• 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!

Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CAPPI

Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA


From a conservative think tank? I think this sums it up best:

Pick Your Poison For Crude -- Pipeline, Rail, Truck Or Boat - Forbes
The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.

So it depends upon what your definition is for worse. Is it death and destruction? Is it amount of oil released? Is it land area or water volume contaminated? Is it habitat destroyed? Is it CO2 emitted?

They all suck.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

I don't think they suck at all. Transport of oil and natural gas products is essential to our modern industry/technology based society. We are fortunate to have choices.

Yes, oil does wonderful things for sure. That's where our agreement ends.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Pipelines are the safest means to transport petroleum.

They're "safe" except when they're not, and whether they are safer than the alternatives isn't the point - they fail, regularly.

More Than 300 A Year: New Analysis Shows Devastating Impact of Pipeline Spills | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

In total there have been more than 8,700 significant incidents with U.S. pipelines involving death, injury, and economic and environmental damage since 1986, the Center reports—more than 300 per year.

And the actual point I was making is being forced to allow a pipeline through your land is potentially "a big f'ing deal" if/when it fails.
 
Last edited:
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

I don't think they suck at all. Transport of oil and natural gas products is essential to our modern industry/technology based society. We are fortunate to have choices.

That's true, but does it being true mean if Keystone decides to install a pipeline through your front yard that you should have no say in it?
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

I've heard that thrown around... and I am not saying it's not true, but can you source that?

Source, or no source; ask yourself: are railroads and trucks safer than pipelines?
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

They're "safe" except when they're not, and whether they are safer than the alternatives isn't the point - they fail, regularly.

More Than 300 A Year: New Analysis Shows Devastating Impact of Pipeline Spills | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community



And the actual point I was making is being forced to allow a pipeline through your land is potentially "a big f'ing deal" if/when it fails.

That's why the right of way is paid for and the pipeline operator assumes liability.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

That's true, but does it being true mean if Keystone decides to install a pipeline through your front yard that you should have no say in it?

Ive been on dozens of pipeline jobs and have yet to see one running through anyone's front yard.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

That's true, but does it being true mean if Keystone decides to install a pipeline through your front yard that you should have no say in it?

The route is negotiated and right of way is paid for.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

That's why the right of way is paid for and the pipeline operator assumes liability.

I don't think we're having the same conversation, because I have no idea what the point of that is. You're pointing out that Keystone will do the absolute bare minimum required - pay to take your land and "assume liability" for their own screw ups. And....
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Ive been on dozens of pipeline jobs and have yet to see one running through anyone's front yard.

Intentionally missing the point I see. What relevance is the relative safety of pipelines versus rail to the question of whether a private company should be given the right to condemn your property for its private use?
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

The route is negotiated and right of way is paid for.

The route actually is NOT negotiated with the landowners. That's sort of the whole point of this part of the discussion.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

You're the one embarrassing himself. Those "only" restrictions ARE A "LOSS OF LAND USE". It's why Keystone is paying landowners for the easement. In some cases mid six figures at least. Sheesh. If you had a stand of trees, they've been bulldozed and will stay bulldozed. In 5 years if they want, they can dig anywhere along that easement and lay more pipes. They can enter your property at any time, bring their trucks through your planted fields if they need to. Etc.

And a pipeline is perfectly safe like drilling in the Gulf a mile deep is safe. it's not WHETHER but when and where the pipeline will fail and dump a bunch of hazardous materials onto someone's land. It's a 36 inch line, so the spill can be catastrophic. If it's near a water supply, you're f'd.


Ignorance is bliss for some liberals that have a knee jerk reaction to any energy related issue other than solar and wind:


Pipe 2.JPG

Pipeline through a park.

PIpe.jpg

Sheep grazing over a pipeline.

train.jpg

Oil spill and train derailment.

You should get out of the city more often. If you did, you would see hundreds of those little pipeline markers throughout the countryside. They are the only indication that a pipeline is buried in the area.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Ignorance is bliss for some liberals that have a knee jerk reaction to any energy related issue other than solar and wind:

You should get out of the city more often. If you did, you would see hundreds of those little pipeline markers throughout the countryside. They are the only indication that a pipeline is buried in the area.

Yes, I imagine ignorance does make some conservatives lives easier. We have a pipeline through our farm, and power lines. And I don't live in the city, and probably spend more time outdoors than you do - what I do (mostly) for recreation is hiking, biking, fishing, and some hunting.

Pretty picture of the train derailment. Guess pipelines don't fail in your alternate reality.

818242d1364772626-arkansas-oil-spill-ouch-image.jpg

Finally, I don't care one way or the other about Keystone. Like many have said, the oil is coming out, and it's going to be transported somewhere, somehow. But I am NOT a fan of eminent domain for exclusively private purposes, and am pretty amazed and amused how easily "conservatives" abandon even the pretense of principle (in this case, property rights) when it might put them on the same side of an issue with liberals.

Just say you don't care about property rights and we can agree to disagree! But pretending none are at stake by posting pretty pictures is pretty hilariously wrongheaded.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Ignorance is bliss for some liberals that have a knee jerk reaction to any energy related issue other than solar and wind:


View attachment 67179873

Pipeline through a park.

View attachment 67179874

Sheep grazing over a pipeline.

View attachment 67179872

Oil spill and train derailment.

You should get out of the city more often. If you did, you would see hundreds of those little pipeline markers throughout the countryside. They are the only indication that a pipeline is buried in the area.

You really thought that was a convincing argument? You show one in total chaos and the other going well, and that's your argument that one is better than the other. A train crash vs a park.

Genius argument.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

I don't think we're having the same conversation, because I have no idea what the point of that is. You're pointing out that Keystone will do the absolute bare minimum required - pay to take your land and "assume liability" for their own screw ups. And....

Yes. Your point?
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

The route actually is NOT negotiated with the landowners. That's sort of the whole point of this part of the discussion.

At the macro level the route is indeed set. At the micro level it is negotiated; i.e., it won't run through anyone's "front yard."
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

You really thought that was a convincing argument? You show one in total chaos and the other going well, and that's your argument that one is better than the other. A train crash vs a park.

Genius argument.

Total chaos ??? And you claim I didn't have a convincing argument ??

:roll:
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Yes, I imagine ignorance does make some conservatives lives easier. We have a pipeline through our farm, and power lines. And I don't live in the city, and probably spend more time outdoors than you do - what I do (mostly) for recreation is hiking, biking, fishing, and some hunting.

Based on your naive comments, I'm calling BS on the above.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

At the macro level the route is indeed set. At the micro level it is negotiated; i.e., it won't run through anyone's "front yard."

But in this negotiation the pipeline company has the power to compel the landowner to accept the pipeline's terms. It's a "negotiation" in the same sense a child negotiates her weekly allowance with her parents.

You're trying hard to miss the point - not really sure why.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Based on your naive comments, I'm calling BS on the above.

Uh, OK, that's legitimate! LMAO. :roll:

Just curious, which part or parts am I supposedly lying about?

BTW, so you don't care about property rights. Especially if defending property rights forces you on the same side of an issue with liberals. Got it!!
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

You are embarrassing yourself. I encourage you to read up on the subject before you dig yourself in deeper.

The land is immediately usable after the pipeline is laid. The only restrictions are no ponds and no permanent structures on the easement.

Not really.

According to this land owner:

"When you allow a pipeline to cross your land ,you give up certain rights to it."
"You can't use it the way you want anymore, "

From this article:

“When you allow a pipeline to cross your land, you give up certain rights to it,” Ms. Crawford said. “You can’t use your land the way you want anymore. We didn’t want to do that.”

But TransCanada did not go away. Their people kept coming back, offering more and more money.

Then on Aug. 26, 2011, Ms. Crawford received a letter from Keystone, TransCanada’s American subsidiary. The letter made a “final offer” of $21,626. Then, it said, “if Keystone is unable to successfully negotiate the voluntary acquisition of the necessary easements, it will have to resort to the exercise of its statutory right of eminent domain.”

“In other words,” Ms. Crawford said, “sign or we’ll take it.”

The deadline on the offer was three days later. When she read the letter, Ms. Crawford said, “I panicked. I didn’t know if that meant they were going to take just the pipeline easement, or the whole pasture, or the whole farm.”

Ms. Crawford, 52, who serves as the farm’s manager, called the rest of the family. They agreed to sign. “We thought that at least if we signed we’d have some say in what happened,” she said.


They called the TransCanada representative. “He told us that if we could come up with a contract that worked for both parties, they wouldn’t condemn the land,” Ms. Crawford said.

So she and her brother spent hours bent over the kitchen table going over the lease agreement, creating a version they could live with. She presented their version to TransCanada.

“I fully expected them to counter,” she said. “There were about five or six things we wanted, and we would have been happy to take one or two.”

Then, she said, TransCanada “went full radio silence.” The Crawfords never heard back from them — until October, when they got a letter saying their land had been condemned and a lease awarded to TransCanada.


But as the Crawfords discovered, when voluntary compensation agreements are not reached, Texas law allows certain private pipeline companies to use the right of eminent domain to force landowners to let pipelines through. This was true even for TransCanada, which has yet to get State Department permission to bring the Keystone XL across the Alberta border.

The Crawfords’ condemnation hearing happened in front of a district judge. They were not invited to that hearing — landowners in Texas do not get to go to the actual condemnation hearing. They are invited only to the next step, after the condemnation, when a three-person panel of county landowners decides on a value for the property being condemned.

John Pieratt, Ms. Crawford’s lawyer, told her not to go to that appraisal hearing.

“These landowners only look at value,” Mr. Pieratt said. “By the time you get there, a judge has already decided to condemn. There’s an argument that just by showing up you agree to their right to take the land.

“The only way Texas law allows you access to a judge is if you appeal the condemnation.”

So the Crawfords are appealing.

Read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/u...rmer-vs-transcanada.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
 
Last edited:
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

But in this negotiation the pipeline company has the power to compel the landowner to accept the pipeline's terms. It's a "negotiation" in the same sense a child negotiates her weekly allowance with her parents.

You're trying hard to miss the point - not really sure why.

There's no point to miss. This is a minor addition to already existing pipeline capacity in the US, many many thousands of miles, and there's no history of unfair treatment of landowners.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Not really.

According to this land owner:

"When you allow a pipeline to cross your land ,you give up certain rights to it."
"You can't use it the way you want anymore, "

From this article:



Read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/u...rmer-vs-transcanada.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

"Certain rights", not all rights. I already said they could not build a permanent structure over it or build a pond. Guess that qualifies a "certain rights".

Big deal, they are handsomely compensated up front and yearly.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Intentionally missing the point I see. What relevance is the relative safety of pipelines versus rail to the question of whether a private company should be given the right to condemn your property for its private use?

No private company has been given the right to condemn anyone's property. The government is doing that. Your big government takes private property against the owner's will all the time. Why are you complaining about it now? It's done all the time to build wind farms and you never complained about that.
 
Back
Top Bottom