Oklahoma landowners challenge TransCanada’s pipeline (foreign company can use eminent domain?)

Globe and Mail ^ | 1-17-11 | SHAWN McCARTHY

[dynachrome]

Oklahoma resident Sue Kelso and her siblings have filed a motion in district court to block TransCanada’s plan to exercise eminent domain in order to build across their property. Ms. Kelso, 69, lives on a farm where she grew up near the Texas border in southern Oklahoma.

“My objection is that a foreign company has no right to condemn our property, come in and take what they want, where it does not benefit us or our neighbours,” Ms. Kelso said in an interview Monday. “It only benefits them and their investors. It is for their gain – it is not helping me at all.”

[dynachrome]

Not a good precedent here.

[Paladin2]

If it’s a product pipeline, just get a small tap included in the deal.

[Track9]

We know how RBG would rule.

[cripplecreek]

Why I oppose the very idea of Donald Trump as president as well.

[dynachrome]

I am sure other countries are watching with interest. China just bought Portugal, pretty much. Why not a few things here?

[optiguy]

They will probably end up partnering with DCP, Enogex or Oneok for this section of pipeline if necessary.

[Paladin2]

"TransCanada’s planned Keystone XL pipeline will ship 500,000 barrels of oil sands crude daily to refineries in Texas, and Mr. Hentges said it offers no benefit to the people of Oklahoma, or other states it will traverse."

Build another refinery near Billings.

[hinckley buzzard]

The owners need to be very sure there is not an easement across their property for which TransCanada bought the rights. If so, this is not eminent domain at all, but something very common and well established.

[mamelukesabre]

I think the oil company should pay rent, just like the cell phone companies do.

[EGPWS]

A foreign owned pipeline through “oil rich” Oklahoma?

That aside, I still can't get over the fact that OUR government can grab land without contract allowing it.

[dynachrome]

“be very sure there is not an easement”

True, and watch whether you own mineral rights or not on any property you own.

[momtothree]

This is very, very scary to me. If Canada is allowed, then what country is next? Just a thought

[muawiyah]

There are a wide variety of ways that pipeline companies are organized, and how they exercise their rights to existing public right of way, or if they're treated as ordinary companies or as municipalities under state laws.

It's so complex that there are ARMIES of lawyers who specialize in pipeline routing cases.

I suspect the term "eminent domain" doesn't exactly apply here since the company that owns an existing easement is probably operating under municipal powers granted by Oklahoma DECADES back and has already acquired an easement for which it pays regular rents and fees. Trans Canada merely owns that company.

The people making noise probably have a lawyer who already knows this and is prepared to do the job for which he has been hired. That would be to RAISE THE RENT and guarantee that the property owner has unimpeded rights to cross over the line right of way from one part of his property to the other.

My development has a gigantic pipeline crossing it. It was put in back during WWII for the purpose of bringing Texas and Oklahoma Oil to Refineries in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. They call this one "The Big Inch". Currently this line is used to pump mostly natural gas, the main oil moving job having been passed off to different lines elsewhere.

This thing runs through a residential development through people's backyards. It cuts through our association's property ~ and at the time the development was being reviewed by the county planners the lawyer had to get a specific statement from the line owner that WE could cross THEIR easement.

[JSDude1]

Another one to watch..

[dljordan]

Law is political in nature and selectively enforced.