Trump supports completion of Dakota Access Pipeline

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

nntrixie, did they say what was wrong with the wells and the creek and all the lakes and rivers? They should be able to track back to who polluted them and clean them up. Was it from drilling or manufacturing or toxic drum burials or storm water run-off or cattle or livestock operations or public sewage? We have laws that protect against this, and States have environmental agencies along with our federal EPA to prevent and cure these problems. We need to enforce them.

We have tax exempt environmental pollution control bonds available to help finance these programs. Low interest, long 30 year amortizations. We've had these since the 1960's.

---

I don't know since we had sold the property by that time.

There are a couple of things, but I don't have the faith in the EPA that others do.

When one local, but quite large and well connected, industry was caught by the EPA doing some bad things - the head/owner/ceo announced it was cheaper to pay the fine than fix the problem.

As I say there are a couple of things I think it could be, but nothing will be done about it, of that I am sure.

Thank you on the information on the pipeline - I truly didn't know anything about it.

As to presidents, and other politicians having holdings that might present a conflict of interests or possible conflict, there is no way
that can be prevented. At least, I don't see how. Any person who reaches those heights, will almost always be wealthy.

Also, perhaps if they have money before they go in office, they won't be so concentrated selling out this country and it's people to get money.

I wonder how many Presidents/VP/ etc., ever left officer poorer than when they took office?

It would seem to me it would be better for us to concentrate on electing honest and honorable people to those positions -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

LOL!! The source of my "attack" on your source is the PSR website, your own source.

---

I wasn't talking about the source of your attack and you know it. I was talking about all the information you attempt to pass off as fact without providing a source to substantiate your claim. I suspect a lot of your claims come from biased sources too, that's why you hesitate to provide them.

More information on how the Keystone Pipeline got to where it is today:

The arrogance of TransCanada is shocking, even for an oil company.
The company is threatening to seize the property of American landowners and start construction of its Keystone XL pipeline—even though President Obama last month rejected the permit to build.


The pipeline path includes the 600 acre working farm that Julia Trigg Crawford's grandfather bought in 1948, on the Texas Oklahoma border, where the Red River meets Bois d'Arc Creek, which waters the farm.


Fearing for the safety of her farm and it's water source, Julia Trigg rejected TransCanada's offer to buy an easement on her land.


TransCanada announced it was seizing her land under eminent domain and would begin digging, but Julia won a temporary restraining order,1 at least until Feb. 24, when the court will hear the case challenging Transcanada's status as a "common carrier" under Texas law.


It's bad enough that TransCanada expect landowners like Julia Trigg to accept permanent damage to their land and possible oil spills. But it's beyond arrogant for this foreign oil company to trample on private property rights and start construction on a project whose permit has just been denied.


Under eminent domain, the government can force landowners to accept monetary payment for the use of their land for certain public-good projects like highways and railroads.


Of course, TransCanada's massive fuse to the carbon bomb of the tar sands shouldn't qualify as one of these projects—it does great harm and only helps the profits of a foreign corporation. But regardless, the company doesn't even have the permit to build it, because the White House just rejected their application. But that hasn't stopped TransCanada.


According to The New York Times, the company has at least 34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas, and 22 in South Dakota.2 And their threats to landowners in Nebraska3 helped spark massive public opposition and a special legislative session that were key in the decision to consider a different route.


Many of these landowners are being sued by the company, and told that if they don't take the small monetary offering—sometimes less than $10,000 in exchange for the permanent damage to their land, and huge risk of spills—their land will be condemned and TransCanada will seize the easement.


Julia Trigg and others are fighting back and doing everything they can to oppose TransCanada's land grab.


Everyone from environmentalists to Tea Partiers in Texas are showing their support for Americans' property rights.4 As these court challenges unfold, we need to build pressure against TransCanada and spread the word about their reprehensible tactics.


Tell TransCanada—Stop using eminent domain to confiscate private property for the rejected Keystone XL Pipeline.


Click here to automatically sign the petition.
For more information, click here.
—————
1. "Keystone XL Pipeline: Texas Farmer Wins Temporary Restraining Order Against TransCanada," Huffington Post, Feb. 14, 2012
2. "Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian Twist," New York Times, Oct. 17, 2011
3. "TransCanada Keystone XL Eminent Domain Threat Letter ," Dirty Oil Sands
4. "Texans rally against Keystone XL oil pipeline easement," LA Times, Feb. 17, 2012

• https://assets.rbl.ms/6573876/210x.jpg Stefanie Spear

Stefanie Spear is founder and CEO of EcoWatch.

http://www.ecowatch.com/action-stop-...881595884.html

Is there something specific that you believe isn't true? Just let me know what it is and I'll provide a link for you. Everything I posted except for PSR that I'd never heard of before is common knowledge.

Keystone Pipeline Sparks Property Rights Backlash

The Canadian company that wants to build the Keystone XL pipeline is using its land seizure powers to get property easements for the project. And it’s causing frustration in a conservative patch of Texas.
BY JAY ROOTFEB. 17, 2012 6 AM

https://static.texastribune.org/medi...x1000_q100.jpg Graphic by Todd Wiseman / Jay Root





As the White House and Congress battle it out over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, the Canadian company that wants to build it is still using its land-seizure powers to get property easements for the ambitious project.

And it’s ruffling some feathers in a politically conservative patch of Texas.
Several landowners along the proposed pipeline route say TransCanada has bullied them into selling their property by asserting “eminent domain” authority, the same power that governments use to seize land for highways and other public infrastructure projects. A property rights coalition tracking the condemnation proceedings has uncovered at least 89 land condemnation lawsuits involving TransCanada in 17 counties from the Red River to the Gulf Coast — cases that could test the limits of a private company's power to condemn property.

One of the landowners, Lamar County farmer Julia Trigg Crawford, will face off with the pipeline giant on Friday morning at a court hearing in Paris, Texas. Crawford got a rare restraining order halting any further encroachment on her land until questions surrounding TransCanada's right to condemn her property for the pipeline can be resolved.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

“I’m just an angry steward of the land,” Crawford said. “A foreign-owned, for-profit, nonpermitted pipeline has taken a Texan’s land. Doesn’t sound right, does it?”

Crawford is opposed to the pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Canada, and has concerns about potential contamination of a creek she uses for crop irrigation. Her 600-acre farm, which straddles the Red River on the Oklahoma border, also contains numerous archaeological remnants of a Caddo Indian village.

The land seizure proceedings are continuing even though the White House rejected TransCanada’s application for an international pipeline permit, which included the proposed Gulf Coast segment that would run from Cushing, Okla., to Houston and Port Arthur. The company is exploring options to build the southern piece of the pipeline without a presidential permit, but either way it says it won't stop seeking land for the project.

“We don’t need a presidential permit in order for us to obtain the easements that we need for the right of way for this project,” said TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha. He said the company already had 99 percent of the easements it needed for the Texas segment and was working on snapping up the remaining holdouts.

TransCanada has a major financial interest in completing the 435-mile Gulf Coast segment because of a major glut of oil sitting in storage tanks in Cushing. TransCanada's customers would like to move the oil down to North America's largest collections of refineries, where a premium is being paid for the crude. Once the segment was complete, it could carry as much as 830,000 barrels of oil a day to refinery row.

TransCanada has an existing international network of pipelines that connects Alberta in Canada to Nebraska, Illinois and Oklahoma. The Keystone XL pipeline would expand the company's capacity to transport oil from Canada, and add a route to the coast.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Politically, the fight over the Keystone XL pipeline has generally fallen into the familiar partisan pattern: Environmentalists and Democrats are trying to either kill it or reroute it, while the oil and gas industry and Republican lawmakers are promoting it as a job creator.

Gov. Rick Perry, both as a presidential candidate and a pro-business conservative, has slammed the Obama administration for trying to "appease environmental radicals," and hails the pipeline as a way to help the United States gain energy security and independence.

But the controversy generated by TransCanada’s use of land condemnation power has pushed the debate into a new realm, and it is prompting calls in Texas — including from conservatives — for more oversight and increased landowner protections.

“We need to make sure the property owners are properly treated and their property rights aren’t completely trampled,” said Sen. Kevin Eltife, R-Tyler, whose conservative East Texas district contains several of the counties TransCanada wants to cross with its pipeline. “You can’t just come in and roll over people."

Eltife says legislative hearings, and possibly legal reforms, are needed to clarify how pipeline companies use eminent domain to acquire pipeline right-of-way on private land.

The issue has even sparked some comparisons to Perry's ill-fated Trans-Texas Corridor, a massive transportation project that rural landowners viewed as an unprecedented land grab.

“This is everything we fought against with the Trans-Texas Corridor. It’s an eminent domain nightmare, a clear-cut violation of property rights," said T.J. Fabby, a Waxahachie Republican trying to unseat incumbent state Rep. Jim Pitts in the GOP primary.

"Eminent domain was never meant to be used to confiscate somebody’s property for private use."

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Former Perry gubernatorial rival Debra Medina, a Republican from the Ron Paul wing of the GOP, is another critic. She said the pipeline flight shows how "crony capitalism" has stacked the deck in favor of big business interests while running roughshod over small business owners and average Texans.

Medina and other critics are hoping that legal challenges to TransCanada's eminent domain authority will lead to limitations on a private company's power to condemn land.

Under Texas law, only pipelines that are deemed “common carriers” — the pipeline world's equivalent of a public road — can condemn property for easements. The state Natural Resources Code says that to gain common carrier status, oil pipeline companies must agree to transport oil “for hire” from any company, without discrimination, based on published fees that are regulated by the state.

The Texas Constitution also gives protections to landowners in property seizure cases by requiring that eminent domain only be exercised for “public use.”

According to TransCanada, the pipeline meets the common carrier status because it transports oil owned by other companies, with whom it has delivery contracts. Cunha, the spokesman, says it’s in the public’s interest because the oil will help the United States meet its demand for energy.
“We’re delivering something in the public need,” he said. “We’re delivering petroleum that is much needed in the U.S., to address the consumption needs of the U.S.”

Critics say the pipeline is designed to meet the profit needs of a single company and doubt whether its claim of eminent domain authority meets the "common carrier" and "public use" tests.
"The primary purposes of this project is to get Canadian crude to the refineries. There is no public use aspect to this project," said carpenter David Daniel, who reluctantly signed over an easement to TransCanada after he said the company convinced him he would lose his property under eminent domain. "It’s an international commodity that will be sold on the world market.”

But property owners face daunting odds against pipeline companies, because the court system is the only avenue for fighting their condemnation cases, and until recently the state courts routinely dismissed challenges to a pipeline's status as a common carrier — a status companies have claimed they get from the Texas Railroad Commission.

That changed last year, when the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Plano-based Denbury Resources was a private carrier that wanted to build a CO2 pipeline for its own use, and couldn't use eminent domain to get an easement on a Houston-area rice farm.

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Don Willett wrote that "even when the Legislature grants certain private entities 'the right and power of eminent domain,' the overarching constitutional rule controls: no taking of property for private use."

The ruling sent shockwaves through the oil and gas lobby, which is now urging the Supreme Court to rehear the case.

One problem made clear in the ruling is that there is no agency that is specifically charged with determining whether or not a company is acting in the broader interest of the public or meets the standard of being a “common carrier.”

For years, pipeline companies have claimed common carrier status by checking off a box on a “T-4” pipeline permit form at the Texas Railroad Commission and promising to submit itself to rate regulation, should that ever come to pass.


https://www.texastribune.org/2012/02/17/keystone-pipeline-sparks-property-rights-backlash/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Is there something specific that you believe isn't true? Just let me know what it is and I'll provide a link for you. Everything I posted except for PSR that I'd never heard of before is common knowledge.

---

Don't assume anything is common knowledge. Heck, even nntrixie said she didn't know anything about the pipeline. No, nothing regarding the Keystone pipeline is "common knowledge". To suggest that is to suggest that everyone knows everything about it, which just isn't true.

Oh okay. Here's a source for the Keystone Pipeline which is in operation serving Canadian oil producers and a 47 mile leg in Texas which is under construction and to come on line in 2017 serving Texas producers and the Keystone XL Pipeline which would serve US producers in Montana and Nebraska, is Phase IV and stalled awaiting approval by the President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Here's a link to the Dakota Access Pipeline which is 87% complete and serves US producers, getting oil from the Dakotas to a refinery in Illinois.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Don't assume anything is common knowledge. Heck, even nntrixie said she didn't know anything about the pipeline. No, nothing regarding the Keystone pipeline is "common knowledge". To suggest that is to suggest that everyone knows everything about it, which just isn't true.

---

Well, actually, what I didn't know about was this new 'leg' or part of the pipeline that is being protested. I didn't know it was going to hook up with Keystone. Keystone is coming within a few miles of one place we owned in East Texas.

But then, 'even Trixie doesn't know' isn't a very good yardstick.

Texas may have all manner of things on the books to protect property owners, but there have been some pretty egregious things done in the name of eminent domain.

If you don't have the money to fight it, it is as if a law doesn't exist.
You know you can 'win' and loose, if you're broke when you get through with it.

There are two pipeline issues on the fore today, but they are separate. There is the Dakota Access Pipeline this thread is about which has nothing to do with Canada or the Keystone Pipeline. It's just a US pipeline connecting US oil producers in the Dakotas area to a US refinery in Illinois.

Then there is the Keystone XL Pipeline which is a leg of the Keystone Pipeline that connects the main Keystone Pipeline with US oil producers in Montana and Nebraska. Phase 3 b of the Keystone Pipeline is a 47 mile leg in Texas to connect Texas oil producers to the Keystone Pipeline. The Texas leg has been approved, is under construction and will go online in 2017. Our northern producers in Montana and Nebraska that need the Keystone XL Pipeline are left hanging without a distribution line for their oil.