From Bob Mercer, the PUC faces a Keystone XL procedural hearing on Tuesday where opponents continue to try to throw a wrench into what should be a minor hurdle in recertification.
State law calls for a project’s sponsor to seek certification from the commission if the project hasn’t commenced within four years of the permit. The purpose of certification is to show the project will continue to meet conditions set in the permit.
“Surely the Legislature did not intend for a complete bar to certification by establishing a standard that no project could satisfy,” PUC staff attorney Kristin Edwards wrote in the brief. “For example, one such change that was noted by Keystone and would likely apply to any project that was dormant for four years was an increase in cost.”
TransCanada, through its lawyers in South Dakota, opposes the dismissal. They contend various conditions in the permit were written in specific ways to allow for changes.
And I persist in believing that, in the face of a federal government hostile to oil, gas and coal resource development, the Legislature needs to make sure that a federal government delay should not be able to be used to force a company into having to spend the time and financial resources needed for state certification twice.
It’s a basic issue of fairness – and legislators need to recognize that. We can only hope they propose a legislative solution.
I am still torn on this pipeline on matters of principle. Yes cheaper energy will result, look at what the Saudis just did by flooding the market. Also by running it through our country we can control it. I get the benefits… But a foreign company using eminent domain on our land seems like a terrible precedent. I think we should be having further debate on that aspect while in this holding pattern.
With the Kelo decision you would think that our federal government could step in and say it was for the public good, but Obama playing dictator, he doesn’t want to do so. If our government used eminent domain in this case I would say that is a valid use of that option, especially with the latitude given by the Kelo decision.
“say it was for the public good”–List the ways.
” If our government used eminent domain”– I have heard of no law suits concerning Gov. attempts at eminent domain. there are many concerning a foreign company (TransCan.) trying to use eminent domain to take the land of Americans. Would cons. think that is a good idea?
I’ve been on thr fence on this until recently but….” a federal government hostile to oil, gas and coal resource development,”? I believe we are now #1 in world oil and gas production.
“Yes cheaper energy will result,”?–How and why?
“look at what the Saudis just did by flooding the market.”?—I missed that one.
The construction would create around 13,000 temporary jobs, after completion it would leave 35 full time jobs…..What are the benefits of foreign oil flowing through our country to the gulf for shipment to China?
” I believe we are now #1 in world oil and gas production” That would be in spite of a federal government hostile to gas and oil. Gas and oil exploration and production are down or stagnate on federal lands. Where you are seeing the increase is on private land in which the feds have little or no say.
““Yes cheaper energy will result,”?–How and why?” This would be due to a couple of factors. The oil will be shipped regardless of whether Keystone is built or not. The question is where will it be shipped. The oil pipeline is the most cost effective. Lower costs, lower energy prices. Also, anything that increases the amount of oil on the market has a tendency to lower the price. That has to do with supply and demand.
“What are the benefits of foreign oil flowing through our country to the gulf for shipment to China?” I am not convinced the oil will necessarily go to China, but even if it does-who cares? Whoever is willing to purchase the oil will get it. We have a world market. It is all a matter of costs and benefits. Shipping to the Gulf and shipping to China seems to be a long way to go. It would be more cost effective to purchase from the Saudis.
As for the Saudis flooding the market, there have been several stories about the Saudis pumping oil. Here is one. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/18/why-would-the-saudis-crash-oil-markets-iran/
‘” I believe we are now #1 in world oil and gas production” That would be in spite of a federal government hostile to gas and oil. Gas and oil exploration and production are down or stagnate on federal lands. Where you are seeing the increase is on private land in which the feds have little or no say.’—So, what? How much oil do you want
From your link__”Today, oil prices have again plummeted, from a high of $115 per barrel in August 2013 to under $60 per barrel in mid December 2014. Western experts, predictably, have seized the opportunity to ponder what cheaper oil might mean for the stock market. As for why prices have dropped, some analysts have suggested it has little to do with any manipulation of Saudi spigots: A December essay in Bloomberg Businessweek credited the American shale revolution with “breaking OPEC’s neck.”
“As for the Saudis flooding the market, there have been several stories about the Saudis pumping oil. Here is one.”— Did you not see that the “flooding” referred to in the article happened in 1977.. Don’t try to pull that kind of stuff.
The claim was made that lower gas prices are because S.A. “flooding” the market—-Now, not 1977…..You want to try again without the insult?
What insult? The story speaks for itself. And yes, they mention 1977. They also tell about today. That December 10 mentioned is 2014, not 1977. That is only one story. I could give you more. You said you missed the Saudis flooding the market. They did. Their actions and other factors have lead to a glut.
duggersd–I can no longer get to the article-I am not goimg to register– Give the quote about Dec. 10
.
“As for why prices have dropped, some analysts have suggested it has little to do with any manipulation of Saudi spigots: A December essay in Bloomberg Businessweek credited the American shale revolution with “breaking OPEC’s neck.”—That is thje point of the article
“That is only one story. I could give you more”–Give another that says lower U.S. gas prices are lower because of S.A is flooding the market
Well for those of us in the grown up world who drive cars and pay for that thing called “gasoline” which fuels our cars have noticed a huge drop in gas prices and it is because the Saudis are flooding the market to try and bankrupt American shale oil production, and achieve some geopolitical interests in their region… That whole “supply and demand” thingy you may have learned in school if you made it that far isn’t a joke. Saudis flooded the market and cheaper oil/gas resulted.
Liberty, perhaps you are unaware. Supply and Demand still applies here. When there is a shift in the supply line, there is bound to be a shift in the demand line. Due to the excessive supply, people are less willing to pay a premium price for it. Yes, what you are paying for gasoline is down. Perhaps if you went to school you would understand why that is.
during t. boone pickens gasification tour, he illustrated how the saudis respond every time the u-s looks like it’s going to try and wean itself away from opec – they drastically cut prices to make all other options too unaffordable.
“Saudis are flooding the market to”—Sir, if you are going to claim that, please give something to substantiate the claim….Can you do that?
It’s time to let the Canadians deal with Keystone XL and let them deal with the liability of it crossing their lands if they want this so badly. They can run it to their west coast though their 1st Nations are against it too knowing just how dirty this oil is and how inefficient it is as an energy source besides the environmental impact it will have if a spill occurs.
Fact: we have 2,500,000 mile of pipelines in the United States.
Fact: Keystone is 2,500 miles long
Summary: Keystone increases the environmental risk of a spill by one tenth of a percent. (0.1%). Do you know how many things for which a person has a higher odd of dying from than this?
Opposition to Keystone is either anti-economic growth and jobs or irrational paranoia.
Or someone against the concept of foreign for profit companies with the ability to seize and control sovereign US property…
Please define that “economic growth and jobs”
who came first, alinsky or goebbels? i forget. not that it matters, they both were onto something.
Bret,
Besides the irony of “American sovriegnty” being a rationale from an Obama sycophant and a red herring (foreign companies have been building oil pipelines, water lines, and rail lines for decades), I assume your opposition will drop if an American pipeline company owns it?
Jaa dee, if you don’t know what growth and jobs are, you are not at a intellectual level to discuss this subject. Are you the missing link?
Troy, no an annual payment attached to the ground and not the person would go a long ways in shutting me up. In that manner the ground under easement could retain value instead of losing right after the easement is signed. The ground in my country is not farmland as there is only 6 inches of topsoil at best. Ground that is disturbed here takes a very long time to recover. Fields that were plowed in 1909 ( by people that had been led to believe they could make a living from 160 acres ) are still visible and trying to recover to native sod….. And what is with the name-calling and labeling of me? I don’t see where I slandered you in any way in my post…..
Bret, I mistakenly presumed you were an Obama sycophant (which isn’t slander if true). Since you took exception, I apologize.
Regarding annuity payment vs. one-time purchase, technically and conceptually, the paid for the easement or the net present value its annuity should be the same. Thus, the net economic value is unchanged regardless of the structure of the payment.
Your issue is related to the public policy that permanent easements are to be paid up front. The reason this exists is for the protection of the seller because the easement annual payment could be voided in a bankruptcy (yet the pipeline is still in the ground and pumping oil through it). The change was adopted because during the rapid expansion of railroads, many fell into bankruptcy. Requiring up-front payment also had the effect of increasing the odds the railroad was properly capitalized.
Two additional comments:
1) A competent financial advisor would almost always be able to demonstrate that the up-front payment would have a greater Net Present Value of the annuity stream. I could explain but it would take time.
2) If the construction would cause extra-ordinary adverse impact on the economic value of the land, it should be taken into consideration in determining the amount of the payment as that is how the payment is computed under the law.
If what you say is true and this pipeline has a 75 year life to it then the per year value is very very small…. But what I am saying is the grantor of the easement is the only one receiving compensation while future generations receive nothing but the headaches of dealing with said easement. We could argue all day about what effects such projects have on property values and not reach common ground but I can tell you from experience that such projects and agriculture do not mix well. Your argument about a company going bankrupt is easily avoided by an admendment stating non-use voids the easement….
Bret the Northern Border Natural gas pipeline runs smack dab through the middle of my ranch. We graze, seed crops, and cut hay right over the top of it without any loss of income or usage. Your statement saying that pipelines and agriculture do not mix well has not been found to be at all true here. (McPherson County, SD)
charlie, i have a headache, and i anticipate future headaches. is your gas pipeline causing them? i had no idea.
Do you get an annual payment Charlie? It is a concept that is long overdue…And when talking about differences in ag ground I defer to above comments…..
Bret my father under the legal instruction of Joe Barnett signed the lease with NBP way back in 1977 I believe. We certainly must have received a payment but I am not aware of the amount nor the time frame payable. The lease payments today for the Bakken pipeline run into six figures and are very enticing. My friends are signing those leases under very good council.