Yes, property (easements) was seized all along the route via eminent domain. There is no question the company DID seize land that way - the only question is whether the "public benefit" of a pipeline from Canada to Texas to benefit a few for profit companies justified giving the company that incredibly valuable power over landowners along the route. It's aligned some principles libertarians with environmentalists against Keystone. Follow this link for examples:"if we didn't give a private, for profit, foreign company". Did we? I can't find anything to indicate that is the case, but perhaps I just didn't look in the right place. Companies are not given eminent domain powers and the creation and use of right-of-ways has a long history. Is it eminent domain, probably is, but it is for limited purpose and scope.
Let me google that for you
The subsidy is the power of eminent domain - see above."massive taxpayer subsidies". Again, couldn't find this, could you point me to where I can find that?
Not propaganda - the tar sands "oil" running through Keystone will be far more corrosive and dirty than typical oil. It's more costly to clean up, etc. And the process of extracting it produces massive amounts of toxic waste, dirty enough to kill waterfowl that simply land in the lakes made of polluted water used in the process."one way Keystone was sold". Again, the "one way" argument. Sold by whom and to whom? "shipping dirty sludge" sounds like propaganda to me, all oil is dirty to some degree.
As I said, if they want to run a for profit business without getting the powers of Big Government Force to make it more profitable, that's fine with me. Some landowners along the route don't really want a pipeline carrying toxic oil sludge running across their property. I wouldn't either. They don't get a choice in the matter. If they refuse, they're taken to court and they lose. It's kind of interesting that the free market promoters and haters of Big Government are cheering, demanding, that we approve this project that distorts any notion of a "free market" and hands the power of big government to seize private property to a supposedly 'free market' foreign company.As for the vast majority of benefits going to the Keystone company, well, they are putting up most of the money.
The question is whether this pipeline serves the public interest or the interests of Keystone and the developers of the tar sands pits in CANADA, and a few refiners in Texas. If anyone wants to argue the PUBLIC benefit of this, have at it. I've not seen that argument made.I have no stake in the Keystone argument one way or the other. If it dies, it dies. If it goes through, it isn't near me. I'm real close to the national Natural gas grid which goes along the edge of a national park. It is government land in there wasn't any debate of it going through. In fact, there are pipelines all over this country not even counting water and sewage. Somehow they manage to stay out of the news.