Well Fordy its Imminent Domain, that is how its legal. No clause as to the ownership of said company just the claim of end result.

I am against such laws though, hey everyone seems to think we need more laws. so who am I?

 

Is there a link for this?

 

Is there a link for this?

..............Alice , I'm No Sabe when it comes to posting links , Lol ! The article is pretty basic really . , fordy

 

Enviromental groups are not going to let this happen.

Besides, gas prices are going down, so procuring this expensive source of oil, will probably slow down.

 

Bit confused here. Was under the assumption that imminant domain had to adhere to certien rules.
Thought it had to be for security and done by the military or proved to be benificial to the community as in an abanded piece of property turned into a mall.

And over the last couple of years I believe that financial consideration isnt enough in many cases. Think there was the Wall street Journal awhile back that cites a case ( think it may have been New Jersy, but wouldnt bet on it) that overturned the emminant domain and allowed the homeowner to keep the house.

 

Doncha all know that your land will never really be 'YOUR' land?! How can it be, even when you've "paid it off" they can still take it at whim and lord forbid if you stop paying taxes....

 

..............Alice , I'm No Sabe when it comes to posting links , Lol ! The article is pretty basic really . , fordy

It is no big deal to put a link on here, most people sure would appreciate it.
Anyways.
Here is one article from back in July.
Posted on the huff post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/landowners-contest-transcanada-keystone-pipeline_n_903906.html

 

Well, if the pipeline doesn't go through the US to bring us the oil, it will go to the Canadian coast and all that nice cheap oil will go to China.

 

The bank I work for will not finance projects where land was taken by eminent domain for private projects. Executive managment made this decision based on principal. Unfortunatly all banks do not abide by this principal and will finance anything if there is a buck to be made...

 

Well, if the pipeline doesn't go through the US to bring us the oil, it will go to the Canadian coast and all that nice cheap oil will go to China.

So true. Again this goes back to NIMBY.
You want to be energy independent, then when a good project comes along that points us in that direction, its no no no NIMBY.

 

Tar sand oil is not a "good project".

Where are the conservatives who would support energy conservation over drill and burn it up as fast as possible? Where did they go?

 

There aren't many actual "conservatives." Conservative is just a word they like to use.

 

..............Alice , I'm No Sabe when it comes to posting links , Lol ! The article is pretty basic really . , fordy

when you are on the web page you want to make a link to - go to the page address at the top of your browser- right click on it and it should give you the option of 'copy'. come to the thread you are posting here and again - right click and hit 'paste'. walla!

Does this pipeline have anything to do with that railroad they want to put in that will stretch from Mexico to Canada through the same area?

 

Bit confused here. Was under the assumption that imminant domain had to adhere to certien rules.
Thought it had to be for security and done by the military or proved to be benificial to the community as in an abanded piece of property turned into a mall.

And over the last couple of years I believe that financial consideration isnt enough in many cases. Think there was the Wall street Journal awhile back that cites a case ( think it may have been New Jersy, but wouldnt bet on it) that overturned the emminant domain and allowed the homeowner to keep the house.

the supreme court ruled Eminent domain could be used for economic good, even to increase tax revenue for city's, (say a block of family houses only brings in $XXXX dollars, the city can condemn the land and take it and sell to the mall developer if the taxes would be greater,)
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/eminentd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

 

I am all for Green energy, If it is lower cost, I want to put up a wind tribune, and possibly solar panels for my self, I have my ground leased to a wind farm, (thanks to the economy it has been put on hold),

but green energy is not capable of taking over yet, it is just an infant just begining to walk, a log time before it is mature,

and until it is fossil fuels is the only thing that will keep this country going,

and producing our own oil (even Canadian oils) is the only logical thing to do,

I personally think if the price of fuels would drop, a 1/3 or so, the recession would nearly correct it self, (a lot of it started when energy prices shot up, and people could no longer pay there mortgages)
I have a small S10 pickup, it cost me $50 to fill the tank most of the time I fill up, If fuel was a 1/3 cheaper, it would cost me, $33 to fill up giving me $17 dollars to do some thing else with,
now I fill it up to to three times a month, and I fill I am not going any further than necessary or for any trips that are not needed, so in a months time I would $33 to $50 dollars to spend on some thing else, now you multiply that by a nations wide look at the products coming off the store shelfs,
look at the job that would be created as more goods were sold and needed,

MAY be even money to buy those expensive solar panels I would like to have,

and just for my example my wife drives her car to work as well, with most likely a equivalent savings,

not to comment on the farm tractors fuels, (yes my fuel bill for the tractors was $1500 last month), so in a month time a saving of over $600, no multiply that by (lest just use 6 months for the sake of winter and low season use), that is $3600 dollars a year (most likely $4000) I could have to use to do things with that now I do not have as it is all going over seas to a terroist supporting countries,

they sould open up off shore oil drilling and many other places that are closed currently,

(

 

There aren't many actual "conservatives." Conservative is just a word they like to use.

Conservatives like to use as many resources as they can lay their hands on. Liberals often try to conserve resources.
Looks like we should just throw Labels down the toilet; they mean nothing. We must embrace environmental responsibility, we must embrace financial security, and we must prepare for the future. We cannot afford to bicker.
www.nolabels.org

 

Was under the assumption that imminant domain had to adhere to certien rules.
Thought it had to be for security and done by the military or proved to be benificial to the community as in an abanded piece of property turned into a mall.

It may be different where you live but in most places your assumption is indeed wrong. Highways, power lines, pipe lines, etc. all use Imminent Domain at times to get land for their project. Houses, existing businesses, etc. are sometimes taken for a new shopping mall, schools, etc.

The aforementioned project has been written of before on these forums, perhaps as early as two years ago if I am thinking about the correct project. I was thinking that they wanted a strip of land from Canada to Texas that was about a half mile wide with the intention of using it for highway, mass transit, pipeline, and electric lines. Sort of an all inclusive major project.

My recall was that it would try to hit major cities to give major highway access. Kansas City, etc. Although K.C. isn't major by far compared to others.

 

This is a KOCH up. Pardon the pun. They are the ones behind the push for imminent domain seizures.

Imminent Domain is the power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

They have an enormous interest in getting this pipeline approved and do not think for a second that they do not have the power to do so or that they care if you lose your land.

A SolveClimate News analysis, based on publicly available records, shows that Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports.

IA Koch Industries operation in Calgary, Alberta, called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers.

Flint Hills Resources Canada also operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, the starting point of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

The company's website says it is "among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters." Koch Industries also owns Koch Exploration Canada, L.P., an oil sands-focused exploration company also based in Calgary that acquires, develops and trades petroleum properties.

 

when you are on the web page you want to make a link to - go to the page address at the top of your browser- right click on it and it should give you the option of 'copy'. come to the thread you are posting here and again - right click and hit 'paste'. walla!

Does this pipeline have anything to do with that railroad they want to put in that will stretch from Mexico to Canada through the same area?

.................Callie , thanks for the tip ! The pipeline is strictly a method to get "heavy oil" from canadian tar sands too a tx refinery that is capable of refining this particular grade of oil . Large ships consume this type of fuel , it is Not used for diesel fuel for cares , trucks or locomotives as far as I know because too purify it for consumer consumption would be very $$$ .
.................I think you were wanting to refer too the Nafta highway starting at Laredo and moving north rather than a railroad as I believe we already have transcontinential rail service from canada into mexico , now . The NAFTA highway project is the project that Rick Perry was trying too force upon the Texas landowners which was going to be financed by foreign investors who would have had total control for a term of 50 to 70 years . He lost but it took a lot of madd property owners too kill the program . , fordy

 

It's been in the works for years.
Here's a link to a Sierra Club article;
http://southdakota.sierraclub.org/LivingRiver/KeystonePipeline.htm

 

Tar sand oil is not a "good project".

Where are the conservatives who would support energy conservation over drill and burn it up as fast as possible? Where did they go?

The oil sands WILL BE UTILIZED, weather it is by the US, or China. Stopping the pipeline would just mean that the economic benefits from the project goes to China.

Haven't we shipped enough jobs and cash to China?

 

I'm No Sabe when it comes to posting links

All you do is copy and paste the URL address at the top of the screen

 

fishhead is absolutely correct. The tar sands is not a good project. Environmentally it is already a huge disaster and nothing has even gone seriously wrong yet . Economically it is also a bad project that does not produce cheap oil. One barrel of energy needed to produce 5 barrels of oil. A well is one to 50 or 100. But nothing is going to stop it because the US sees it as secure and friendly oil available right now and Canada sees the opportunity to make mega bucks. What should not be forgotten is that it is still foreign oil.

 

What should not be forgotten is that it is still foreign oil.

.......from a friendly country that has a negative trade balance with the US. Canada is our sister. We like Canada. We have the same goals and aspirations. Canada is a country we should support.

I can say with reasonable certainty that none of the money that we spend in Canada ends up in the hands of Terrorist organizations. Can you say that about the money going towards other countries that we buy oil from?

 

.......from a friendly country that has a negative trade balance with the US. Canada is our sister. We like Canada. We have the same goals and aspirations. Canada is a country we should support.

I can say with reasonable certainty that none of the money that we spend in Canada ends up in the hands of Terrorist organizations. Can you say that about the money going towards other countries that we buy oil from?

I agree the more we trade with our Northern neighbor the better it is for both of us.