Keystone XL

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]gdroberts23 wrote:
you are aware that exports of oil from US is illegal right?[/quote]

Not true. See: Pioneer Natural Resources and Enterprise Products Partners.

And how is this relevant to Canadian oil sands?[/quote]

I was responding to a comment earlier by @push about oil being moved to West Coast ports via rail and then off to hither and yon. As for the Pioneer and ETP ruling, that is for specific, processed, condensates (not oil, condensates are a small portion of a barrel of oil, mostly derived from the production of gas reservoirs and highly volatile oil reservoirs). The ban on oil exports is still in place, and I’m not sure the condensate and/or refined products of similar quality have actually been granted full export capabilities. Lots of issues to still be sorted on what “condensate” is. As for do I support it, absolutely, I believe in the free market, so wish that oil, condensate, NGLs were all exportable.

I don’t believe building the pipeline will have a much effect on oil prices, the world uses something like 88 million barrels of oil a day, of which the US consumes somewhere in the 15-20 million range. An extra pipeline that reduces shipping costs for something on the order of 800 thousand barrels a day isn’t going to have a significant impact. Every little helps, but not a big needle mover. It will make those companies producing the barrels more profitable, but isn’t going to have a big impact on overall prices.

The 40k estimate for jobs seems a little high, and the key here is temporary, and I have a feeling a lot of those could be around a month or two of employment (local companies clearing right of ways - less than 10% are in the construction based on the sited report). The key for me is the long term job creation aspects, and with monitoring and management technologies, the 35 permanent jobs - IMHO isn’t anything to get overly excited about running over property owner rights…

What is just compensation? Who get to decide this? For example, in the operating area I work in Texas, one landowner might be able to negotiate $20/ft for rights of way to install pipelines, others might be able to negotiate less than 10% of that. All depends on how many acres, how much impairment the pipeline would do to their agriculture (livestock, farming, orchards). They can also negotiate for future development, and be compensated if that future development comes to pass. I don’t see that happening with the eminent domain being used in this case.

I fully support the building of the pipeline, it is a safer and IMHO a more environmentally sound way to move large quantities of oil long distances. My only issue with the whole project is the gov’t being involved and reading about the (actual and potential) use of eminent domain to get access and running over individual property rights. The fifth amendment empowers the use of eminent domain “for public use”. I have a tough time seeing how this one pipeline can be considered “public use”, while the other hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines that currently transport our hydrocarbon fuels around the country are not?

My problem is that the government should not be involved at all, and that a one size “just compensation” just won’t fit - why should the majority of all companies operating across the US have to negotiate easements and rights of ways from landowners to move their products to market, but this pipeline get special consideration (see my point above about its impact on oil prices).

As for the Daily Show, I just thought it interesting the same guys pounding the table to individual property rights just a few years ago would be so supportive of using eminent domain to support a private enterprise (and a foreign one at that).

82

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Bourne12 wrote:
I know that posting a link to a Jon Stewart Daily Show piece will probably get me flamed in this forum, but this issue of eminent domain and the abuse of its powers to construct the pipeline is absolutely, positively, unconstitutional, as per our esteemed senators and congressmen. I thought this was pretty appropriate, just another example of the hypocrisy of our elected representatives…
[/quote]
How is it unconstitutional? The Fifth Amendment explicitly allows eminent domain, but requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with “just compensation” for those whose property is taken.

Is the gov’t forcing landowners to accept below market prices? Keep in mind that the Constitution does not require that prices be negotiated, only that the landowner receive “just compensation”

btw, I watched the Jon Stewart video. He’s too stupid for words. No, I take that back, I actually think he’s very bright which means he purposefully conflates issues in order to persuade some group of Americans who get their news from Comedy Central. He’s certainly not someone I would look to for information.
[/quote]

No worries, I pretty much watch equal parts Fox News, CNN, Comedy Central, etc. They are all ridiculous. Hard to swim through the muck that is our news, but I try my best. I just can’t stand the hypocrisy anymore, and I going to start calling it out more often than just letting it slide. I’ve got no side of the aisle, both groups need a good ass-kicking.

  • Apologies if these replies aren’t formatted correctly, struggling to understand how to quote and reply to the correct posts…
83

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Bourne12 wrote:
I know that posting a link to a Jon Stewart Daily Show piece will probably get me flamed in this forum, but this issue of eminent domain and the abuse of its powers to construct the pipeline is absolutely, positively, unconstitutional, as per our esteemed senators and congressmen. I thought this was pretty appropriate, just another example of the hypocrisy of our elected representatives…
[/quote]
How is it unconstitutional? The Fifth Amendment explicitly allows eminent domain, but requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with “just compensation” for those whose property is taken.

Is the gov’t forcing landowners to accept below market prices? Keep in mind that the Constitution does not require that prices be negotiated, only that the landowner receive “just compensation”

btw, I watched the Jon Stewart video. He’s too stupid for words. No, I take that back, I actually think he’s very bright which means he purposefully conflates issues in order to persuade some group of Americans who get their news from Comedy Central. He’s certainly not someone I would look to for information.
[/quote]

As for the Daily Show as my only news source, I do my best to swallow equal parts of Fox News, CNN, Comedy Central, as well as read both WSJ and NYT. Pretty hard to swim through all of the muck that is our news “system”, but I do my best. The Daily Show post just really hit home with me, as I am absolutely fed up with the hypocrisy of our elected representatives. I’ve got no aisle, I’ve had it with both parties, just tired and can’t sit by and swallow it any longer so wanted to vent on this subject a little.

BTW, I apologize if my posts aren’t formatted correctly, having a tough time responding to specific posts and embedding quotes like you guys pull off…

84

[quote]Bourne12 wrote:
What is just compensation? Who get to decide this? For example, in the operating area I work in Texas, one landowner might be able to negotiate $20/ft for rights of way to install pipelines, others might be able to negotiate less than 10% of that. All depends on how many acres, how much impairment the pipeline would do to their agriculture (livestock, farming, orchards). They can also negotiate for future development, and be compensated if that future development comes to pass. I don’t see that happening with the eminent domain being used in this case.[/quote]

Ultimately, the courts would decide it. There’s no question that the States have the right to the land; if the landowner disagrees with the price offered, they would need to avail themselves of the courts.

[quote]
I fully support the building of the pipeline, it is a safer and IMHO a more environmentally sound way to move large quantities of oil long distances. My only issue with the whole project is the gov’t being involved and reading about the (actual and potential) use of eminent domain to get access and running over individual property rights. The fifth amendment empowers the use of eminent domain “for public use”. I have a tough time seeing how this one pipeline can be considered “public use”, while the other hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines that currently transport our hydrocarbon fuels around the country are not? [/quote]

Lot’s of court cases disagree with you. A quick perusal of wiki shows us that "an expansive interpretation of eminent domain was reaffirmed in Berman v. Parker (1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed an effort by the District of Columbia to take and raze blighted structures, in order to eliminate slums in the Southwest Washington area. After the taking, held the court, the taken and razed land could be transferred to private redevelopers who would construct condominiums, private office buildings and a shopping center. The Supreme Court ruled against the owners of a non-blighted property within the area on the grounds that the project should be judged on its plans as a whole, not on a parcel by parcel basis.

Also, “in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), the Supreme Court approved the use of eminent domain to transfer a land lessor’s title to its tenants who owned and occupied homes built on the leased land.”

And, "The Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. "

[quote]My problem is that the government should not be involved at all, and that a one size “just compensation” just won’t fit - why should the majority of all companies operating across the US have to negotiate easements and rights of ways from landowners to move their products to market, but this pipeline get special consideration (see my point above about its impact on oil prices).

As for the Daily Show, I just thought it interesting the same guys pounding the table to individual property rights just a few years ago would be so supportive of using eminent domain to support a private enterprise (and a foreign one at that). [/quote]

I’m going to have to search more, because in my readings over the last few days I haven’t seen that TransCanada has received special consideration. Although, again, if Mr. Smith’s land is worth $2000/acre and Mr. Johnson’s land is nearly identical to Mr. Smith’s, the statutes don’t require the state to negotiate separately with Mr. Johnson. The State only has to provide just compensation.

Your last paragraph points out my complaint with the Stewart clip. He conflates the idea of Federal approval of Keystone with the States use of eminent domain. One can be in favor of Keystone getting built, but also be against the use (or abuse) of eminent domain.

85

Agreed, that is absolutely my point. I am 100% in favor of it being built, 100% against the use of eminent domain to get it done. At one point (not sure how up to date the website I was reading a few days ago is), 100 of the 800 private properties the pipeline is crossing in Texas were being secured with eminent domain. This is Texas we are talking about, we love this industry! if 12% of landowners are being run over by eminent domain, I have to believe TransCanada is not negotiating in good faith and are not offering compensation inline with other private companies operating across the state.

86

I understand that there might be a lot of case histories supporting the expansion of eminent domain, but there has also be a realization that is has gone way too far.

Bush issued an executive order to limit the use of this

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13406

and the current congress (GOP led House) have also put forth legislation to limit it use

87

The expansion of the Keystone pipeline, or Keystone XL, should be built because there’s no logical reason to not do so. Most arguments against the pipeline are unfounded and from people who shouldn’t be talking about complex topics like the energy vertical chain.

One, it’s going to be a net economic stimulus for the USA. All construction jobs are inherently temporary so that argument is absurd. Even more maddening are people that beg for transportation infrastructure improvements to create jobs but don’t believe in energy infrastructure creating jobs.

Two, Canada is one of our best allies (if not the best) and is factually our largest trading partner. It’s also our neighbor. We should help Canada if it’s not hurting us.

Three, if it’s economical to extract the bitumen from the oil sands, then the Canadians are going to do it. The pipeline is merely the most efficient, and safest, method of transporting the bitumen. One way or another those resources will be produced, transported, refined, and consumed. We might as well do it in the most efficient and safest way.

Four, the USA produces a lot of gas liquids and condensates that become stranded because we don’t know what to do with them or don’t have economical / efficient ways to transport them. Keystone XL will use some of these stranded resources to mix with the bitumen so pipeline transportation will be easier.

Five, we have the refinery infrastructure to deal with this type of resource, hence why TransCanada wants to build the pipeline to our Gulf Coast. We are operating at a high utilization rate already but have the capacity for this additional resource. Even if we didn’t we could easily make room by cutting imports from other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. That would lead to a net environmental gain because it’s substantially more environmentally friendly to move crude via pipeline than by barge.

Six, we have hundreds of thousands of liquids and gas pipelines already installed in the USA, with a lot more coming on-line. Why the hell are we picking on one project out of hundreds? What makes a TransCanada pipeline more dangerous than any other pipeline? There could be a leak? Should we mothball all the other pipelines currently in operation? Of course not.

Seven, this pipeline is not going to lead to any additional net oil consumption in the world or in the USA so the nix it for the environment argument is ignorant. All these stupid dorks bitching about crude oil production likely use a plethora of crude oil derivatives in their daily lives. Making ONE pipeline the face of the global fossil fuel industry is just fucking ridiculous.

Cliff notes: Canada is a strong ally and one worth doing a favor for in situations where we also benefit. We have the refinery infrastructure that can handle the volume and type of crude they want to export. Americans will get a net benefit from job creation, even if construction jobs aren’t permanent. The world and the USA will not consume more oil as a result of this project. The resources will eventually be produced and the safest and most efficient way to transport these resources is via pipeline.

88

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Since you work in the industry, why would the pipeline not decrease the price of oil?

And do you believe that 40k job creation estimate?
[/quote]

Aware that you’re seeking a response from someone else, but I’ll bite. It’s because the additional production that would arise from building the Keystone XL is not enough to meaningfully move the needle in terms of global supply and demand balances. Unlike natural gas, crude oil pricing is determined by global supply and demand balances. I don’t feel like explaining why that is but it’s true. Just look at natural gas prices in Japan or Europe versus the USA. Crude oil basically has three global benchmarks and they aren’t that far off from each other.

Finishing that thought, Keystone XL is just going to make it more economical to produce the tar sands. If it’s not built, that production will still happen but the companies with stakes in the resources won’t profit as much because of higher transportation prices. They can’t charge more for their crude b/c it costs more to transport it. There is a point where transportation costs could be high enough to where it can limit the amount produced. That wouldn’t be enough to materially influence global supply/demand balances and it would also be short term because another solution would eventually be found.

There aren’t enormous gains to be had for Americans from building the Keystone XL, but there are enough to make it stupid to oppose it. Opposing it is basically telling Canada “fuck you” for the sake of appeasing ignorant people who falsely think this is an environmental disaster. I know our politicians come off as dumb, and they certainly can be dumb, but they’re not this dumb. I suspect most politicians against Keystone XL are just doing it for the show b/c they are aware of how stupid and gullible their constituents are.