Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:23 PM

GasBuddy News Article

59
votes
The Farmer vs. the Pipeline, Round 4: Restraining Order Lost Again

StateImpact -- Once again, the farmer fighting the Keystone XL pipeline has had her restraining order against the company behind the pipeline dissolved. You can read the ruling by the Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana, below.

If you’re confused (and who could blame you), here’s the timeline: a few weeks ago, Crawford got a temporary restraining order against TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline, which would have prevented the company from starting construction on her land. But that restraining order was later dissolved by the courts on Feb. 24, and the company announced it intended to go ahead and start construction on a southern portion of the pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas. Then last Friday, an appeals court reinstated the restraining order after an appeal by Crawford,


Read the Full Article

Submitted Mar 11, 2012 By: drpepperTX
Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: The Farmer vs. the Pipeline, Round 4: Restraining Order Lost Again Back to Topics
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
sparky808
Champion Author Honolulu

Posts:6,118
Points:1,385,235
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 1:23:23 PM

Thank you for posting.
SycamoreISU
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:1,271
Points:807,020
Joined:Jan 2012
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 1:17:51 PM

A private company should not be allowed to use eminent domain!
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,653
Points:1,563,545
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 1:15:02 PM

A few more thoughts...

One-quarter of Keystone XL capacity is expected to be used to carry oil from the Bakken formation, this huge production region in the U.S., is hampered by pipeline bottlenecks. Keystone XL would make a new path to deliver this significant source of domestic oil to markets. Keystone XL will provide market outlets for U.S. producers, growing jobs, while keeping U.S. consumers supplied with oil from domestic sources.

Right now there are already about 3,000 miles of crude oil or liquid pipelines in Nebraska, the biggest part of contention for the Keystone XL, these pipelines already operate safely over the Ogallala Aquifer. Many oil producing wells have been drilled and are in production within areas over the Ogallala Aquifer. While the risk of an oil release from this pipeline in an area where it could reach the aquifer is low, what these existing wells and pipelines show is that even if it does occur, the impact is very local and and has been managed. What is the proof? With all this activity has the aquifer been 'poisoned' yet?

Just sayin' :=)
albert2008
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:10,571
Points:2,262,245
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 9:08:36 AM

time will tell
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,653
Points:1,563,545
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 9:08:09 AM

It's hard to argue about the price of gas in areas of the U.S. that are able to utilize Canadian oil:

Crude oil from N.D., Canada eases gas price rise in mid-continent
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,653
Points:1,563,545
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 8:56:35 AM

lekanv, "But please, we need to reject misrepresentation of facts by all parties."

Then also goes on to say " I don't think anyone has questioned Transcanada's ability to build a $7 billion pipeline and do it right. "
==========================
If you go back thru my posts on this or any thread you will see that I have no patience for misinformation by anyone. So that being said, your second quote above is not factual, I can cite you several posters here on GB that have said Transcanada will build an unsafe and inferior pipeline. The same from some called 'journalists' out there.

upacrk1
Rookie Author Illinois

Posts:9
Points:4,030
Joined:Jan 2012
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 7:55:01 AM

To "lekanv" - Great post! The more the facts come out, the more the gas-buying public will understand that this project is just another Big Oil scam.
CSharpGuy
Champion Author Colorado Springs

Posts:12,858
Points:2,707,960
Joined:Jan 2008
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 6:58:14 AM

It looks like the people will get what they want, higher gas prices.
tomok
Champion Author Portland

Posts:46,841
Points:3,177,435
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 4:11:11 AM

The Farmer vs. the Pipeline? Restraining Order?
It's amazing how a “foreign” company can mess with another country citizens and their property the way they have. The KXL pipeline, private property, eminent domain, private property, bullying, private property, threats and private property AND private property.
The price of fuel at the pump is too high!
12/22/2012!
lekanv
Champion Author New York

Posts:103,286
Points:1,093,065
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 1:37:22 AM

drpepperTX, I don't think anyone has questioned Transcanada's ability to build a $7 billion pipeline and do it right. However, to state that you do not believe that much more will be exported is really ignoring the facts of the matter. You did not dispute the fact that keystone is an export pipeline or that it is intended to link the tar sands production to Gulf Coast refineries, and to improve Canadian access to export market. And currently about 25% of Gulf Coast refinery output is for export, you can see statistical analysis conducted by the U.S.Energy Information Administation. Our number one export last year was refined fuel, and because our consumption of oil keeps declining, our export capacity keeps increasing, which is good if we are thinking in terms of balancing foreign trade. But please, we need to reject misrepresentation of facts by all parties.
We also understand that all you intended to do with the article was post it to enable us have a dialogue, but i hope the tone of our discussion so far did not suggest a need to defend either Transcanada or Valero Energy
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,653
Points:1,563,545
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:55:05 AM

rjhenn, there is no doubt they'll export SOME refined product but no OIL.

As for why, it would be a PR nightmare. Look at the flack they are getting now for exporting less than 5%.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,800
Points:2,964,380
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:36:36 AM

drpepperTX - Why wouldn't they export it? Demand is down in the US, but up worldwide.

And why do we want to raise gas prices even more in the US?

Keystone Pipeline
SammyAdams
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:6,512
Points:1,601,340
Joined:Nov 2010
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:32:56 AM

A final thought from me on this subject tonight AND a wager. I'll bet there is a liar . . . uh, I mean Lawyer behind Crawford who sees deep pockets and might just be pushing a little more than usual. That's okay with me, but both parties should be thinking "worst case scenarios" (not unlike last years NBA negotiations) before they walk.
SammyAdams
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:6,512
Points:1,601,340
Joined:Nov 2010
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:20:09 AM

This is all a little too "heady" for me at this hour, but a section of land or less wouldn't preclude TransCanada from rerouting the pipeline, in my judgement unless there were circumstances that haven't been revealed. It would seem to me that their other easements would have contingencies for ALL contracts to become binding. So, how difficult would it be to reroute unless there were other barriers (Interstate highway, river, etc) which hasn't been disclosed. You picked a winner drpepperTX.
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,653
Points:1,563,545
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:05:18 AM

SammyAdams, good post!

I seem to recall the farm is 240 hectares, if my real estate memory serves me right a hectare Is a little over 2.4 acres, so the farm would be about 600 acres or almost a square mile.
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,653
Points:1,563,545
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:56:49 PM

lekanv, first I think only a corporation the size of Transcanada can build a $7 Billion pipeline and do it right.
Second, even if SOME of the oil is refined and those distillates exported, I do not believe that much more will be exported than is already exported now. Recent estimates, including Valero, show that less than 5% of refined gasoline is exported. And that figure is based after the current trend upwards in distillate exportation.

Other than that, the rule of law is just that, the law. I only posted the article and made some comments and gave some opinions on the eminent domain laws, I did not write the laws.
SammyAdams
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:6,512
Points:1,601,340
Joined:Nov 2010
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:56:31 PM

Before this case, I was unaware that a private company could exercise the forced taking of property under "eminent domain". When it comes to a government agency that displays a compelling need for the property I would be agreeable, if and only if, this need was demonstrated beyond all reasonable objections. The case would be rare, however, for me to sympathize with ANY private company for profit to allow this doctrine to be enforced. This might just be that instance, but without knowing all the particulars, it is too difficult to judge.

Since this only requires an easement, I am assuming that there would be no need to condemn the entire parcel, but how much remaining land is there? This must be a large tract of land; making it impractical to reroute the easement. The article mentions (and I believe it) that the snafu revolves around the amount of consideration offered to Crawford. Me thinks that this farmer sees an advantage to make a bunch of money when the project is almost a "done deal" except for a few opportunists who are holding out for more money. That's okay, isn't it?

If this were a national security issue (and it could turn out that way) then the stragglers would need to just trust the Court to be fair with a settlement. On the one hand, I generally agree with the construction of this Keystone XL pipeline (some prejudice). But on the other hand (besides five additional fingers) I am a strong advocate of private property rights and would require TransCanada to just pay some more money to Crawford and the remaining hold outs. This will likely be a losing cause for this farmer, but I would like to read the final judgement.
us4usa
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:7,183
Points:1,596,850
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:55:02 PM

Crawford may be too greedy for her own good???
SparkieMi
Champion Author Kalamazoo

Posts:6,460
Points:1,378,425
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:37:09 PM

Interesting!!!! Who is on first???? What are the new rules for eminent
domain????
lekanv
Champion Author New York

Posts:103,286
Points:1,093,065
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:36:53 PM

drpepperTx, you and i might not be able to present factual information, but i hope you are not for a minute subscribing to the notion that a corporation the size of Transcanada should be able to push through a project of this magnitude and cost without being able to quantify and qualify the benefits to be derived by the citizens of this country. That would be a terrible mistake and an unfortunate precedent.
Lets check out a few facts; Transcanada and the other tar sands producers have not hidden their intentions regarding access to export markets, and by the completion of this project would have accomplished that long-term objective. Keystone is export pipeline, and it is intended to link Alberta's tar sands productions to Gulf Coast refineries where it is going to be shipped to the highest bidder. We all understand that there is no room for consideration for American consumption or discount for American bids on open market. Moreover, Valero Energy who is the leading beneficiary of the keystone xl pipeline, as a matter of public record have detailed their export plan. Luckily for them since their Port Arthur refinery is located within a foreign trade zone, they will achieve their plan tax free. That is a synopsis of keystone xl pipeline, and if that sounds like a project that is going to accord benefits to the American people, then i guess we are just going to learn to have to agree to disagree.
tippybuddy
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,523
Points:207,740
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:28:49 PM

I myself am still not sure whether the pipeline is good or bad...I guess good for jobs and maybe lower prices but not so good for the farmer and their crops should there be a spill of any kind...it's hard to know which way to go here
Blismo
Champion Author Arizona

Posts:2,569
Points:498,810
Joined:Feb 2012
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:25:42 PM

oh darn
Kaiyne
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:4,579
Points:1,095,945
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:23:30 PM

Farmer's need to have control over their own property.
LCSTEELERBOB
Champion Author Gary

Posts:3,537
Points:886,655
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:23:10 PM

THEY JUST NEED TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO
abcdMA
Champion Author Worcester

Posts:11,268
Points:2,377,915
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:21:14 PM

Keystone in 2012!
blazerbob91
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:7,105
Points:2,655,290
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:20:51 PM

One farmer won;t stop progress
nztyraider
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:3,676
Points:1,386,310
Joined:Apr 2009
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:17:26 PM

Go pipeline.
waynemustang
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:9,241
Points:2,433,510
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:13:21 PM

The courts will decide.
NOGASMOOLA
Rookie Author Illinois

Posts:61
Points:135,710
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:12:37 PM

OK
serrog
Champion Author Nova Scotia

Posts:8,957
Points:2,350,390
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:10:36 PM

Fear mongering
bra0712
Champion Author Arizona

Posts:5,760
Points:1,453,815
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:10:20 PM

Draw
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,653
Points:1,563,545
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:08:37 PM

This could go 9 rounds before a KO.
Beaveronparade
Champion Author Hartford

Posts:3,409
Points:1,381,130
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:08:30 PM

People should be compensated if it cuts through their land. It's only fair.
Ahking
Champion Author Orange County

Posts:3,618
Points:625,235
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:06:26 PM

Hey, it is his land.
bevmill
Champion Author Georgia

Posts:5,734
Points:1,404,475
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:04:46 PM

ok
Paw5X
Champion Author Gary

Posts:11,150
Points:2,489,000
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:02:17 PM

Oh No, say it isn't so!!
baconnie
Champion Author Dallas

Posts:2,797
Points:563,210
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:02:17 PM

ok
gilfarm
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:10,128
Points:2,767,845
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:01:08 PM

A waste of time.
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,653
Points:1,563,545
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:58:54 PM

Howdy bobcatfan,

Actually I completely agree, you have every right to say NO as do I.

However, the rule of law dictates.
lisamls
Veteran Author Sacramento

Posts:465
Points:103,005
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:56:53 PM

ouch!
judgemobile
Champion Author Ohio

Posts:10,970
Points:3,271,600
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:56:48 PM

whoever has the most oil wells when they die, is JUST AS DEAD.
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,653
Points:1,563,545
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:55:41 PM

As a landowner myself, of a homestead and 2 ranches in Texas, you should know that I'm no great fan of eminent domain and I'm glad the Court is there in cases like Denbury. But if a company has legit claim to eminent domain and like Transcanada, has been able to satisfactorily negotiate with over 98% of the landowners without having to condemn, my experience as a special commissioner in condemnation cases tells me Transcanada or any other company with a record of 98% agreement, has gone thru the process pretty damn fairly and offered an obviously fair amount
jmdk721
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:1,184
Points:668,030
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:55:25 PM

Ok
ghost_SC
Veteran Author Columbia

Posts:261
Points:2,082,320
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:54:40 PM

wow
ratones1
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:3,419
Points:1,417,385
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:53:06 PM

interesting...
cateyes8264
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:3,332
Points:772,940
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:52:25 PM

This is just going round and round and round. Is there no other path for the pipeline? With this much opposition, can they not find any alternative and just get on with it???
Barfood
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:3,836
Points:1,638,465
Joined:Jun 2009
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:51:47 PM

You got that right Rissa62!
rissa62
Rookie Author Kansas City

Posts:26
Points:2,680
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:50:54 PM

Follow the $$$ and you will see a private U.S. citizen is fighting an uphill battle. TransCanada can afford to pay Mrs. Crawford whatever she asks for; but why should they when the U.S. courts (getting paid under the table) are in their pockets. SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME SOME DUCT TAPE BECAUSE MY HEAD IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE!!!!!
HDFXR1991
All-Star Author Wisconsin

Posts:509
Points:365,180
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:50:54 PM

The fight will never end with this pipeline.
bobcatfan
Champion Author Kentucky

Posts:4,195
Points:1,375,930
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:50:31 PM

Hey drpepperTX:

As an American citizen, it is my right to say "NO". It doesn't matter what the price is or who the private company is. The answer is NO, NO, NO.

I don't give a rat's @55 what the process is. It is absolutely unacceptable for the government to sponsor the seizure and redistribution of private property in America.

Good luck Ms. Crawford. You are a true American.
Wierbe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:7,038
Points:1,939,295
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:47:03 PM

TransCanada has responded, saying that Crawford’s “legal activity is really about getting more compensation for a pipeline easement."

That reads to me like TransCanada's activity is really about offering less compensation for a pipeline easement.

I thought eminent domain was for the common good. This seem to be for the good of a single company, TransCanada (in Texas, no less!).
bobcatfan
Champion Author Kentucky

Posts:4,195
Points:1,375,930
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:46:23 PM

Let's see, A foreign owned company wants to force an American citizen to give up her land, and our court system is going along with it.

Trans-Canada should re-route the pipeline or drop it altogether. Letting one private company take the private property of a citizen of the US is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE!
Post a reply Back to Topics