GasBuddy Blog

GasBuddy News Article

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

Back To News

Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics	Add to favorite topics

Author	Topic: The Farmer vs. the Pipeline, Round 4: Restraining Order Lost Again	Post a Reply Back to Topics

REPLIES (newest first)Ignore Short Messages

First Prev

Next Last

rjhenn Champion Author Des Moines Posts:22,414 Points:2,225,650 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 2:15:51 PM Ignore rjhenn Report Abuse drpepperTX - "It's hard to argue about the price of gas in areas of the U.S. that are able to utilize Canadian oil:" So why do we want to increase the price for Canadian oil, which is what will happen when significant quantities reach the Gulf Coast?
sparky808 Champion Author Honolulu Posts:2,976 Points:593,835 Joined:Sep 2011	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 1:23:23 PM Ignore sparky808 Report Abuse Thank you for posting.
SycamoreISU Champion Author Indiana Posts:1,040 Points:257,935 Joined:Jan 2012	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 1:17:51 PM Ignore SycamoreISU Report Abuse A private company should not be allowed to use eminent domain!
drpepperTX Champion Author Texas Posts:8,919 Points:747,985 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 1:15:02 PM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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:7,327 Points:1,476,035 Joined:Sep 2008	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 9:08:36 AM Ignore albert2008 Report Abuse time will tell
drpepperTX Champion Author Texas Posts:8,919 Points:747,985 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 9:08:09 AM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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:8,919 Points:747,985 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 8:56:35 AM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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:830 Joined:Jan 2012	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 7:55:01 AM Ignore upacrk1 Report Abuse 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:9,447 Points:1,893,410 Joined:Jan 2008	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 6:58:14 AM Ignore CSharpGuy Report Abuse It looks like the people will get what they want, higher gas prices.
tomok Champion Author Portland Posts:32,898 Points:2,340,535 Joined:Aug 2006	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 4:11:11 AM Ignore tomok Report Abuse 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:437,065 Joined:Mar 2005	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 1:37:22 AM Ignore lekanv Report Abuse 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:8,919 Points:747,985 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:55:05 AM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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:22,414 Points:2,225,650 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:36:36 AM Ignore rjhenn Report Abuse 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:3,032 Points:788,580 Joined:Nov 2010	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:32:56 AM Ignore SammyAdams Report Abuse 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:3,032 Points:788,580 Joined:Nov 2010	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:20:09 AM Ignore SammyAdams Report Abuse 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:8,919 Points:747,985 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 12, 2012 12:05:18 AM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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:8,919 Points:747,985 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:56:49 PM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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:3,032 Points:788,580 Joined:Nov 2010	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:56:31 PM Ignore SammyAdams Report Abuse 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:5,976 Points:1,108,585 Joined:May 2008	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:55:02 PM Ignore us4usa Report Abuse Crawford may be too greedy for her own good???
SparkieMi Champion Author Kalamazoo Posts:3,239 Points:584,220 Joined:Sep 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:37:09 PM Ignore SparkieMi Report Abuse Interesting!!!! Who is on first???? What are the new rules for eminent domain????
lekanv Champion Author New York Posts:103,286 Points:437,065 Joined:Mar 2005	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:36:53 PM Ignore lekanv Report Abuse 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 Ignore tippybuddy Report Abuse 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:2,114 Points:399,260 Joined:Feb 2012	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:25:42 PM Ignore Blismo Report Abuse oh darn
Kaiyne Champion Author Chicago Posts:2,314 Points:467,740 Joined:Feb 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:23:30 PM Ignore Kaiyne Report Abuse Farmer's need to have control over their own property.
LCSTEELERBOB Champion Author Gary Posts:2,961 Points:720,030 Joined:Oct 2008	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:23:10 PM Ignore LCSTEELERBOB Report Abuse THEY JUST NEED TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO
abcdMA Champion Author Worcester Posts:7,902 Points:1,570,980 Joined:Nov 2008	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:21:14 PM Ignore abcdMA Report Abuse Keystone in 2012!
blazerbob91 Champion Author Milwaukee Posts:6,122 Points:1,879,630 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:20:51 PM Ignore blazerbob91 Report Abuse One farmer won;t stop progress
nztyraider Champion Author Nevada Posts:2,268 Points:690,000 Joined:Apr 2009	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:17:26 PM Ignore nztyraider Report Abuse Go pipeline.
waynemustang Champion Author Indiana Posts:6,352 Points:1,660,810 Joined:Nov 2006	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:13:21 PM Ignore waynemustang Report Abuse The courts will decide.
NOGASMOOLA Rookie Author Illinois Posts:61 Points:134,960 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:12:37 PM Ignore NOGASMOOLA Report Abuse OK
serrog Champion Author Nova Scotia Posts:5,544 Points:1,508,130 Joined:Oct 2008	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:10:36 PM Ignore serrog Report Abuse Fear mongering
bra0712 Champion Author Arizona Posts:3,644 Points:763,820 Joined:Nov 2008	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:10:20 PM Ignore bra0712 Report Abuse Draw
drpepperTX Champion Author Texas Posts:8,919 Points:747,985 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:08:37 PM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse This could go 9 rounds before a KO.
Beaveronparade Champion Author Hartford Posts:2,096 Points:631,395 Joined:Mar 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:08:30 PM Ignore Beaveronparade Report Abuse People should be compensated if it cuts through their land. It's only fair.
Ahking Champion Author Orange County Posts:3,492 Points:600,445 Joined:May 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:06:26 PM Ignore Ahking Report Abuse Hey, it is his land.
bevmill Champion Author Georgia Posts:2,557 Points:595,570 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:04:46 PM Ignore bevmill Report Abuse ok
Paw5X Champion Author Gary Posts:9,878 Points:2,263,305 Joined:May 2005	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:02:17 PM Ignore Paw5X Report Abuse 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 Ignore baconnie Report Abuse ok
gilfarm Champion Author Alabama Posts:6,771 Points:1,943,865 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 11:01:08 PM Ignore gilfarm Report Abuse A waste of time.
drpepperTX Champion Author Texas Posts:8,919 Points:747,985 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:58:54 PM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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:440 Points:98,430 Joined:Jul 2008	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:56:53 PM Ignore lisamls Report Abuse ouch!
judgemobile Champion Author Ohio Posts:7,550 Points:2,441,135 Joined:Nov 2005	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:56:48 PM Ignore judgemobile Report Abuse whoever has the most oil wells when they die, is JUST AS DEAD.
drpepperTX Champion Author Texas Posts:8,919 Points:747,985 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:55:41 PM Ignore drpepperTX Report Abuse 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:570,830 Joined:Jul 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:55:25 PM Ignore jmdk721 Report Abuse Ok
ghost_SC Sophomore Author Columbia Posts:246 Points:1,428,195 Joined:Sep 2008	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:54:40 PM Ignore ghost_SC Report Abuse wow
ratones1 Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:2,892 Points:727,230 Joined:Mar 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:53:06 PM Ignore ratones1 Report Abuse interesting...
cateyes8264 Champion Author Tennessee Posts:2,957 Points:640,365 Joined:Jul 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:52:25 PM Ignore cateyes8264 Report Abuse 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:3,288 Points:1,013,070 Joined:Jun 2009	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:51:47 PM Ignore Barfood Report Abuse 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 Ignore rissa62 Report Abuse 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 Veteran Author Wisconsin Posts:469 Points:141,030 Joined:Sep 2008	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:50:54 PM Ignore HDFXR1991 Report Abuse The fight will never end with this pipeline.
bobcatfan Champion Author Kentucky Posts:1,577 Points:613,545 Joined:Apr 2011	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:50:31 PM Ignore bobcatfan Report Abuse 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:3,727 Points:1,114,140 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Mar 11, 2012 10:47:03 PM Ignore Wierbe Report Abuse 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!).