Obama Vetoes Keystone XL

[jamil]

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?

I don't think it has a negative environmental risk above the current risk of rail transport. I don't care that it's a Canadian company. For me it's the [strike]Erectile Dysfunction[/strike] Eminent Domain. I don't like ED anyway and giving a company the power of government to encroach on land is unacceptable. To me this is a private venture for a corporation. This is not like a public utility. If they need to use my land to transport their product, they should have to kiss my ass until I'm satisfied. And I should be able to tell them to **** right off if I don't like the offer.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

As you know, I respect you, and I respect your opinions.

I do find this a somewhat curious dichotomy...

Public roads are public utilties, right? Railroads are ?? Electrical energy transport is a public utility, but oil transport is not. Natural gas is not, I assume?

Some of these used ED to get the right of way built.

 

[hornadylnl]

Where is your right to property in the constitution?

 

[jamil]

As you know, I respect you, and I respect your opinions.

I do find this a somewhat curious dichotomy...

Public roads are public utilties, right? Railroads are ?? Electrical energy transport is a public utility, but oil transport is not. Natural gas is not, I assume?

Some of these used ED to get the right of way built.

I did say that I don't see TransCanada as a public utility. It's not a public utility in the same way that farmers transporting their produce to markets is not a public utility. I don't want people to go off into the weeds on this; for the purpose of this discussion, public utilities exist because there's mostly one way to get electricity, natural gas, water, to homes, and that requires private land use. I'm okay with that. I don't need a pipeline to deliver oil to my home.

The keystone pipeline is not a public utility. The pipeline is also not a road. It's not rail. I do agree with limited ED, to the extent that without it something that is essential could not happen at all. Not all roads need to be built. Too many roads are built and land owners forced to accommodate because a few influential people make it happen.

The bar should be much higher for public works projects to overrule property rights. Property rights should not be overruled just because it will be more expensive for a company to secure right of way to go around the property owners who don't want to allow use of their property.

ETA, I forgot to mention again that the pipeline's use of ED amounts to crony capitalism. Maintain property owners' right to tell a private company seeking use of their land to **** off, and I'm pretty much okay with the rest.

 

[eldirector]

Where is your right to property in the constitution?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[hornadylnl]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If it's not spelled out in the constitution, it's policy, not a right.

 

[eldirector]

If it's not spelled out in the constitution, it's policy, not a right.

I'm afraid I don't follow....

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm afraid I don't follow....

I'll let Kirk explain it to you. It's his reasoning for supporting government interference into commerce.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I did say that I don't see TransCanada as a public utility. It's not a public utility in the same way that farmers transporting their produce to markets is not a public utility. I don't want people to go off into the weeds on this; for the purpose of this discussion, public utilities exist because there's mostly one way to get electricity, natural gas, water, to homes, and that requires private land use. I'm okay with that. I don't need a pipeline to deliver oil to my home.

The keystone pipeline is not a public utility. The pipeline is also not a road. It's not rail. I do agree with limited ED, to the extent that without it something that is essential could not happen at all. Not all roads need to be built. Too many roads are built and land owners forced to accommodate because a few influential people make it happen.

The bar should be much higher for public works projects to overrule property rights. Property rights should not be overruled just because it will be more expensive for a company to secure right of way to go around the property owners who don't want to allow use of their property.

ETA, I forgot to mention again that the pipeline's use of ED amounts to crony capitalism. Maintain property owners' right to tell a private company seeking use of their land to **** off, and I'm pretty much okay with the rest.

I would suggest that that is a thin distinction. Power Transmission lines use ED to get their way. Why? because if it twisted and turned to get around every person who got a bug up their keister, the power cannot be transported efficiently. Interestingly , the same is true of oil and natgas pipelines. Twist them too many different ways, and the ability to transport goes away. Railroads were and are private companies, but the right of way was taken in the name of "progress for the greater good". If it weren't for that, we'd still be walking along the Oregon Trail... But it wasn't STRICTLY necessary. That wasn't the only way to get there.

As long as a fair price is paid - I have no quarrel with the use of ED in these sorts of cases. The land is being taken for the public good. And if you don't have oil and gasoline and natgas and other pipelines, we're going to be sucking peanuts through an Arabian straw...

The problem comes in when either the company tries to underpay, or the person in question decides to insist on an unfair valuation *because they can*. Plenty of instances of both have happened, I'm sure.

I just think that we ought to consider things out a bit before we go all... "Eminent Domain = Bad, mkay?" Used with judgment and very sparingly - it's likely necessary. Abused - it's horrible. But merely say the word around here, and people seem to go ape-excrement.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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."

Its not obvious to me how a pipe line running under farm land renders it useless. How does it?

What's your source for people have to buy insurance? The only thing I can find is TransCanada has to buy insurance and put up bonds themselves.

How is the land rendered worthless? Even if it is, the correct term isn't "kicked off", doesn't mean that in anyone's vocabulary. To be kicked off of something means you are forced to leave.

 

[Dead Duck]

By throwing your votes away, we now have a Dicktator.

 

[jamil]

I would suggest that that is a thin distinction. Power Transmission lines use ED to get their way. Why? because if it twisted and turned to get around every person who got a bug up their keister, the power cannot be transported efficiently. Interestingly , the same is true of oil and natgas pipelines. Twist them too many different ways, and the ability to transport goes away. Railroads were and are private companies, but the right of way was taken in the name of "progress for the greater good". If it weren't for that, we'd still be walking along the Oregon Trail... But it wasn't STRICTLY necessary. That wasn't the only way to get there.

As long as a fair price is paid - I have no quarrel with the use of ED in these sorts of cases. The land is being taken for the public good. And if you don't have oil and gasoline and natgas and other pipelines, we're going to be sucking peanuts through an Arabian straw...

The problem comes in when either the company tries to underpay, or the person in question decides to insist on an unfair valuation *because they can*. Plenty of instances of both have happened, I'm sure.

I just think that we ought to consider things out a bit before we go all... "Eminent Domain = Bad, mkay?" Used with judgment and very sparingly - it's likely necessary. Abused - it's horrible. But merely say the word around here, and people seem to go ape-excrement.

I explained my thoughts on Eminent Domain to the extent that you can't honestly characterize my position as "Eminent Domain = Bad". I'm not completely against the idea of ED, but I do want to give land owners more say in the matter than they currently get. A few influential people shouldn't get to decide that "the greater good" would best be served by them getting their way over land owners.

There are a lot of good reasons to build the pipeline. And there are a lot of good reasons for land owners to tell them to **** off. A public works project that has essential benefits to the community is one thing. A private company wanting to impose on individuals its desire for a more efficient way to transport its product is different. TransCanada shouldn't get special government authority to force people to do anything for them.

By throwing your votes away, we now have a Dicktator.

It's not surprising that the thing Obama says he objects to in the bill was that it removed the requirement for a "presidential permit".

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Sorry - I may have given off the wrong impression jamil. I was NOT meaning that YOU were going ED=BAD, more than given the tone of the discussion around here, there was a danger that that was the general direction. And I would opt for the other direction.

I still have a hard time understanding the difference between letting Pacific Gas and Electric use ED to build power transmission lines in CA, vs. a similar action with Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad in the west vs any of a Zillion different natgas pipelines that exist today vs TransCanada in the case of KeystoneXL. Arguably without the ability to build railroads , pipelines, power transmission etc. we would look remarkably like some of the third world countries that are going to be our master if we fail to be energy independent in North America at least.

We may just have to agree to disagree on the ED thing, my friend.

 

[jamil]

We may just have to agree to disagree on the ED thing, my friend.

Erectile Dysfunction = Bad.

 

[hornadylnl]

When is the collective good and when is it bad?

 

[Dead Duck]

When is the collective good and when is it bad?

The collective is good when we vote in the right man for the job.

The collective is bad when you're The Borg.

 

[hornadylnl]

The collective is good when we vote in the right man for the job.

The collective is bad when you're The Borg.

If relieving a person of their property is for the good of the collective, why stop there? A rich man's money would be good for the collective as well.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Erectile Dysfunction = Bad.

No argument. Heck, I believe we might (and I say MIGHT) get Kirk Freeman, Rambone, mrj, and even Rhino to agree on that one...

 

[jamil]

If relieving a person of their property is for the good of the collective, why stop there? A rich man's money would be good for the collective as well.

I was okay with utility workers running water, electricity, cable, through the easement in my front yard. I benefit as much as my neighbors do from that. The alternative, if I had the choice to say no, is to dig my own well, produce my own electricity, and be stuck with satellite internet/phone.

I don't need a pipeline to my house. Realistically, Keystone is not going to impact my life, nor the lives of 99% of Americans, *all that much*. The permanent jobs it creates aren't that impacting. Might make gas prices lower for awhile, until speculation moves on towards the next price driver. I just don't see its societal impact, the necessity of forcing land owners to actually get it done, being more important that the property rights of individuals.

I don't want to say Eminent Domain is always bad. But I'm not going to say it's even usually good. We need roads. We need public works type of infrastructure. Okay fine. But we don't need what we don't need. In terms of actual need, I'd put the keystone pipeline somewhere in between the I-69 extension and Lucas Oil Stadium. So not really all that much. TransCanada needs the Keystone pipeline more than we do.

 

[AA&E]

Unlike the Trans-Alaska, the Keystone will be underground for the most part and require virtually no roving maintenance. I could easily see the number being under 100. There will be very few places where the pipeline will breach the surface and a very few people will be all that's needed to see to it on an irregular basis.

Terrorist (either ideology or environmental based) don't care if a pipeline is buried. In the past I've worked with security groups involved in various security details in the government and corporate sectors. I am currently a member of a DOD security group. Power stations (coal and nuclear based), oil refineries, natural gas charging stations, financial institutions, weapons depots, EOD demilitarization yards, weapons testing centers. High threat targets are either adequately protected or vulnerable to attack. There is no middle ground. I am genuinely curious how anyone could project accomplishing the task of protecting a 1200 mile long asset with a handful of people. Even a buried asset is vulnerable. Natural gas pipelines require pressure charging stations, the frequency dependent upon many variables beyond my knowledge. I am not familiar with oil pipelines because I've never been involved with such a project. But I doubt you can push millions of gallons of oil 1200+ miles without substations along the way. Each of these will require staffing. Maintenance, day to day operations, management, security, etc.

I wonder how many permanent jobs the oil companies themselves are suggesting they create. Not that they are any less biased in their numbers than the previously quoted report would be. But ultimately, if they have a plan in hand to build this thing, someone has already addressed security concerns. Physical security protection systems have already been laid out to detect, delay, and deter nearly every fathomable attack/security breach. Damage mitigations have already been considered to minimize work disruptions and casualties in the event of a successful attack. You don't go into a multi billion dollar project without having the guidelines in place to protect it.