• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Dickieboy said:
When the various proposed high speed rail projects the current administration is pressing (you know in the stimulus bill?) progress are you going to be so vehemently against eminent domain for their construction? Are they also considered ‘substantial national interest’ even to those in other states who will NEVER use them? Also consider these will not be constructed below ground so there is a high probability they will have to ‘look out their window and see some monstrosity like that’.
Click to expand...

in speaking of the use of eminent domain you want to compare a high speed rail project which will benefit the citizens of this country who will ride the new transportation with a project owned by canadian oil interests which will only enrich the oil industry while polluting the USA
 
teamosil said:
Well, regardless, eminent domain is supposed to be used for matters of substantial national interest. Just using it to line the coffers of some oil company is immoral no matter how invasive it is. But, do you really think that even in the areas where it would be underground, that that is not invasive? You could potentially have a massive oil spill on your land at any time. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live over a 3 foot wide pipeline of oil... Besides, only some of it is underground, it could cut through the line to your septic tank, it could go through where you have underground power lines to your house, it could go right through your living room, etc.
Click to expand...

Lol!!! You have got to be kidding me here...first you said they were kicking people out, then when proven wrong on that you said people were going to forced to look at an ugly pipeline. Then when that was wrong too, you now say that a buried line is invasive. Do you have indoor plumbing teamsoil? Or still using an out house? Lol... Too much gheeze.

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
 
Dickieboy said:
When the various proposed high speed rail projects the current administration is pressing (you know in the stimulus bill?) progress are you going to be so vehemently against eminent domain for their construction? Are they also considered ‘substantial national interest’ even to those in other states who will NEVER use them? Also consider these will not be constructed below ground so there is a high probability they will have to ‘look out their window and see some monstrosity like that’.
Click to expand...

Well definitely high speed rail is much more in the national interest than an oil pipeline. That's obvious isn't it? The people don't even use the pipeline. The oil company does, because it's cheaper than other methods of moving around their product. A rail system people can use. Not to mention the obvious, but a rail line DECREASES pollution where an oil pipeline INCREASES pollution. An rail line DECREASES oil dependence where an oil pipeline INCREASES oil dependence. A high speed rail is going to be useful for 100 years where a pipeline would probably only be used for 20. In short the oil pipeline hurts the people where a high speed train network would help the people.

But, regardless, is he even proposing using eminent domain for that? I would assume they would just run the lines along the land already dedicated to train tracks.
 
j-mac said:
Lol!!! You have got to be kidding me here...first you said they were kicking people out, then when proven wrong on that you said people were going to forced to look at an ugly pipeline. Then when that was wrong too, you now say that a buried line is invasive.
Click to expand...

No, no. None of that is true. All we have is drz speculating that maybe none of these dozens of eminent domain suits they have already filed involves making people move out of their houses. No proof of anything, just his speculation. I'm saying "heck, even if that is true..."
 
teamosil said:
But, regardless, is he even proposing using eminent domain for that? I would assume they would just run the lines along the land already dedicated to train tracks.
Click to expand...

Wrong again…:

The California High-Speed Rail Train will require a substantial amount of private property to be taken by eminent domain — the power of the government to take private property for public use. It will be responsible for homes, businesses and farms being taken and demolished. It could be responsible for decreasing the value to an even higher number of commercial and residential properties

San Francisco Property Value & High Speed Train Attorney | Martinez Eminent Domain Lawyer | California | CA

High Speed Rail : California Eminent Domain Report
 
justabubba said:
in speaking of the use of eminent domain you want to compare a high speed rail project which will benefit the citizens of this country who will ride the new transportation with a project owned by canadian oil interests which will only enrich the oil industry while polluting the USA
Click to expand...

Yes, I find no justification for eminent domain regardless of the intent. I am HIGHLY skeptical of the benefit to the citizens of this country as the only justification for these HSR's is in densely populated areas (NE corridor, some parts of Florida and California). The vast majority of the ‘citizens of this country’ will NEVER ride on these but are bearing the burden of the cost. Sound fair to those who espouse fairness?
 
Dickieboy said:
Yes, I find no justification for eminent domain regardless of the intent. I am HIGHLY skeptical of the benefit to the citizens of this country as the only justification for these HSR's is in densely populated areas (NE corridor, some parts of Florida and California). The vast majority of the ‘citizens of this country’ will NEVER ride on these but are bearing the burden of the cost. Sound fair to those who espouse fairness?
Click to expand...

Seriously? So you think that the interstate highway system was a bad idea? Trains were a bad idea in the 19th century? Power lines ... bad idea?
 
AdamT said:
Seriously? So you think that the interstate highway system was a bad idea? Trains were a bad idea in the 19th century? Power lines ... bad idea?
Click to expand...

Can you prove that just compensation was not agreed upon by land owners and whoever for the construction of these systems?
 
Dickieboy said:
The California High-Speed Rail Train will require a substantial amount of private property to be taken by eminent domain
Click to expand...

Ok, well, as I explained it is dramatically in the national interest. So it would need to be weighed out- benefits vs imposition on the property owners. It would depend how much land was actually being taken, but the benefits are pretty enormous. The pipeline, on the other hand, has virtually no public benefit.
 
Dickieboy said:
Can you prove that just compensation was not agreed upon by land owners and whoever for the construction of these systems?
Click to expand...

Of course. Eminent domain is used on a daily basis for highway and other infrastructure construction.

Airports, bridges, tunnels, railroads, interstate highways and public parks that are such an integral part of modern life simply wouldn’t exist without the exercise of eminent domain. The U.S. Interstate Highway System, developed during the Eisenhower administration in the early 1950s, required the purchase—through eminent domain—of enough land to construct more than 42,000 miles of freeway.
Click to expand...

Eminent Domain
 
AdamT said:
Of course. Eminent domain is used on a daily basis for highway and other infrastructure construction.


Eminent Domain
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dickieboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
drz-400 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

drz-400 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
drz-400 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
teamosil said:
Well, regardless, eminent domain is supposed to be used for matters of substantial national interest.
Click to expand...

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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
drz-400 said:
Whether you like it or not, meeting demand for oil is an important task and is imperative for the well being of this country.
Click to expand...
We are already more than meeting demand without the Keystone pioeline as we are exporting gasoline in record amounts.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
We are already more than meeting demand without the Keystone pioeline as we are exporting gasoline in record amounts.
Click to expand...

If America could increase the supply, that would effectively reduce the price here in America. Forget tax cuts and pay tax holidays. Lower the cost of fuel, and watch our spending go up. It would be a welcome change when I know many people who commute over 45 minutes one way to go to work.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
We are already more than meeting demand without the Keystone pioeline as we are exporting gasoline in record amounts.
Click to expand...

Yet we are still importing 40% of the unrefined product. Which means we are less an influence on world prices still from the supply side. But more importantly, we are spending mightily contributing to a huge trade imbalance, where too much of the ME can pull the strings on our economy.

That we are refining imported oil and exporting the gas doesn't mean jack-**** in the big picture actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom