Page 22 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 821

Thread: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

  1. #211
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Of course. Eminent domain is used on a daily basis for highway and other infrastructure construction.


    Eminent Domain
    Did this article satisfy the challenge, ‘prove just compensation’? If so I must have missed it.


    But thanks for the article for this part is quite interesting:

    The framers of the Constitution envisioned such eventualities and provided for them in what is commonly called the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment: “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The wording acknowledges the ownership of private property and anticipates the need for the taking of private land for public use only when just compensation is offered.

    Thank you for this. Again, the implied definition of eminent domain is ‘taking’, which I and the Constitution is against. ‘Compensating’ which I agree with as does the Constitution would be quite acceptable. Are you against the Constitution?...and I’d rather not change the thread to a discussion on Kelo v New London.

  2. #212
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    Did this article satisfy the challenge, ‘prove just compensation’? If so I must have missed it.


    But thanks for the article for this part is quite interesting:

    The framers of the Constitution envisioned such eventualities and provided for them in what is commonly called the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment: “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The wording acknowledges the ownership of private property and anticipates the need for the taking of private land for public use only when just compensation is offered.

    Thank you for this. Again, the implied definition of eminent domain is ‘taking’, which I and the Constitution is against. ‘Compensating’ which I agree with as does the Constitution would be quite acceptable. Are you against the Constitution?...and I’d rather not change the thread to a discussion on Kelo v New London.
    You understand that eminent domain always involves compensation, right? Do you even know what you're arguing about?

    The usual objection to eminent domain is that it involves government FORCING people to sell their property, when they may not want to even if the price is fair.
    Last edited by AdamT; 01-22-12 at 12:29 AM.

  3. #213
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Not sure how you think that helps anybody but the oil company. Pollution hurts everybody, oil dependency hurts everybody, but the oil company makes more money.
    Come on man, the purpose and need section said "market demand". Not sure how you think no one else will benefit. Who do you think encompasses market demand?

    So yeah, picture 21,000 gallons of oil spilling under your yard.... Bad scene.
    It happened at a pumping plant. It sucks, but this is real life, we need the oil. We don't just ship oil across the country for ****s and giggles. The point is we are trying to find the best way to meet the purpose and need. To deny there is not need is completely false and ignores reality. Lets use a little common sense here. Whether this project is built or not it, demand will not be affected. The demand for oil will still be the same. So, less efficient and safe means of transporting the oil will be utilized, such as alternative pipelines, rail, truck, and tankers. Of course this would all be known, had you read the EIS that outlines the No Action Alternative. There is a reason why that is not selected as the best alternative. Why don't you start to defend that position....

    If the proposed Project is not built and operated, Gulf Coast refineries could obtain Canadian crude oil transported through other new pipelines or by rail or truck transport. Other pipeline projects have been proposed to transport Canadian crude oil to the Gulf Coast area, and both rail transport and barge transport could be used to meet a portion of the need. In addition, the Gulf Coast refineries could obtain crude oil transported by marine tanker from areas outside of North America. Many of the sources outside of North America are in regions that are experiencing declining production or are not secure and reliable sources of crude oil, including the Middle East, Africa, Mexico, and South America.
    Does that sound better to you?

    But, that's just this exact pipeline. They've had many, much bigger, pipeline oil spills in the US just in the past few years. For example, in Alaska the Prudhoe Bay pipeline had a spill of 267,000 gallons in 2006. In 2010 800,000 gallons spilled from a pipeline in Michigan. In Alaska's Kenai National Refuge they've had 350 different spills now, including one of 228,000 gallons. Or, if we want to talk about pipeline spills in general, lets talk about the Kolva River oil spill in Russia at 84,000,000 gallons.

    These aren't freak occurrences. In fact the majority of oil spilled worldwide is from pipelines.
    This is largely determined by the type of pipleline, topology, etc and can only occur on a certain portion of the pipeline. The EIS has quantified how many spills would likely happen and how large they are expected to be. I am not denying that they happen.

    One last thing because it is driving me crazy... you compare to no action, not existing conditions. I am tired of people coming on here and acting like if we don't build this pipeline nothing will change. There will still be an increased in demand for crude oil in the gulf that will have to be made up in some way. So why don't people against this project start defending their position. How do you propose we meet this demand? What is the chance of spilling oil under that alternative? What are the environmental impacts? Will there be an increase in emissions? Somehow I doubt they have put that much thought into it.
    Last edited by drz-400; 01-22-12 at 12:33 AM.

  4. #214
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You understand that eminent domain always involves compensation, right? Do you even know what you're arguing about?

    The usual objection to eminent domain is that it involves government FORCING people to sell their property, when they may not want to even if the price is fair.
    NO, I understand completely and have been involved in this with two of my properties, one NG pipeline, one 'cloverleaf'. Both I was compensated QUITE fairly with no objection. This discussion was originally directed at Tea.

  5. #215
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Come on man, the purpose and need section said "market demand". Not sure how you think no one else will benefit. Who do you think encompasses market demand?
    Not sure what you think the benefit is. Oil prices are global. It costs the same everywhere. Moving oil from Canada to Louisiana won't change the price of oil noticeably.

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    One last thing because it is driving me crazy... you compare to no action, not existing conditions. I am tired of people coming on here and acting like if we don't build this pipeline nothing will change. There will still be an increased in demand for crude oil in the gulf that will have to be made up in some way. So why don't people against this project start defending their position. How do you propose we meet this demand? What is the chance of spilling oil under that alternative? What are the environmental impacts? Will there be an increase in emissions? Somehow I doubt they have put that much thought into it.
    We need to be aggressively slowing the rise in consumption and then reducing consumption as soon as possible, not trying to ease the increase in consumption with massive new projects. If we temporarily need to increase consumption in the short term, I'm sure the existing methods will be just fine for that. It may cost the oil companies a few more bucks, but so what? Exxon has posted larger profits than any company ever has in the history of the world 3 years in a row. I'm sure they can afford it just fine. As for the environmental impacts, more oil is spilled each year from pipelines than all the other sources of spills combined.

    Now, if you have a big pipeline pulling in the oil from Canada to refineries here, oil is going to keep flowing through that pipeline and the refining will continue being done in Louisiana polluting and risking our country forever. A pipeline is permanent. Even once we've managed to cut down our oil consumption, we're still going to be plagued with it. IMO tying ourselves even deeper in with a dying and destructive industry like that makes no sense.

  6. #216
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Not sure what you think the benefit is. Oil prices are global. It costs the same everywhere. Moving oil from Canada to Louisiana won't change the price of oil noticeably.
    That is a general rule. Recently there has been an anomoly where Brent crude is trading at a premium of 10-20 a barrel over WTI because of supply problems that this project would alleviate.


    We need to be aggressively slowing the rise in consumption and then reducing consumption as soon as possible, not trying to ease the increase in consumption with massive new projects. If we temporarily need to increase consumption in the short term, I'm sure the existing methods will be just fine for that. It may cost the oil companies a few more bucks, but so what? Exxon has posted larger profits than any company ever has in the history of the world 3 years in a row. I'm sure they can afford it just fine. As for the environmental impacts, more oil is spilled each year from pipelines than all the other sources of spills combined.

    Now, if you have a big pipeline pulling in the oil from Canada to refineries here, oil is going to keep flowing through that pipeline and the refining will continue being done in Louisiana polluting and risking our country forever. A pipeline is permanent. Even once we've managed to cut down our oil consumption, we're still going to be plagued with it. IMO tying ourselves even deeper in with a dying and destructive industry like that makes no sense.
    This project does not effect demand, that is all I am saying. So, the bold is irrelevant to this project. While I don't disagree with many of your sentiments, this project is not about lowering consumption, it is about meeting consumption. Whether you like it or not, meeting demand for oil is an important task and is imperative for the well being of this country.

    I would argue that pipelines may spill more oil, but that is because they transport more oil, and if you normalize the data for the amount of spill vs the amount of oil transported, it has to be one of the safest.

  7. #217
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    I would argue that pipelines may spill more oil, but that is because they transport more oil, and if you normalize the data for the amount of spill vs the amount of oil transported, it has to be one of the safest.
    I don't know about that. That sound plausible and may be true, but I'd be curious to see hard data on it. I can see it either way. A ship, for example, can run into something or get hit in a storm or something, which seems intuitively riskier. But, on the other hand, thousands of miles of pipeline in the ground that nobody can inspect where it can potentially be leaking for months before they even realize it, where maintenance is nearly impossible... And you've got earthquakes and forest fires and ground freezing and thawing and so on.

  8. #218
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I don't know about that. That sound plausible and may be true, but I'd be curious to see hard data on it. I can see it either way. A ship, for example, can run into something or get hit in a storm or something, which seems intuitively riskier. But, on the other hand, thousands of miles of pipeline in the ground that nobody can inspect where it can potentially be leaking for months before they even realize it, where maintenance is nearly impossible... And you've got earthquakes and forest fires and ground freezing and thawing and so on.
    Oil pipelines are regularly inspected and maintained. A forest fire ???? Are you kidding?? You don know the pipe will be buried 4 feet underground don't you? It's buried that deep so freeze/thaw won't affect.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  9. #219
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Well, regardless, eminent domain is supposed to be used for matters of substantial national interest.
    Not any more thanks to the liberals on the Supreme Court. They ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that the city could take property away for a private landowner and give it to another private landowner.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  10. #220
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Not sure what you think the benefit is. Oil prices are global. It costs the same everywhere. Moving oil from Canada to Louisiana won't change the price of oil noticeably.
    The same everywhere? Not even close! have you ever bought gas in Australia? Cause i have, and converting their dollar to ours, it was about twice as much per gallon. ( sold in australia by the liter ). Oil prices are not balanced worldwide just because the whole world needs oil.

Page 22 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •