Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:19 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
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2012 12:03:16 PM

The decision has been handed down Farmer Loses Case Against Keystone XL Pipeline
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2012 9:57:25 AM

"But are we going to see greater supply from Canada?"
================
Yes, whether the Keystone is built or not.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2012 1:49:59 PM

drpepperTX - "Ok rj, I agree the pundits have expressed the opinion that prices might rise by 20 cents in some areas of the Midwest. Bear in mind though that TransCanada never said that."

No, what TransCanada said, to the Canadian government, was that the purpose of Keystone XL was to eliminate the discount US refineries currently see on Canadian crude.

"However, the Gulf coast and other regions might very well see a decrease in prices with the bottleneck relieved in Cushing."

Why? They're already producing more product than the US is consuming, which is why they're exporting.

"I'm still of the opinion that more supply from Canada is an overall positive for the US, when you consider the value of the dollar and national security. National security does equate to public 'good' does it not?"

But are we going to see greater supply from Canada, or just higher prices? Would we see more of an impact on national security by sending Canadian crude to refineries that aren't so well-positioned to export, but primarily supply US demand?

"Like I said, if a law can be improved, go for it. Just remember it does take "an act of Congress" to change the law."

Well, that sure makes improvement unlikely.

"Hope you have a great Easter, I have really enjoyed the discussion!"

Same here.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2012 7:49:23 PM

Ok rj, I agree the pundits have expressed the opinion that prices might rise by 20 cents in some areas of the Midwest. Bear in mind though that Transcanada never said that. However, the Gulf coast and other regions might very well see a decrease in prices with the bottleneck relieved in Cushing.

I'm still of the opinion that more supply from Canada is an overall positive for the US, when you consider the value of the dollar and national security. National security does equate to public 'good' does it not?

Like I said, if a law can be improved, go for it. Just remember it does take "an act of Congress" to change the law.

Hope you have a great Easter, I have really enjoyed the discussion!

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 5, 2012 11:47:15 AM

drpepperTX - "See how hard it is to try and cover lies! When you have been lied to and you believe those lies it puts you into a horrible position to defend."

No lies, merely a matter of interpretation. TransCanada said that Keystone XL would end the discounting on Canadian crude, which currently keeps gas prices in the Midwest about 20¢ a gallon cheaper than they would be otherwise.

Raise the price of Canadian crude, and you raise the price of the gas refined from it.

But keep harping on that 'lie', since you don't seem to have any other argument.

BTW, why is it again that we can't improve the laws on eminent domain?

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/5/2012 11:48:09 AM EST]
Profile Pic
bruin19MD
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:1,140
Points:181,505
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2012 1:55:19 PM

Not sure what to say about this ...
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2012 11:51:33 AM

You still have not shown any corroboration that Transcanada said "Transcanada ITSELF estimated that gas prices would increase by about 20¢ a gallon when Keystone XL was completed".

See how hard it is to try and cover lies! When you have been lied to and you believe those lies it puts you into a horrible position to defend.

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2012 11:31:06 AM

TransCanada stated that Keystone XL would end the discount our refineries currently get for Canadian crude. Ending that discount will increase gasoline prices by about 20¢ a gallon.

The link works fine for me. No login required, that I can see.

I don't seem to need your help. You, OTOH, need to stop trying to deceive.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2012 11:00:05 AM

Doggone it rj, you get another F on your homework assignment! And lost the hand when I called your bluff.

You said, "Transcanada ITSELF estimated that gas prices would increase by about 20¢ a gallon when Keystone XL was completed". I asked nicely for your source confirming that Transcanada ITSELF said that.

And you turn in an opinion piece, Philip Verleger: "If gas prices go up further, blame Canada", as your homework??? ;=0 Hearsay is not fact.

Oh, and I get this from your first link "Livelink Error: Error accessing Log-in page"

I've tried to help you but you fail to see "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive."
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2012 10:36:16 AM

And the fact that you don't understand the ramifications of your own statements does not mean that I'm lying.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2012 10:32:47 AM

Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.

Access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. Similarly, if a surplus of light synthetic crude develops in PADD II, the Keystone XL Pipeline would provide an alternate market and therefore help to mitigate a price discount.

The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.


What do you think is going to happen to US gas prices when they "increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude"? {M}illions of Americans will spend 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel as tribute to our "friendly" neighbors to the north.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/4/2012 10:34:48 AM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2012 8:06:59 PM

I call your bluff rjhenn, show me the source.

Until then, remember, your credibility is still damaged from your lies.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2012 4:07:29 PM

I've given you sources before. Apparently you didn't pay any attention then.

"Economics 101 lesson here, if the oil market adds a large new supply to demand, the price should come down bringing expectation with time, as more oil comes into the US market, of downward pressure on refined products prices over the whole US market. At the very least this will add value to the falling dollar."

Speaking of Economics 101, currently Canadian crude is only accessible to a limited market, primarily refineries in the Midwest. That means it sells at a discount. Make it, or the products refined from it, available on the world market, and that discount goes away. And US refineries already produce more refined product than we're using, which is why we are now a net exporter of such products. The demand we have to worry about isn't simply US demand, but world demand.

Which is why it would make a lot more sense to send Canadian crude to the East Coast, where refineries are shutting down because their primary source of oil is overseas. Which is pushing up gas prices on the East Coast.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/3/2012 4:13:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2012 2:47:01 PM

rjhenn, I certainly hope you did your homework!

Surely, if you did, you can back up your statement "TransCanada itself estimated that gas prices would increase by about 20¢ a gallon when Keystone XL was completed", with a credible source showing when and where Transcanada made that statement? Please provide that source.

Economics 101 lesson here, if the oil market adds a large new supply to demand, the price should come down bringing expectation with time, as more oil comes into the US market, of downward pressure on refined products prices over the whole US market. At the very least this will add value to the falling dollar.

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2012 1:52:22 PM

drpepperTX - "You're now going beyond ignorance into another realm. if you don't think Soros pulling the puppet strings and Obama willingly being jerked is not a problem. Wow!"

You seem to be the one in "another realm", the realm of conspiracy theories.

"'In fact', really?? More bull butter propaganda you have swallowed. XL has not even been built and you're trying to promote fact about something that has not even happened yet???"

TransCanada itself estimated that gas prices would increase by about 20¢ a gallon when Keystone XL was completed.

Do you really think that moving Canadian crude into an additional market with higher demand won't increase the price in the existing domestic market?

So why do you want to weaken the US economy by increasing gas prices even further?
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2012 7:04:19 PM

rj tenaciously keeps on "So why are you promoting Keystone XL, a pipeline that will do nothing to help the US economy, that will, in fact, hurt it by raising domestic gas prices?

Blaming Obama and Soros is just a dodge, to divert attention from the real problems."

==============================

You're now going beyond ignorance into another realm. if you don't think Soros pulling the puppet strings and Obama willingly being jerked is not a problem. Wow!

"In fact", really?? More bull butter propaganda you have swallowed. XL has not even been built and you're trying to promote fact about something that has not even happened yet???

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2012 4:38:47 PM

So why are you promoting Keystone XL, a pipeline that will do nothing to help the US economy, that will, in fact, hurt it by raising domestic gas prices?

Blaming Obama and Soros is just a dodge, to divert attention from the real problems.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/2/2012 4:39:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2012 10:14:38 AM

rjhenn asks me (I assume)- "So what do you, personally, have to gain from bringing the US economy to its knees?"
===========================================

LMAO, that's a question you need to ask of Obama and his puppeteer George Soros! While you're at it, ask anyone that supports Obama. That's exactly why Obama has got to be stopped, because myself and the majority of Americans want a strong US economy. Soros and his ilk prey on a weak US economy for their own self serving good.

[Edited by: drpepperTX at 4/2/2012 10:16:55 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2012 12:01:59 AM

So what do you, personally, have to gain from bringing the US economy to its knees?
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2012 5:08:28 PM

rjhenn, at least now you admit that you were lying, thank you, that's a big step.

Now, as far as the law, define your 'public good'.

Then take your ideas to the powers that be and knock yourself out! Let me know how it goes. ;=)
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2012 4:17:44 PM

drpepperTX - "Nope, your lying again. That's one of the problems when you post a lie, it leads to more lying. Lying = zero credibility."

So, if the law isn't perfect, why can't we improve it?

Lousy logic = zero credibility.

"That's a moot question. No need for justification on that basis, public good is not in the law."

Seems like it should be. Otherwise what's the point? Which looks like a 'perfect' reason to change the law.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2012 3:48:09 PM

rjhenn, "IOW, despite your protestations to the contrary, you are saying the law is perfect."
=========================================
Nope, your lying again. That's one of the problems when you post a lie, it leads to more lying. Lying = zero credibility.

--------------------------------

rjhenn, "And if that "public or civil use" does not serve the public good, just what is the justification for it?"
=========================================
That's a moot question. No need for justification on that basis, public good is not in the law. Go do your homework and study eminent domain law, for as Socrates said "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."

"Fear always springs from ignorance" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em...." ;=)

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2012 3:05:07 PM

drpepperTX - "Proving, once again, your ignorance of the law, it is public or civil USE, NOT public good."

And if that "public or civil use" does not serve the public good, just what is the justification for it?

"Another comment toward changing a law. The old standard called the test of time. Eminent domain laws are rooted deeply in law that was created well before US law was written. I have no idea of how many challenges have been made to ED law, but it has stood to the test of time."

IOW, despite your protestations to the contrary, you are saying the law is perfect.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2012 5:19:03 PM

Another comment toward changing a law. The old standard called the test of time. Eminent domain laws are rooted deeply in law that was created well before US law was written. I have no idea of how many challenges have been made to ED law, but it has stood to the test of time.

Compare that to Obamacare, clearly a law that has reason to be challenged, or it would not be before the Supreme Court now.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2012 2:16:12 PM

rjhenn, "It doesn't matter whether or not you actually said the law was perfect."
===========================================
Sure it does, because you lied. Lying in an attempt to make a point removes every bit of your credibility.

-----------------------------------------------
Next you put words into my keyboard again, "You oppose improving it, which is indistinguishable."
===========================================
I never said that I opposed improving anything, I only said that changing a law based on YOUR misunderstanding (ignorance) of the law does not merit changing it.

-----------------------------------------------
Then, you follow with "Again, TransCanada is not serving the public good, but a private good."
===========================================
Proving, once again, your ignorance of the law, it is public or civil USE, NOT public good. And you'll have to do your homework, read through the many posts I've made and the cases cited that show Transcanada meets that definition, under the law, as a common carrier. If Transcanada did not, as shown in the Denbury vs Texas Riceland Partners case law, meet the legal definition then I would agree.

-----------------------------------------------
Lastly, you opine ""a first hand practical knowledge of eminent domain" is not the issue, therefore your experience is not really germane."
===========================================
My first hand experience and knowledge is absolutely relevant, precisely because the ignorance of the law you espouse.

"you gotta know when to fold 'em, know when to hold 'em" :=0

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2012 1:17:31 PM

If it's not serving a public good, then there's no justification for eminent domain.

It doesn't matter whether or not you actually said the law was perfect. You oppose improving it, which is indistinguishable.

Again, TransCanada is not serving the public good, but a private good. Why should that give them the right to invoke eminent domain?

Should the government exist to promote business interests over public interests (it does, but should it)?

"a first hand practical knowledge of eminent domain" is not the issue, therefore your experience is not really germane.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2012 10:44:00 AM

rjhenn, "That's one example. However, the purpose of the law is to swerve the public good. It may be that it needs some fine tuning to do that more consistently."
=================================
No, the purpose of eminent domain law is to provide a legal method for the government or by delegation to third paties to obtain or access land. The limitations of the law are provided for in the 5th Amendment where it must be shown that there is public or civil use. Ant the 5th Amedment gives the landowner the right to challenge eminent domain status in court through due process.

------------------------------------------------

Your then said "Your statement that there's no purpose served by "changing a law that has served us and worked very well".
====================================================
In an attempt to show that I said the law was "perfect", you quote that??? You are welcome to try again but you'll never find that I have stated the law was perfect.

--------------------------------------------------

Next you go on "The real question being: does TransCanada have a "legit claim to eminent domain"? Are they serving the public good, or simply a private good? There seems to be considerable doubt as to that."
==================================================
Actually, Transcanada has shown over and over again that it has legitimate claim to eminent domain, they are a 'common carrier' and have established that with the original Keystone pipeline. Sure, that can still be challenged under the 5th Amendment but as shown in the ruling that this entire thread is about, that challenge will likely fail.

---------------------------------------------------

Lastly you say "Ah, the old appeal to authority."
===================================================
You may feel that way, but first hand experience, and the knowledge gained from experience, goes a long way toward eliminating the ignorance people have about the rule of law we live under. You see, I too was once ignorant as to the due process provided under condemnation law. Now that I have seen the process at work, I have a first hand practical knowledge of eminent domain.

---------------------------------------------------

And speaking of upping the ante, remember the words from The Gambler, "you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em". ;=)
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2012 11:42:32 PM

drpepperTX - "rjhenn, first I don't need a dictionary to understand the word 'preclude', the damn auto fill on the old iPhone filled that in instead of 'purvey', my apologies for sending you off to the dictionary."

While I've had that same problem with auto fill, now I'd suggest you look up "purvey".

"You ask "Served who very well?" in regards to eminent domain law. Again, homework. If you had read my post below a shining example of the law working for the landowner was Texas Riceland Partners vs Denbury, which I referenced below. Just the latest example of the law working for the rule of law."

That's one example. However, the purpose of the law is to swerve the public good. It may be that it needs some fine tuning to do that more consistently.

"Mighty arrogant AND dilusional of YOU to assume "Your (my) belief that what exists is perfect and can never be improved". Show me where I EVER said that!"

Your statement that there's no purpose served by "changing a law that has served us and worked very well".

"and since you obviously still refuse to do your homework I'll quote myself again:
'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 fairly and offered an obviously fair amount of $20,000.00.'"

The real question being: does TransCanada have a "legit claim to eminent domain"? Are they serving the public good, or simply a private good? There seems to be considerable doubt as to that.

"And to repeat again, I have first hand court experience, read through my posts below about my being appointed a special commissioner in condemnation cases. I am not ignorant to the process as you have proven yourself to be."

Ah, the old appeal to authority.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 3/28/2012 11:43:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2012 8:43:44 PM

rjhenn, first I don't need a dictionary to understand the word 'preclude', the damn auto fill on the old iPhone filled that in instead of 'purvey', my apologies for sending you off to the dictionary.

You ask "Served who very well?" in regards to eminent domain law. Again, homework. If you had read my post below a shining example of the law working for the landowner was Texas Riceland Partners vs Denbury, which I referenced below. Just the latest example of the law working for the rule of law.

Mighty arrogant AND dilusional of YOU to assume "Your (my) belief that what exists is perfect and can never be improved". Show me where I EVER said that!

and since you obviously still refuse to do your homework I'll quote myself again:
"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 fairly and offered an obviously fair amount of $20,000.00."

And to repeat again, I have first hand court experience, read through my posts below about my being appointed a special commissioner in condemnation cases. I am not ignorant to the process as you have proven yourself to be.

Homework, rj, homework! :=)
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2012 6:51:18 PM

drpepperTX - "Where you think it needs to go is irrevalent, you believing that your opinion should preclude changing a law that has served us and worked very well, is reflective of the arrogance and ignorance of some folks."

Served who very well?

Your belief that what exists is perfect and can never be improved is arrogant, ignorant and delusional. (See, upped the ante!) 7;-]

And look up the meaning of "preclude".

[Edited by: rjhenn at 3/28/2012 6:51:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
honda0105
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:21,426
Points:1,940,290
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2012 5:56:20 AM

I'm so glad there are people in politics who watch out for the interest of the guys who actually pay for the overinflated compensation package that politicians and those around them receive.
Profile Pic
BIGOILEATURCRUD
Champion Author North Carolina

Posts:8,263
Points:1,709,505
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2012 2:02:40 AM


Trying for 16 days to justify a mute point which one has no control over on a Gasbuddy blog using an alias is reflective of the arrogance and ignorance of some folks.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2012 5:06:36 PM

rjhenn, you said- "Perhaps not, but the law should only apply when there is an actual need. Which there doesn't seem to be in this ecase."

Then add later "I'm saying we don't need it from Canada to the Gulf"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where you think it needs to go is irrevalent, you believing that your opinion should preclude changing a law that has served us and worked very well, is reflective of the arrogance and ignorance of some folks.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2012 4:57:44 PM

Yes VomVom, patience is a virtue! :=)
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2012 1:16:48 PM

I'm saying we don't need it from Canada to the Gulf. If we need it anywhere, we need it from Canada to the East Coast.

Sending Canadian crude to the Gulf is only going to increase gas prices in the Midwest.

As for "the ignorant and the arrogant ones!!", you've both seen the links I've provided, and you both completely ignore them. So who's ignorant and arrogant?
Profile Pic
VomVom
Champion Author Calgary

Posts:3,933
Points:1,860,555
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2012 12:56:41 PM

drpepper, I tip my hat off to you. You continue to patiently educate the ignorant and the arrogant ones!!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2012 12:22:58 PM

rj, are you saying we don't need oil transport infrastructure? I beg to differ on that, the Bakken formation in the US will be at least one quarter of the oil transported in this pipeline.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2012 12:03:43 PM

Perhaps not, but the law should only apply when there is an actual need.

Which there doesn't seem to be in this ecase.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2012 8:43:21 PM

Actually rj, as I have pointed out in this thread, eminent domain laws are working well. The case of Denbury vs Riceland shows that the law is there to protect the landowner as well.

We cannot pick and choose when to apply law based on likes or dislikes of a company, which a few here want to do.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2012 5:49:14 PM

drpepperTX - Maybe we need better laws.

Or better lawmakers.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 6:03:36 PM

Edpap, the answer is the rule of law. Without laws we have anarchy.
Profile Pic
Edpap
Champion Author Pennsylvania

Posts:6,348
Points:818,730
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 12:20:54 PM

How can the great state of Texas allow foreign companies to dictate to Americans how their own property will be used?
Why does the Texas court system even recognize the foreigners?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2012 11:15:42 PM

I'm sure he cares. <snark>
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2012 10:23:18 PM

And now that Oblame-a is entering the fray of the southern leg of the Keystone XL, unnecessarily we might add, how will the Crawfords fare???
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2012 4:50:42 PM

drpepperTX - "VomVom was correct below. LOL."

What, did he say that you have no clue?

"Please pray tell, what part of the Keystone XL has been built?"

Keystone XL is an extension to the existing Keystone pipeline. The job estimates TransCanada has been providing for Keystone XL are based on total jobs for the entire Keystone project, including the portions that are already completed.

"$5.2 Billion"

You claimed "Will add $5 BILLION annually in taxes to the U.S. economy". Yet your sources say "It will also generate an additional 5.2 billion in property taxes during the operating life of the pipeline." How long is that operating life? Over how many years is that $5.2 billion spread? And how much of that $5.2 billion will never be seen because of exemptions from taxes (see below)?

Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along and Keystone XL economic issues. Note: "...there is an extensive overcapacity of oil pipelines from Canada. After completion of the Keystone XL line, oil pipelines to the U.S. may run nearly half-empty." And "Due to an exemption the state [Kansas] gave TransCanada, the local authorities would lose $50 million public revenue from property taxes for a decade."
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 18, 2012 10:19:57 PM

VomVom was correct below. LOL.

Please pray tell, what part of the Keystone XL has been built?

$5.2 BILLION$5.2 BILLION$5.2 Billion$5.2 Billion

$5.2 Billion
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 18, 2012 9:14:50 PM

You do realize that most of the jobs in those estimates are for portions of Keystone XL that HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT.

And are you really basing your argument on a letter to the editor?

[Edited by: rjhenn at 3/18/2012 9:16:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 18, 2012 10:11:05 AM

Actually rj you are right, Keystone XL would bring more than the figure I stated and it would also:

"Helping transport oil from North Dakota to refineries via the Keystone XL pipeline is critical to the development of the Bakken resource and would go a long way toward reducing the stress on our rural roads and infrastructure.
The Keystone XL project also has incredible economic potential and is expected to create approximately 20,000 manufacturing and construction jobs in the United States. It could also generate more than $5.2 billion in tax revenue to the Keystone XL corridor states."Read more: http://m.bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/keystone-xl-made-sense/article_5db38bcc-17b5-11e1-a5fd-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1pTf3OfII
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,536,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 18, 2012 12:28:31 AM

drpepperTX - "Oh how easily they dismiss the fact that Keystone will pump $7 BILLION in private infrastructure investment into the U.S. economy. Will add $5 BILLION annually in taxes to the U.S. economy, create jobs and reduce dependence on overseas oil imports."

Using foreign materials. What $5 billion in taxes? It will only create a couple of thousand temporary jobs.

And most of the oil it will displace is being used to produce products that are being exported anyway. How is increasing domestic gas prices a benefit?
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,545
Points:1,080,325
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 18, 2012 12:15:27 AM

Oh how easily they dismiss the fact that Keystone will pump $7 BILLION in private infrastructure investment into the U.S. economy. Will add $5 BILLION annually in taxes to the U.S. economy, create jobs and reduce dependence on overseas oil imports.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Post a reply Back to Topics