Keystone Foes Duck Climate in Red State Oil Pipeline Battle

Keystone Foes Duck Climate in Red State Oil Pipeline Battle
You won't hear climate coming from Keystone XL foes as they argue against TransCanada's push to get the final state approval needed to build the pipeline.

Opponents, not surprisingly, disagree. They argue that many of the jobs promised by TransCanada are temporary, and in the past have said that clean-energy projects can also carry the promise of added jobs.

‘Not Main Thing’

Jane Kleeb, of activist group Bold Alliance, was a key figure in the first fight against Keystone, which centered around its potential to add to global warming. While Kleeb continues to support investment in clean energy, and voices concern about the tar sands oil that will come from Canada, she hasn’t made it the focal point of the discussion.

"Climate has not been the main thing," she said in an interview.

In an Aug. 2 order, the commission sustained some of TransCanada’s objections, blocking testimony about topics including the terms of potential agreements with the company, the risk of leaks or spills, and "opinion that the preferred pipeline route or any other route is not in the public interest." The commission will allow discussion of the value of landowners’ property and potential restrictions on land use.

Kleeb, alongside groups such as the Sierra Club and 350.org, have been working with landowners, highlighting the issue of eminent domain. They argue the pipeline isn’t economic anymore, citing speculation the company has had trouble securing customers. TransCanada counters that it still expects commercial support for the project, and has had discussions with existing and new shippers.

Unfair Takeaways

Kleeb and others argue this urgency won’t exist by the time the project comes online, roughly two years after the regulatory approvals. The result, they say, is that it’s unnecessary and unfair to take private property for the pipeline using eminent domain, particularly given certain liability provisions the company is putting into landowner easements. TransCanada says 91 percent of landowners in the state have agreed to allow the project on their land, and the terms are consistent with industry standards.

“People do value private property," said David Corbin, vice-chair of the state’s Sierra Club, which is planning to testify against the pipeline. "It’s not a red or blue issue in Nebraska."

Still, activists face an uphill battle, said Katie Bays, an analyst at Height Securities LLC in Washington, D.C. The commission leans conservative and the governor "has significant influence over the process from a political perspective, and he is a major advocate for the project," she said.

Even if the outcome favors TransCanada, opponents have vowed to keep litigating. The next step would be the state’s court of appeals, said Kenneth Winston, an attorney working for Bold and Sierra Club. While the company said it’s taking the process step-by-step, any decision is likely to be appealed, according to Corbin.

"The longer it takes," Corbin said, the more the "economic argument is going to say: Why would we want this thing?"

With assistance from Kevin Orland. To contact the reporter on this story: Meenal Vamburkar in New York at mvamburkar@bloomberg.net. To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reg Gale at rgale5@bloomberg.net ;Carlos Caminada at ccaminada1@bloomberg.net Jim Efstathiou Jr., Tina Davis.


12

View Full Article

WHAT DO YOU THINK?


Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

John MorN  |  August 10, 2017
Where are these taking land comments coming from? The landowners are handsomely rewarded for the use of very little of their land and has has been pointed out the pipeline is not even visible except for the occasional pump station for which the landowner is even more handsomely rewarded!
CW Minshew  |  August 07, 2017
It is good that the issue is eminent domain, & not some crazy green-enviro argument. Taking anyones land should not be trivial; that owner has property rights. At the same time, the pipeline will benefit the Nation--IF it is economic to build. Refining this crude in US refineries on the coast will provide additional products to be sold--& reduce the supply of Venezuelan heavies used in the refining slate. The pipeline WILL be held to CFR 195 & other pipeline standards, & will be safe. The land required is approximately 50 wide for the length of the pipeline; & the pipeline WILL BE buried! Once built, except for pump stations or above-ground valves, one will hardly notice this line. The value is in the commercial terms; let the market decide.
Marcia  |  August 04, 2017
Im thrilled to hear even mention of the eminent domain issue. I am very much against foreign country pipeline owners forcibly taking land from American land owners for questionable gain. And Keystone XL is indeed questionable, in spite of the excessively elevated claim of jobs brought to Americans. Thats been a bold lie from day one. The tar sands have little to contribute to oil production compared to West Texas sweet. And the carcinogen benzene would, if spilled in any amount, result in horrible human and animal deaths, and spoiled farmland and aquifers for many generations. Would you approve Russia owning a pipeline full of benzene taking away land through your backyard? Why should Canada get away with it? Or anyone for that matter. Next it would be Cuba running a pipeline of benzene through the Florida Keys. When does this madness stop?


Most Popular Articles