Nebraska judge strikes down legislature’s move allowing Keystone XL route

Washington Post ^ | February 19, 2014 | By Lenny Bernstein

[Brad from Tennessee]

A Nebraska judge ruled Wednesday that the state violated its constitution when it allowed the governor to approve the route of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, a decision that could significantly delay the $5.3 billion project.

District Court judge Stephanie F. Stacy blocked Gov. Dave Heineman (R) and other defendants “from taking any action on the governor’s January 22, 2013 approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline route,” such as allowing land to be acquired by eminent domain for the project.

Stacy concluded that the state legislature’s decision to take the siting power away from its Public Service Commission and give it Heineman violated the state’s constitution. More than 200 miles of the TransCanada pipeline, which would carry heavy crude oil from Canada to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, runs through Nebraska.

[okie01]

It will be much tougher to ignore the land owners who oppose the use of eminent domain to build the pipeline through their private property.

And why would they do that, if they are being compensated appropriately?

[no-to-illegals]

We aren't talking hotels and motels redgolum ... We are talking about pipelines. Oil is Prosperity. Want prosperity ... Build the Pipeline. It will be a start to supply jobs. To me jobs are important.

[okie01]

The refineries are in Texas, and Canada doesn’t want them built in Canada.

Canada is not without its refineries.

The issue is: Where are the refineries that can efficiently distribute finished product to the markets which will use them?

The answer to that question is: The Texas Gulf Coast, which has a network of finished product pipelines serving most of the USA.

Canadian refineries don't have an existing finished product pipeline network to distribute their output outside of Canada.

[Theoria]

Utube

Verleger

Oil Exports Spur More Questions About Pipeline

[conservaKate]

Wonder why Canada doesn’t want to build refineries?

[bakeneko]

Hey...HEY! You guys are getting all legalistic and stuff. I was wondering why does a supposedly suffering rancher in the Sandhills have to hide behind the skirts of a Lancaster County judge. Anyone herd (heard) of the Nebraska Supreme Court?

Since when does a county appointed or even elected judge override the state legislature and the governor?

[PA Engineer]

Only one of the three links is partially correct and it sure is not Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). Did you know that many countries have sent their crude to the gulf coast refineries to be refined and returned to their countries?

From wall street journal article:

Since then, U.S. oil production has grown and demand has stagnated. As a result, U.S. refineries are increasingly cranking out gasoline, diesel and jet fuel for overseas markets, in particular Latin America.U.S. exports of refined products have nearly tripled since 2005, according to government data, and the U.S. became a net exporter of those products in 2011.

Tapping Canadian oil would help displace imports of crude oil from countries such as Venezuela and Mexico, said Marty Durbin, executive vice president at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group.

This is one of the few sectors that has prevented a complete collapse of the balance of trade. Oil in fungible. Do you know what that means?

[Theoria]

Nothing in the links go counter to what I said. The oil will be refined and exported to other markets. Trans has already said of potential rises in oil prices and such.

Crude is refined all the time on the gulf, it is not often that citizens lose their property to private interest that benefit other than US citizens. Land and property is taken and that will benefit the Chinese and other countries.

[okie01]

Wonder why Canada doesn’t want to build refineries?

See #83.

Building more refineries in Canada would then necessitate them building an extensive pipeline distribution network for finished product to get it to market...in the USA.

Helluva lot more efficient to build one crude pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast and let them distribute the finished product to market thru an existing pipeline network.

[PA Engineer]

Nothing in the links go counter to what I said.

So you are clueless about fungible?

[Theoria]

Sure. However, domestic production is doesn't play by the similar rules of the game. Nor, does trans have any say over the direction of their product. So again, overseas markets will benefit from the taking of land and property in the US.

[okie01]

So again, overseas markets will benefit from the taking of land and property in the US.

What, exactly, do you mean by "taking of land and property"?

Aren't you aware that pipelines are buried underground, then they're covered up -- leaving the land as it was before?

Landowners are paid appropriately for a lease on the underground right-of-way and for any crop which might be destroyed (or remain unplanted) because of the construction process. Then, the land is returned to production.

Happens all the time around here -- in the Barnett shale -- as collection pipelines are laid to new wells. Farmers and ranchers are adequately compensated and, within a year, there's no surface indication of where the line was laid.

Nor are there any complaints...

[Theoria]

Some people don't wanna sell.. Leave it at that, and build the pipeline to willing sellers.

To dictate the taking of property to persons who don't want their land taken is odd.

[okie01]

To dictate the taking of property to persons who don't want their land taken is odd.

No. It's totally within the law. And has been since the founding of the nation.

Pipelines are "common carriers" -- committed to shipping product for all comers, based on a published rate.

As with public roads, such "common carriers" -- basically including railroads and pipelines -- have the right of "eminent domain". They can force the sale of right-of-way in the courts, if necessary.

However, because they are less subject to terrain, pipelines are a little more flexible in these matters -- and will re-route around a stubborn property owner...if it's feasible.

On the other hand, there's no good reason to be a "stubborn property owner". With pipelines, property-owners are compensated appropriately and don't suffer any loss of use of the property -- save a brief period during construction.

[Theoria]

If keystone is a common carrier, they are required to have at least one on ramp, here in Texas. I don't know of any, but, they could have some. You might know.

A public road is a poor example of comparison with a private pipeline.

[okie01]

If keystone is a common carrier, they are required to have at least one on ramp, here in Texas. I don't know of any, but, they could have some. You might know.

Keystone XL is the name of the particular project. The owner is Trans-Canada Pipeline Corp.

Phase III of the Keystone project -- a line from Cushing, OK to Houston -- was completed in January, 2014.

So, yes, they now operate in Texas. But it's an "off-ramp", not an "on-ramp". Pipelines are one-way streets, y'know.

Keystone Pipeline

[redgolum]

So that trumps private property rights? Or does the State own all the property, and private citizens own nothing? If I go to your town and say “Give me NTL’s house, because I want to build a Quick mart there. It will bring PROSPERITY!”, should I get to?

Again, you are saying the State should steal a private citizen’s land, hand it over to a non US company, because they want it.

The problem is I have played in the energy field, and know some of the actors. They are looking to have the State seize the land, so they don’t have to pay what the land owners are asking. The owners want some sort of guarantee by the State or the state of Nebraska that when (not if) there is a spill, they will be compensated. There is a long history of bad spills out there, where the land owners get stuck with the cost because the company can’t or won’t clean up.

[no-to-illegals]

Please ... Show me an alternative to using oil. I don’t have one. Do you?

[SisterK]

My family had a farm “taken” via eminent domain, actually it was deemed “condemned land”, to build a school. You are compensated, supposedly fair market value.
BUT, I agree with you, they should do straight up purchase instead of forced sell and bypass judges who think they are king. Or queen.

[conservaKate]

Building more refineries in Canada would then necessitate them building an extensive pipeline distribution network for finished product to get it to market...in the USA.

Helluva lot more efficient to build one crude pipeline to the Texas Gulf Coast and let them distribute the finished product to market thru an existing pipeline network.

____________________________________________________________

That may well be part of the issue...but it’s also the case that the oil coming out of Canada is the heavy crude oil and there are few refineries that can accept that type of oil. It’s also the case that the Canadian government is having issues w/ Canadian citizens pushing back about building more pipelines and refineries in Canada.

I’ve also ready that as the US continues to tap our own resources for oil...our product is the lighter ‘sweet crude’ and we might, in fact, use up current US refinery capacity and have no need/reason to draw on Canada’s crude oil.