Obama Vetoes Keystone XL

[BehindBlueI's]

Its not obvious to me how a pipe line running under farm land renders it useless. How does it?

What's your source for people have to buy insurance? The only thing I can find is TransCanada has to buy insurance and put up bonds themselves.

How is the land rendered worthless? Even if it is, the correct term isn't "kicked off", doesn't mean that in anyone's vocabulary. To be kicked off of something means you are forced to leave.

Still waiting for answers. If these allegations are true, it would certainly alter how I view the pipeline project. Particularly the having to buy insurance to cover someone else's liability.

 

[Shadow8088]

Its not obvious to me how a pipe line running under farm land renders it useless. How does it?

EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS: North Dakota Oil Spill Leaks 20,000 Barrels Greenpeace Blogs

 

[hornadylnl]

EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS: North Dakota Oil Spill Leaks 20,000 Barrels Greenpeace Blogs

Don't be afraid to buy industrial property with buried oil or chemical lines. Because employees would never keep adding hydraulic oil to a draining tank when there are no above ground leaks. No epa nightmares lurking there.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

OK, since no one is going to provide any sort of source to back the claims people have to buy insurance, I'll file that as BS and we can strike that talking point.

Let's take a look at the one fact presented.

So a pipeline spilled 20,000 barrels of oil, and that proves a pipeline renders land useless for farming?

Huh. Better tell people to stop farming around train tracks, then.

400,000 gallons of crude oil spilled in North Dakota train crash - Los Angeles Times

400,000 barrels from a train spill.

One rail car carries 1.5x as much oil as that pipeline spill:

Train in Alabama oil spill was carrying 2.7 million gallons of crude - Los Angeles Times

I didn't find hard numbers on how much they actually figured out spilled in that one. Mother Jones says 750,000 gallons, but if they said the sky was blue I'd go outside and check. Regardless, numbers seem to agree that railroads spilled over one million gallons in 2013.

So, taking individual spills may be photogenic, but is that proof it renders the land useless? If so, why does a railroad track or highway next to a cornfield not render it useless?

Pick Your Poison For Crude -- Pipeline, Rail, Truck Or Boat - Forbes

Oils going to get to refineries somehow. Which is the least hazardous? Again, does the possibility of a spill similarly mean If so a railroad track or highway renders farmland useless/worthless?

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's a mention of it.

TransCanada’s one-sided, often forced, contracts tell landowners they should, at the property owner’s expense, take out liability insurance because economic damages to land and water are not covered under any federal law when a spill happens. On top of that, TransCanada leaves the pipeline in the ground for the landowner to dig up and restore the soil once TransCanada is finished using that massive piece of foreign steel. Again, at the landowners’ risk and the landowners’ expense.

Eminent domain fine and dandy for Keystone-obsessed GOP | TheHill

Your home owners and property insurance do not cover oil spills. You have to take out very specific liability insurance to cover that. And you're also responsible for the removal and remediation once the pipeline has served its purpose. The Canadian company will not spend a penny to remove it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Here's a mention of it.

Eminent domain fine and dandy for Keystone-obsessed GOP | TheHill

Your home owners and property insurance do not cover oil spills. You have to take out very specific liability insurance to cover that. And you're also responsible for the removal and remediation once the pipeline has served its purpose. The Canadian company will not spend a penny to remove it.

That's an opinion piece. What's the source?

I found places that said the company had to put up large bonds for liability in some states and buy insurance, but similarly those were in op-eds and other places I didn't consider a real source. What's the truth?

As far as removing the pipe...its a huge oil reserve. I don't think we'll be done with the pipeline any time soon. Even once it is, what's the harm in the pipe remaining in the ground?

 

[firehawk1]

Take it for what it's worth but it is from the EPA as far as exactly who is responsible for oil spills.

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund | US Environmental Protection Agency

Don't see it mentioning the landowner as ever being responsible in any way.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Take it for what it's worth but it is from the EPA as far as exactly who is responsible for oil spills.

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund | US Environmental Protection Agency

Don't see it mentioning the landowner as ever being responsible in any way.

So the company is responsible, and if the company is defunct a gov't program funded by a $0.05/barrel tax is used to clean it up. Good find.

 

[firehawk1]

So the company is responsible, and if the company is defunct a gov't program funded by a $0.05/barrel tax is used to clean it up. Good find.

I just remembered that when we were fighting the land stealing bike path zealots here on Indy's westside, one of the tactics they used in attempting to gain control of the land was lying to the adjoining landowners. They were telling us we would be held responsible for any toxic substance, oil/diesel fuel, blah, blah, blah found on or in the abandoned railbed if the land was split between the adjoining landowners. Scare tactics is all it was.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I still can't figure out why so many INGOers were ready to support Cliven Bundy in his battle with the BLM, but then so many throw their support behind a foreign-owned company that wants to force other Americans to give up big chunks of their land.

The Tea Party has come out strongly against the use of eminent domain by TransCanada.

It's truly baffling

"Give up" or allow to have a pipe go under it with temporary loss of use? How much land would really be "lost"?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I still can't figure out why so many INGOers were ready to support Cliven Bundy in his battle with the BLM, but then so many throw their support behind a foreign-owned company that wants to force other Americans to give up big chunks of their land.

The Tea Party has come out strongly against the use of eminent domain by TransCanada.

Its not obvious to me how a pipe line running under farm land renders it useless. How does it?

What's your source for people have to buy insurance? The only thing I can find is TransCanada has to buy insurance and put up bonds themselves.

How is the land rendered worthless? Even if it is, the correct term isn't "kicked off", doesn't mean that in anyone's vocabulary. To be kicked off of something means you are forced to leave.

I posted that pic last thread about this. It was ignored by the detractors.

They are not arguing with logic. They are arguing with emotion.

 

[Whosyer]

Myths & Facts | Keystone XL Pipeline

MYTH: “Landowners are responsible and liable in the event of an oil spill.”

Fact: TransCanada is 100 per cent responsible for responding, cleaning and restoring the site in the unlikely event of a pipeline leak.
It’s our responsibility – as a good company and under law. If anything happens on the Keystone XL Pipeline, rapid response is key. That’s why our Emergency Response plans are approved by state
and federal agencies, and why we practice them regularly. We conduct regular emergency exercises, and aerial surveys every two weeks. We’re ready to respond with a highly-trained response team standing by. At TransCanada, we continually look at ways to improve our system. Since 2011, TransCanada has invested an average of about $900 million per year in its pipeline integrity and maintenance programs.
​

 

[Kutnupe14]

Myths & Facts | Keystone XL Pipeline

MYTH: “Landowners are responsible and liable in the event of an oil spill.”

Fact: TransCanada is 100 per cent responsible for responding, cleaning and restoring the site in the unlikely event of a pipeline leak.
It’s our responsibility – as a good company and under law. If anything happens on the Keystone XL Pipeline, rapid response is key. That’s why our Emergency Response plans are approved by state
and federal agencies, and why we practice them regularly. We conduct regular emergency exercises, and aerial surveys every two weeks. We’re ready to respond with a highly-trained response team standing by. At TransCanada, we continually look at ways to improve our system. Since 2011, TransCanada has invested an average of about $900 million per year in its pipeline integrity and maintenance programs.
​

I'm am suspect of any information from a TransCanada website. They say in the unlikely event of a spill, and yet their Phase 1 had 12 spills in its first year. I guess unlikely is subjective.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm am suspect of any information from a TransCanada website. They say in the unlikely event of a spill, and yet their Phase 1 had 12 spills in its first year. I guess unlikely is subjective.

The EPA's website backs up the liability aspect anyway.

Have you provided a source for landowners having to buy insurance yet?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

They are not arguing with logic. They are arguing with emotion.

I would say they are arguing with misinformation, at least in some aspects.

 

[Thor]

I guess I'd accept what a TransCanada site said as much or more than I'd take anything from NYTimes, LATimes, Greenpeace (not a freaking chance), or the EPA for Odin's sake.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Obama?s claim that Keystone XL oil ?bypasses the U.S.? earns Four Pinocchios - The Washington Post

 

[jamil]

Obama?s claim that Keystone XL oil ?bypasses the U.S.? earns Four Pinocchios - The Washington Post

You probably wouldn't be surprised at the number of people claiming this on the interwebz.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We ever get a good source for jobs created or not created?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The EPA's website backs up the liability aspect anyway.

Have you provided a source for landowners having to buy insurance yet?

I'm wondering if the landowner would have to bear the cost of insurance that would cover his income and/or productivity losses if there was a spill. That would be like "gap" insurance to compensate the landowner when the loss is experienced while a liability case moves glacially through the courts.

You could hardly call it fair if TransCanada wasn't liable to give reasonable compensation to landowners for losses at the time they are incurred, continuously until land is suitably remediated and returned to it's former quality and productivity. And I didn't see anything like that in TransCanada's FAQ, even though that would seem to be a pretty frequently asked question.