position limits,” or the maximum allotted number of futures or options contracts an investor can hold for a commodity that were supposed to have been implemented already.

I would really say that Oil is more important than any property rights. We should think first of our people who suffers from increase in oil price.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gas prices are currently on the upswing and prices are feared to hit $5 per gallon by summer. In response, according to the Los Angeles Times, a group of 70 lawmakers in the United States Congress sent a letter to the CFTC, asking them to enact the “position limits,” or the maximum allotted number of futures or options contracts an investor can hold for a commodity that were supposed to have been implemented already.

I would really say that Oil is more important than any property rights. We should think first of our people who suffers from increase in oil price.

In the context of futures tradings as being property I agree with you completely. i just worry about the other not so spurious things defined as property like land.

[Wild Cobra]

Gas prices are currently on the upswing and prices are feared to hit $5 per gallon by summer. In response, according to the Los Angeles Times, a group of 70 lawmakers in the United States Congress sent a letter to the CFTC, asking them to enact the “position limits,” or the maximum allotted number of futures or options contracts an investor can hold for a commodity that were supposed to have been implemented already.

I would really say that Oil is more important than any property rights. We should think first of our people who suffers from increase in oil price.
So...

You are another Marxist, huh?

[coyotes_geek]

In response, according to the Los Angeles Times, a group of 70 lawmakers in the United States Congress sent a letter to the CFTC, asking them to enact the “position limits,” or the maximum allotted number of futures or options contracts an investor can hold for a commodity that were supposed to have been implemented already.

Congress just blowing smoke. People get upset about high gas prices, congress offers up some sound bites to "show that they care". In the end though congress isn't going to do anything because there's nothing they can do. It's a global market and in the internet age we live in foreign commodities markets are just a mouse click away. Run speculators off from U.S. markets and they just end up on foreign markets doing the same thing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Senate Dems quashed XL again.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OIL_PIPELINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-08-16-46-08