Obama Vetoes Keystone XL

[Kutnupe14]

Aren't there already thousands of miles of pipelines in the USA? Anyone know what compensation the pipeline company is offering the landowners? I would think most of those objections could be put to bed if they made the owners an offer that would more than compensate. If I've learned anything in the last six years it's that Obama and I are 180 degrees apart in our thinking.

Don't even get me started on the compensation. It's laughable.

 

[churchmouse]

YES! TransCanada has been trying to strong arm these people off their land since 2011. The land they want is farmland. Which obviously would be rendered useless if it has an oil pipeline under it. The plan would require the property owners to buy insurance, for their own dang land, if there should be some mishap. And after the pipeline has exhausted it's usefulness, TransCanada isn't required to remove the pipeline; that will fall on the property owner. So yeah, given that the land in question would be rendered worthless to the owner while the pipeline exists, I'd certainly call it being "kicked off."

Wait........If the pipe is buried, then I do not see why they can not use the land.
I have not gotten into this but will they not be paid for the land or it's use.

I suppose I could research but just asking.

 

[ccrubaugh]

Power move, but to nobody's surprise.

 

[mrjarrell]

Oh, cool. So, many of the negative things said about it wouldn't be true at all. Got it.

No, the negatives may still well apply. It just won't won't require the same maintenance or staff that the Trans-Alaska (which is above ground) does. It still runs all the same risks.

 

[mrjarrell]

Wait........If the pipe is buried, then I do not see why they can not use the land.
I have not gotten into this but will they not be paid for the land or it's use.

I suppose I could research but just asking.

In many cases the easements have draconian restrictions on them that extend to large areas. As an example, there's a gas pipeline that runs through Fishers (whoever thought that would be a good idea?) that has a really large easement. A couple of years ago the company that owns the pipeline came through and cut down trees and bushes in peoples yards that were nowhere near the pipeline. They denied these people the use of their own property and there was no compensation for the destruction they waged against these peoples property. With a pipeline the size of XL it might well be magnified a good deal more.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If this thread is an indication of the tenor of the American public, then apparently people despise Obama so much, that they let foreign business intrude on a private property owner's rights, simply to show Obama up.

Eminent domain should NOT exist in ANY form. An individual should not have to part with use or control of their legal property "for public good." It's not the property owner's fault that the people wanting his land lacked foresight.

 

[jamil]

If this thread is an indication of the tenor of the American public, then apparently people despise Obama so much, that they let foreign business intrude on a private property owner's rights, simply to show Obama up.

Eminent domain should NOT exist in ANY form. An individual should not have to part with use or control of their legal property "for public good." It's not the property owner's fault that the people wanting his land lacked foresight.

I favor the pipeline but that's another caveate. If the government wants to use my land they should have to beg me for it.

 

[churchmouse]

I favor the pipeline but that's another caveate. If the government wants to use my land they should have to beg me for it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And pay a premium for it.

 

[1775usmarine]

Why oppose the pipeline? Canada already gets their oil to our refineries by rail. Any construction job is of course going to be temporary thought those people will go on to other projects when this is done. This is no different than what Obama is proposing to do to our infrastructure. The jobs he thinks will be created will be temporary as majority of it will be construction.

The pipeline will not only help one of our biggest trade partner but will also allow us to get our oil to our refineries and if we chnage the law that says we can't export our oil then we can much more oil createing more jobs while lowering global oil prices and the prices at the pump. We will no longer be slaves to OPEC or any other country trying to sell us oil. Not too mention our oil is of the sweet crude which makes it easier to refine and other countries would want to buy from us to get what we have.

The railroads have been busy reinvesting money back into the rail upgrading, adding tracks, and updating the tank cars. People want to stop the railcars from rolling the crude but tyey don't want the pipeline which would be safer and more consistent on efficiency. Till the day the pipeline is built people will have to accept the risk which comes with moving oil whether by rail or truck.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I favor the pipeline but that's another caveate. If the government wants to use my land they should have to beg me for it.

If the feds, the states, and the owners of the nation, state, private land all agreed to allow it go through, then I have no legitimate reason to oppose. But if one of those three opposes it, the it shouldn't be built. It's as simple as that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why oppose the pipeline? Canada already gets their oil to our refineries by rail. Any construction job is of course going to be temporary thought those people will go on to other projects when this is done. This is no different than what Obama is proposing to do to our infrastructure. The jobs he thinks will be created will be temporary as majority of it will be construction.

The pipeline will not only help one of our biggest trade partner but will also allow us to get our oil to our refineries and if we chnage the law that says we can't export our oil then we can much more oil createing more jobs while lowering global oil prices and the prices at the pump. We will no longer be slaves to OPEC or any other country trying to sell us oil. Not too mention our oil is of the sweet crude which makes it easier to refine and other countries would want to buy from us to get what we have.

The railroads have been busy reinvesting money back into the rail upgrading, adding tracks, and updating the tank cars. People want to stop the railcars from rolling the crude but tyey don't want the pipeline which would be safer and more consistent on efficiency. Till the day the pipeline is built people will have to accept the risk which comes with moving oil whether by rail or truck.

Ok, let's say that putting up the pipeline is all gravy (Ebonics translation: all good). That still does not give anyone the right to force away the rights of a private property owner.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Take this for instances:

View attachment 36193

Homeowner refused to move out of his house, despite govt pressure. Govt didn't have eminent domain trick to steal this guy's home, so the built a highway AROUND the house. And the catch is that this was in %&$@ CHINA! The man did eventually sell, and the house was demolished. But c'mon, does China understand this issue better that the U.S.???

 

[TaunTaun]

I guess he didn't want to employ those domestic terrorists that need jobs.... You know the ones, people who work to provide the others with welfare checks...

 

[1775usmarine]

Ok, let's say that putting up the pipeline is all gravy (Ebonics translation: all good). That still does not give anyone the right to force away the rights of a private property owner.

Who's forcing you to give up your property show me the facts. About 40 percent of the total project has been built so far, in two segments: a 298-mile stretch from Steele City, Neb., to Cushing, Okla., and a 485-mile segment between Cushing and Nederland, Texas. Oil is flowing through these pipelines from the increased production currently happening in the middle of the U.S. Obviously there isn't anyone complaining is there if our oil is already flowing.

 

[1775usmarine]

Take this for instances:

View attachment 36193

Homeowner refused to move out of his house, despite govt pressure. Govt didn't have eminent domain trick to steal this guy's home, so the built a highway AROUND the house. And the catch is that this was in %&$@ CHINA! The man did eventually sell, and the house was demolished. But c'mon, does China understand this issue better that the U.S.???

ultimately the couple moved with compensation and the house was demolished.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Who's forcing you to give up your property show me the facts. About 40 percent of the total project has been built so far, in two segments: a 298-mile stretch from Steele City, Neb., to Cushing, Okla., and a 485-mile segment between Cushing and Nederland, Texas. Oil is flowing through these pipelines from the increased production currently happening in the middle of the U.S. Obviously there isn't anyone complaining is there if our oil is already flowing.

check your facts. TransCanada has already employed eminent domain on a number of property owners, who unsuccessfully challenged it in court. I'm not ok with that.

 

[1775usmarine]

check your facts. TransCanada has already employed eminent domain on a number of property owners, who unsuccessfully challenged it in court. I'm not ok with that.

2% of property owners and as of Feb 12th there is a temporary injunction in Nebraska. Also 90% of Nebraskans have took compensation for the rights. How is this any different than the transmission wires that run through many peoples backyards? I have them running through my backyard and they come through every so often to clear brush on their easement or trim back trees.

 

[Baditude]

Also keep in find to follow the money; Warren Buffett does not want pipeline to go through since he owns the BNSF railroad that's transports the oil. He stands to lose quite a bit in annual revenue also happens to be a strong democratic supporter.

 

[jamil]

Sure. Build the pipeline. I'm all for it. And I can see that legislation is necessary for some administration stuff, clear some regulatory red tape, clarify jurisdictions, allow permits, wave some environmental prohibitions, add environmental requirements, etc.

I say give TransCanada permission to cross the border with their pipeline. Give them permits to run it through public lands. Ease the environmental regs. Let them build the damn thing using their own money. Let TransCanada persuade landowners with offers for compensation to allow land use. And protect the rights of land owners to tell TransCanada to **** off if they don't want a pipeline running through their land.

That's about the only way I'd support this.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

If transCanada was an American company how would most people here that object to it feel.

What I'm trying to understand is this:

Is it:
a) Building the pipeline at all - environmental risk etc.
b) the fact that it's a CANADIAN company doing it
c) the use of ED - remembering that people ARE compensated in ED situtations, but they are NOT given the choice
d) some other factor (e.g. native land as someone above stated).

Which of these are the deal breaker?