The map does not cover local distribution. There are many more miles of that.
Posted on 02/19/2014 2:16:51 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
A Nebraska judge ruled Wednesday that the state violated its constitution when it allowed the governor to approve the route of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, a decision that could significantly delay the $5.3 billion project.
District Court judge Stephanie F. Stacy blocked Gov. Dave Heineman (R) and other defendants “from taking any action on the governor’s January 22, 2013 approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline route,” such as allowing land to be acquired by eminent domain for the project.
Stacy concluded that the state legislature’s decision to take the siting power away from its Public Service Commission and give it Heineman violated the state’s constitution. More than 200 miles of the TransCanada pipeline, which would carry heavy crude oil from Canada to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, runs through Nebraska.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We do know one thing for certain ... Nobody wants to stand up for Jobs.
And because of course there is never any pipeline leaks right?
No impact to property being dug up?
No impact to loss of use?
Property seized by the government doesn’t bother you? Bothers me.
And could someone please tell me why when someone has an opposing view, personal attacks come out? Such a rational way to debate an issue. / yes that’s snark just in case you couldn’t tell.
Huh?
Are jobs more important than due process?
If this was unconstitutional (and that is a big if) we should not be in favor of it.
okay Dave, show me where this pipeline is un-Constitutional, please, and while you are at it could you show me where jobs are un-Constitutional also. Thanks, Dave.
The oil being transported across government seized land is not destined for US consumption...it will go on the world market...but is primarily aimed for Chinese consumption. I’m not understanding how you think it makes US energy independent.
The amount of jobs created are actually very few and they would be temporary jobs. But I would still be fine with all of that if the pipeline could be built without seizing private property.
I still have never read or heard why Canada is not building the pipeline across their own country. Not being snarky..I’ve just don’t know why they don’t build it in Canada.
I will never understand the logic of taking people’s land away from them when they don’t want to sell it...w/o a compelling...very compelling reason.
Strange ... frogs have rights to you know, and so do mice.
First build the pipeline and then see. Oh btw ... what do you have against markets?
Another two questions for you ... Have you seen what is going on in South Dakota? Are you against economic booms?
Did you even bothef reading the article?
This judge ruled that, according to the state constitution, this commission has authority over pipelines and not the legislature.
I don’t know if this decision is well founded or not. My point is that we need to examine the case and make intelligent arguments about the germane issues.
Not react in a knee jerk fashion.
“Jobs” has nothing to do with it.
Unless your position is that we should not care about trifling things like constitutions.
FR used to be a place where you could find intelligent discussion.
You obviously have never had your property seized by local, state or Federal government. You obviously don’t understand the long term impact to property that is harmed by chemicals. You obviously don’t feel that potential spills from a private, foreign company is anything to worry about. BUT it’s not YOUR land being seized. It’s not YOUR water supply being put at risk.
I will bid you good night as I’m immature and irrational and don’t feel the need to carry on this conversation. Have a good night and you just keep enjoying the view from your lofty position. You know the one...the one where you are always right...and no one else has a clue.
Well Dave, in your own words, there is your answer.
LOL ... Dave. Jobs has everything to do with a viable economy.
I know that, but many don’t like the “deal”.
And if I am forced to give a my land to a company for their profit, what type of deal is that?
Again, there are lots of good people on both sides (and some aholes). The jobs will be temporary, and the company doesn’t have the best safety record (which is not uncommon in the oil fields). Couple that with it being a foreign company on both sides, and some ranchers and farmers are worried they will be stuck with a huge spill in a decade or so that they will have to pay for.
If the land owner sells them the land, so be it. But I do not like the idea that has crept in here that you can seize someones land, give it to someone else, because the State (or the donors to the State) say they have a better use for that land.
Where does that end? If they can force you off your land to give to a foreign company, with many foreign workers, how is that going to end?
The refineries are in Texas, and Canada doesn’t want them built in Canada.
Dear Kate:
Tax time draws neigh ... They seize property from me every year.
Little thought for you ... Go see South Dakota and then tell me the Jobs are temporary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.