RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

"A Nebraska judge on Wednesday struck down a law that allowed the Keystone XL pipeline to proceed through the state, a victory for opponents who have tried to block the project that would carry oil from Canada to Texas refineries."

A Nebraska district court struck down a law that allowed the Keystone XL oil pipeline to proceed through the state, the law could have been used to force landowners to allow the pipeline on their property. (photo: Nati Harnik/AP)
A Nebraska district court struck down a law that allowed the Keystone XL oil pipeline to proceed through the state, the law could have been used to force landowners to allow the pipeline on their property. (photo: Nati Harnik/AP)


Nebraska Law That Allowed Keystone XL Struck Down

By Grant Schulte, Associated Press

20 February 14

 

Nebraska judge on Wednesday struck down a law that allowed the Keystone XL pipeline to proceed through the state, a victory for opponents who have tried to block the project that would carry oil from Canada to Texas refineries.

Lancaster County Judge Stephanie Stacy issued a ruling that invalidated Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman's approval of the route. Stacy agreed with opponents' arguments that the law passed in 2012 improperly allowed Heineman to give Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. the power to force landowners to sell their property for the project. Stacy said the decision to give TransCanada eminent domain powers should have been made by the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which regulates pipelines and other utilities.

A spokeswoman for Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said the state will appeal the ruling. Heineman said he supports the decision to appeal.

"This is an important issue for the State of Nebraska," he said.

Stacy's decision could cause more delays in finishing the pipeline, which is critical in Canada's efforts to export its growing oil sands production. It also comes amid increased concerns about the dangers of using trains to transport crude oil after some high-profile accidents — including a fiery explosion in North Dakota last month and an explosion that killed 47 people in Canada last year.

A spokesman for pipeline developer TransCanada said company officials were disappointed and disagreed with the decision, which came in a lawsuit filed by three Nebraska landowners who oppose the pipeline. The company planned to review the ruling before deciding how to proceed.

"TransCanada continues to believe strongly in Keystone XL and the benefits it would provide to Americans — thousands of jobs and a secure supply of crude oil from a trusted neighbor in Canada," said spokesman Shawn Howard.

Foes say the pipeline would carry "dirty oil" that contributes to global warming and are also concerned about a possible spill.

The proposed pipeline route would cross through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, which have already approved their segments, and company officials have previously argued that cutting through Nebraska was the most direct, practical way to transport the oil. A reroute around Nebraska could bring more states into the mix and would lead to further expensive delays.

For the Nebraska Public Service Commission to act, state lawmakers may have to pass a new pipeline-sitting law. If they do, it's not yet clear how long the five-member PSC might take on the issue or whether it would approve the pipeline. Staff members were still reviewing the ruling Wednesday, said Angela Melton, the commission's attorney.

Dave Domina, the landowners' attorney, said in a statement that the ruling means TransCanada has "no approved route in Nebraska."

"TransCanada is not authorized to condemn the property against Nebraska landowners. The pipeline project is at standstill in this state," he said.

The Keystone XL would carry 830,000 barrels of oil daily from Canada to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. In its latest environmental analysis, the U.S. State Department raised no major environmental objections to the $7 billion pipeline. Opponents disagree, saying the pipeline threatens ground- and surface water and would disrupt soil in the Nebraska Sandhills, a region of grass-covered dunes used as ranchland.

The Nebraska Legislature gave Heineman the ability to approve the route after landowners complained that the pipeline posed a threat to the Sandhills. Heineman approved a new route that went around an area designated as the Sandhills, although opponents insist it still traverses the delicate soil.

Domina said the ruling means that the governor's office has no role to play in the pipeline, and decisions within the state must be made by the Public Service Commission. The commission was created in 1890s to prevent governors from granting political favors to railroad executives who wanted to expand through private property.

The decision on a federal permit still rests with President Barack Obama.

Pipeline opponents called Wednesday's ruling a victory for landowners.

"TransCanada learned a hard lesson today: Never underestimate the power of family farmers and ranchers protecting their land and water," said Jane Kleeb, executive director of the anti-pipeline group Bold Nebraska.

Jason MacDonald, a spokesman for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said it would be difficult to comment on the ruling because the Canadian government doesn't yet have the details. MacDonald said the pipeline will create thousands of jobs and noted the U.S. State Department has concluded it is a project that is in the interest of both countries.

U.S. State Department spokesman Douglas Frantz said officials were aware of the Nebraska ruling but would not comment because the case was ongoing.

Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy with left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress, said Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry will probably wait until Nebraska has legally approved the pipeline route before making any decision on whether to approve the permit.

"This court decision provides more uncertainty for pipeline proponents, and more time to organize for pipeline opponents," Weiss said.

U.S. Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, a Republican supporter of the pipeline, said he was confident the ruling would be overturned. Terry also said the ruling shouldn't stop Obama from approving a federal permit.

"This is a terrible decision and if upheld lead to increased dependence on foreign sources of oil, continued unemployment and lost economic impact for thousands of Nebraskans and our communities," he said.

Randy Thompson, a Nebraska rancher and a leading plaintiff in the lawsuit, praised the ruling. Thompson became involved in the dispute after he was notified that the original Keystone XL route would have crossed his parents' 400-acre farm in Merrick County. He said he doesn't think TransCanada should be able to use the course to force landowners to sign pipeline contracts through eminent domain.

"They came out here like a bunch of bullies and tried to force it down our throats," Thompson said. "They told us there was nothing we could do to stop it."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-58 # MidwesTom 2014-02-20 09:13
The latest train derailment has gotten little press because it did not explode. However, last week a train derailed in Pennsylvania and spilled a reported 5,000 gallons of crude oil into a creek. Pipelines are much safer than rail transport.
 
 
+63 # WestWinds 2014-02-20 09:59
Quoting MidwesTom:
The latest train derailment has gotten little press because it did not explode. However, last week a train derailed in Pennsylvania and spilled a reported 5,000 gallons of crude oil into a creek. Pipelines are much safer than rail transport.


--- You miss the point altogether, Tom.

We don't want that stuff being mined,
We don't want it being transported and spilled across our country,
We don't want that crude being refined (it's too muddy,)
We don't want that oil being sold into China (to pollute the atmosphere), and
We don't want the Koch brothers getting richer off it bc they only thing they will do with the money is buy off and derail our government.
(And shame on Stephen Harper for his Canadian protocol that only considers the best interests of investors. What a disgusting excuse for a PM.)

Get it now?
 
 
-30 # MidwesTom 2014-02-20 10:10
The way to stop the rail transport in our country is to start picketing the offices of the Northern Pacific Railroad, now owned by Warren Buffett, who donated more than $5 million to Obama's campaign and held fundraisers for him. Good luck.
 
 
-21 # MidwesTom 2014-02-20 10:22
To give you some idea of how much money is involved in the transport of oil by rail, I am aware of one individual who owns three crude oil loading sites in North Dakota, and is generating $15 million per month profit from them. Buffett is making so much money hauling oil; roughly a gross income of $4 million per day, that he is probably the money behind the latest court ruling.

How are the Kochs tied into the XL pipeline?
 
 
+32 # maverita 2014-02-20 10:44
The Koch brothers own the refineries that the crude is headed toward. they either can't or are too cheap to retool the refineries to deal with the sweet light crude being pumped in texas and north dakota AND they can no longer tolerate having to make nice to Venezuelan leaders so they can refine their heavy crude.
 
 
+1 # WestWinds 2014-02-21 11:51
Yah, right. Our CIA assassinated Hugo Chavez.
 
 
+9 # soularddave 2014-02-20 21:54
The Koch Bros own 2 million acres of that tar sands area, and Conoco/Phillips owns about 1.1 million. I think both own refineries slated to process the oily muck.
The Kochs' net worth should roughly DOUBLE if a pipeline expedites the process between mining in Canada and burning in China.
The Kochs are the ones spending BIG BUCKS to force this foreign project on Americans.
 
 
+35 # whistleblowerdr 2014-02-20 10:32
Quoting MidwesTom:
The way to stop the rail transport in our country is to start picketing the offices of the Northern Pacific Railroad, now owned by Warren Buffett, who donated more than $5 million to Obama's campaign and held fundraisers for him. Good luck.

Apparently you missed the point again. As a MidwestDon from Kansas I agree with Westwind. The point that you can not see is how the Koch brothers are attempting to make more money with their oil. So read again the quote from Westwind:
We don't want that stuff being mined,
We don't want it being transported and spilled across our country,
We don't want that crude being refined (it's too muddy,)
We don't want that oil being sold into China (to pollute the atmosphere), and
We don't want the Koch brothers getting richer off it bc they only thing they will do with the money is buy off and derail our government.
From MidwestDon I hope you understand that this is our land and we do not want it disturbed by leaky pipe lines that pollute the land, the water and contribute to global warming.
 
 
-41 # lnason@umassd.edu 2014-02-20 10:39
The Koch brothers have no financial relationship to the Keystone pipeline.

While I agree with the judge's decision -- private businesses should never be allowed to use eminent domain powers -- the private businesses in this case have nothing to do with the Kochs.

I also know, for a fact, that the Kochs do not support the use of eminent domain to help businesses.

Get your facts straight before whistleblowing lies and nonsense.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+11 # Caliban 2014-02-21 09:50
To Lee Nason: The Koch Brother's are strong financial supporters of the conservative PAC Americans for Prosperity, and Americans for Prosperity is a strong and active proponent of the approval of Keystone. I believe this constitutes a "financial relationship to the keystone pipeline", and I suspect it is far from the only one.

So it appears that you are the one who needs to get the facts straight.
 
 
+8 # WestWinds 2014-02-21 11:58
[quote name="lnason@umassd.edu"]The Koch brothers have no financial relationship to the Keystone pipeline.

While I agree with the judge's decision -- private businesses should never be allowed to use eminent domain powers -- the private businesses in this case have nothing to do with the Kochs.

--- How can you say this when it will be the Koch refineries that will be getting this Canadian sludge, refining it (sort of; to get a cleaner burning fuel takes refining the crude many times over; this costs money, so they only refine it a couple of time; just enough to get it to be marketable which pretty much leaves it as an unusually dirty burning fossil fuel), and shipping it out of Port Huston to China where it will be sold for big profits? You don't think they are doing this for charitable reasons, do you?
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2014-02-20 12:38
Why would we want to stop rail transport?
It has nothing to do with the pipeline.
 
 
+4 # WestWinds 2014-02-21 11:49
Quoting MidwesTom:
The way to stop the rail transport in our country is to start picketing the offices of the Northern Pacific Railroad, now owned by Warren Buffett, who donated more than $5 million to Obama's campaign and held fundraisers for him. Good luck.


--- And what about the Koch brothers and their secret billionaires club which buys off politicians and finances kooks, creeps and extremists (Tea Party) via Citizens United?

What about K Street and their threat tactics ("do as we say or we'll bury you") then grease the palms of elected officials as their lobbying strategy?

What about Rupert Murdoch who has bought off so much of the Main Stream Media, that hides the truth and disseminates false information?

What about the Right-wing ditto heads (Lush Limbaugh) who are hacks paid to lie their faces off (even Limbaugh has admitted he doesn't believe half of what he says but he get 60M a year to say it,)?

Tom, you're making a fool of yourself, here.
 
 
-38 # lnason@umassd.edu 2014-02-20 10:44
You may not want any of these things to happen but you do not own the oil.

The stuff will be mined since its owners (the people of Alberta) overwhelmingly support the mining -- even the most liberal/green politicians in Alberta all strongly support drilling.

The stuff will be transported -- in fact, it already is being transported in ways that are less environmentally benign than the Keystone pipeline would be.

The stuff will be refined. The only question is will be it refined by us or by the Chinese.

If we do not allow the pipeline to be built, the owners of the tar sands will sell it to China. Your feelings about this have nothing to do with the decision of Canada/Alberta to do so.

The Koch brothers have nothing to do with Keystone.

Get it now?

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+24 # bmiluski 2014-02-20 12:45
Is it just me or does someone else feel uneasy about a foreign country having eminent domain over US land.
Also, this oil is NOT being sold to us but is indeed going to be sold to the Chinese.
As for the koch bros. involvement....
Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline could generate $100 billion in profits for billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, according to a report released Sunday, which revealed the extent to which the Kochs would benefit from the tar sands development the proposed pipeline would help spur.
The report also estimates that the Koch brothers have given about $50 million to think tanks and members of Congress who have pushed for the pipeline to be built.
So you are either very naive or just another shill for the neo-cons and oil companies.
Get it now?
 
 
+11 # soularddave 2014-02-20 22:10
Lee,
Something tells me you're making some of your arguments up out of thin air, and that you don't know what you're talking about.

Tar sands are NOT DRILLED; check out a YouTube video or two - they're strip mined.

As noted above, the Kochs have EVERYTHING to do with the XL pipeline. They own half or more of the tar sands, for Pete's sake, and they're willing to buy politicians to facilitate their plan!

Well, THEY don't "own" the oil either. Its a natural resource that THEY want to plunder for their own purposes (making money). The problem with that is that they want to *EXTERNALIZE* inherent risks and costs to the planet while internalizing the profits for themselves.

Its OUR OBJECTIVE to stand in the way of them cooking OUR PLANET for their profit.

Yes, its THAT serious!
 
 
+5 # WestWinds 2014-02-21 12:10
Part One: "You may not want any of these things to happen but you do not own the oil.

The stuff will be mined since its owners (the people of Alberta) overwhelmingly support the mining -- even the most liberal/green politicians in Alberta all strongly support drilling."

Response:

--- And you know this (lie) how? Are you a resident of Alberta? And what about the First Nations people who don't want that pipeline on Treaty Lands?

The stuff will be transported -- in fact, it already is being transported in ways that are less environmentally benign than the Keystone pipeline would be.

--- And EXACTLY what would those "less benig" ways be? Have you seen the recent oil spills from other pipelines that have destroyed whole towns (that the media is hiding)?

The stuff will be refined. The only question is will be it refined by us or by the Chinese.
 
 
+6 # WestWinds 2014-02-21 12:11
Part Two:

--- Why isn't Canada selling it directly to the Chinese? Because the Indians know that that sludge is poison no matter what form it's in; crude or crude refined. It will spill and destroy or be refined to pollute the atmosphere and destroy.

If we do not allow the pipeline to be built, the owners of the tar sands will sell it to China. Your feelings about this have nothing to do with the decision of Canada/Alberta to do so.

--- Boy, are you ever ignoring a bunch of things like, if they run the pipeline across America, across Treaty Lands, if they have spills and it pollutes the Ogallala Aquifer, and the series of spills that have already taken place.
--- And SHAME ON YOU for your Right-wing disenfranchisem ent of our feelings. We have as much right to any say as any greed slobbering industrialist.

The Koch brothers have nothing to do with Keystone.

--- Right. Now let's see... The crude is being earmarked for Huston, TX. The Koch brothers live in Houston, TX. The refinery the crude is marked for is in Huston, TX, and the exit port to China is... OMG! Houston, TX!!!
 
 
+3 # X Dane 2014-02-21 22:38
Inason@umassed.edu.

Have you bothered to find out how the people of Alberta feels???. They are FIGHTING the oil companies, Baytex, one of them

People are getting sick, and cancer cases are increasing, but the doctors are afraid of speaking up, for they are getting threatened with loosing their licence.

Many people had to move out of the state, for the sake of their physical and mental health.
And a lot of people are fighting those oil companies, so open your eyes and try to understand what is REALLY going on. You have blinders on. Get rid of them
 
 
+14 # jon 2014-02-20 16:37
"Pipelines are much safer than rail transport."

That is like saying it is much safer to play Russian roulette with a 9-shot revolver than a 6-shot revolver
 
 
+7 # rockieball 2014-02-20 19:17
"Pipelines are so much safer". that is until in the middle of the countries grain belt some terrorist decided to blow a big hole in it and thus makes a couple of million acres or more of prime farmland worthless. Also it's not meant no one drop for the USA but as the article states "For Export. So if the oil companies and Canada want to export it then build a pipeline to one of their coast, build a refinery their. Then when the pipeline breaks in their prime grain belt they can clean it up and not as what would happen here where the American
taxpayers would foot the bill.
 
 
+61 # bmiluski 2014-02-20 09:22
It's amusing to hear republicans screaming about all the jobs this pipeline would produce yet would not allow the jobs bill to pass. The bill would have created thousands of more jobs than that pipeline.
 
 
+46 # WestWinds 2014-02-20 10:02
Quoting bmiluski:
It's amusing to hear republicans screaming about all the jobs this pipeline would produce yet would not allow the jobs bill to pass. The bill would have created thousands of more jobs than that pipeline.


--- Yes, and the pipeline jobs are only temporary jobs, whereas the jobs bill could have produced lots of full time, permanent jobs. The (R) are full of hot air, and we all know it... except the (R).
 
 
+28 # bingers 2014-02-20 11:24
Quoting bmiluski:
It's amusing to hear republicans screaming about all the jobs this pipeline would produce yet would not allow the jobs bill to pass. The bill would have created thousands of more jobs than that pipeline.


An fact, the number of jobs created (after he pipeline would be finished, and most of it already is) is 50 jobs. The oil is committed to China in large part, would actually increase the price of oil here and could easily destroy the Ogalalla Aquifer, leaving the upper Midwest with no drinking water. And tar sands and shale oil are so corrosive that a pipeline rupture is a certainty. Even light sweet crude is corrosive enough that oil tankers only last 2 or 3 trips.

There is no reason to ship this garbage through the US. If Canada wants to extract it everything to do with it should remain in Canada.
 
 
+18 # 6thextinction 2014-02-20 12:52
The reason Harper wants the KXL to go thru the US is because Canadians, and especially First Nation Canadians, will not allow a pipeline to take it thru Canada, neither East or West (which is a much shorter route to China where it all will go than thru the US). So the real question is, how did this ever become an issue for the US? There's nothing in it for us except risk and ill will.
 
 
+5 # WestWinds 2014-02-21 12:16
Quoting 6thextinction:
The reason Harper wants the KXL to go thru the US is because Canadians, and especially First Nation Canadians, will not allow a pipeline to take it thru Canada, neither East or West (which is a much shorter route to China where it all will go than thru the US). So the real question is, how did this ever become an issue for the US? There's nothing in it for us except risk and ill will.


--- I admire the First Nations people for standing up and defending THEIR lands. Good on them!
 
 
+57 # Bev 2014-02-20 09:25
Hooray! As a native Nebraskan this is at least a temporary victory. It's not a matter of pipeline versus train transport. Follow the money and you will see the source of total disregard for the planet and ordinary people on it.
 
 
+40 # WestWinds 2014-02-20 10:06
Quoting Bev:
Hooray! As a native Nebraskan this is at least a temporary victory. It's not a matter of pipeline versus train transport. Follow the money and you will see the source of total disregard for the planet and ordinary people on it.


--- How correct you are, Bev. That pipeline is a killer in more ways than one.

Congratulations to you and your fellow Nebraskans on your victory.

And congratulations to that judge for having the common sense and backbone to do the correct thing for Nebraska, the rest of the country, and the world at large. This was a big potatoes decision and she had the guts and brains to do what's right (and that's saying something considering our crooked judiciary these days.)
 
 
+28 # bmiluski 2014-02-20 10:10
I think the key word was BACKBONE. I wish more people had one.
 
 
+10 # Emily 2014-02-20 12:13
YAY YAY YAY for Nabraska, the Earth shouts YAY for you too! The Bees, the birds, the water, wind and bears all shout YAY for Nebraska, and to the money-admnirere s, we shout, it is just an idea, your money and a bad one at that! Watch how we make your money idea irrelevant in coming years! Yay for Nebraska
www emilypeyton (dot) org. Candidate For Governor of VT
 
 
+16 # bingers 2014-02-20 11:25
[quote name="Bev"]Hoor ay! As a native Nebraskan this is at least a temporary victory. It's not a matter of pipeline versus train transport. Follow the money and you will see the source of total disregard for the planet and ordinary people on it.[/quote

And a ruptured pipeline spills thousands of times the amount from a train.
 
 
+3 # soularddave 2014-02-20 22:19
I'm the first one in 3 generations of family to be born outside of Nebraska, and thus, have keen insight as to how 'Huskers think. It took a while to get this straightened out, but it took a while to get it messed up in the first place. I know its not over, but these things take time and thought - and communication.
 
 
+17 # cordleycoit 2014-02-20 10:17
We have to hold the line what the frackers are doing is signing up people who have no idea what is coming they simply wand the money. They are poor and elderly and confused. and will lick the hand with the money. They tend to get violent to opposition.
 
 
+28 # whistleblowerdr 2014-02-20 10:20
How stupid do they think we are? The pipe line is going to pump the sands to the Gulf and then send it to China. How does this help the people of the US when all we have is the pipeline in our back yard? If one is going to develop fossil fuel then one should first figure out how to transport it. Scientists have said that leaks in pipe lines are one of the worst polluters of the environment. This is a no brainer and the oil barons like the Koch brothers are the ones who profit not you and me!
 
 
+3 # soularddave 2014-02-20 22:26
Perhaps the *Creator* of the fossil fuel intended it to remain where it is? It is doing little harm right where it is. The best course of action may be to do nothing at all.
 
 
+15 # maverita 2014-02-20 10:46
and they want to enlarge the panama canal now. mainly to accommodate the humongous oil tankers that china is building to transport the refined crude oil. the tar sands oil is pretty much earmarked for China.
 
 
+6 # Quickmatch 2014-02-20 11:06
The question of the pipeline carrying "dirty" oil is moot. For one, all oil is dirty: conventional oil is spilled daily; fracked oil (and gas) contribute daily through leakage in the drilling and production stages. For another, ultimately this oil will be produced, regardless of the route of transmission to the market. The only question that is valid as regards this issue is the rights and desires of the people who will be directly affected: the residents through and over which the pipeline will be built. The ballyhooed jobs claims are claims for work that will be completed in a year or so (this ain't building a car assembly plant or a factory to produce parts for wind turbines or solar farms). The only continuing beneficiaries of the XL will be the oil refinery owners and the Canadians who won't have to foot the costs in-country.
 
 
+11 # moby doug 2014-02-20 12:36
Canadian oil being pumped to Texas refineries which will then ship the oil to China. Here's what the Midwest states will get out of it: pollution of the crucial Oglala Aquifer which is a lifeblood of Midwest agriculture.
 
 
+1 # RnR 2014-02-20 13:59
Illinois is already a chemical dump. Fracking beyond belief and I can't help thinking Emmanuel and Obama had something to do with it.
 
 
+7 # jstick 2014-02-20 13:04
There is NO way any Canadian company has the legal right of eminent domain over U.S. landowners. That law was written to benefit local communities, i.e., construct a school or a freeway -- not the Koch brothers and their energy buddies.
 
 
+8 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-02-20 13:27
This will be the true test of whether Obama is just another "corporate lackey". Just W. Bush with a "HOPE AND CHANGE"or Bill Clinton with "I feel your pain". Wake up America. Vote these leeches out of office.
 
 
+7 # ahollman 2014-02-20 14:52
Whether oil is transported by is secondary to a much bigger issue: we've got to keep most of the fossil fuel we know of in the ground, or we'll all fry. We all need to use less energy, substitute renewable for fossil fuel, and do so as fast as possible.

Renewable energy creates far more jobs, for far less capital investment per job, than fossil fuel, which generates money mostly for those in upper income brackets.

The idea that we need to fear overreach by government far more than we need to fear it from the private sector is obsolete, because the two have converged - in interests (drill baby drill!), personnel (revolving door), and in finances (fossil fuel's economic advantage over renewables comes from ignoring the enormous subsidies that fossil fuel receives - directly in the tax code and indirectly, by ignoring its environmental cost).

I too am appalled that the US and Nebraska governments are allowing a foreign corporation (TransCanada) to seize US private property by eminent domain, for a private, not public purpose.

Nebraskans, especially farmers, deserve less sympathy than they now get. They are not environmentalis ts. For decades, they have been unsustainably extracting the very groundwater (Ogallala and Sandhills aquifers) that they're concerned the pipeline will pollute.

There is no reason to ship oil 1800 miles except to enrich Gulf refiners. Let the Canadians use scarce water to refine it in Alberta or ship it over the Rockies to the Pacific.
 
 
+8 # sibbaldflats 2014-02-20 19:53
Here in Calgary, there is considerable gnashing of teeth over the injustice of it all.
Very few here have the slightest clue small landowners are standing up to the goliath based in southern Alberta, and all its govt. allies.
The premier of our province, Alison Redford has been beating a path exhaustively to Wash. D.C. to sell KXL. For her and her federal allies, the frustration has been building to almost intolerable levels.
But they've got no one to blame but themselves. The province has done a very poor job in environmentally managing the growing eco-disaster in northeast Alberta. She's been piping disingenuous arguments about the tar sands' eco-merits that anyone with a shred of attention can see through.
Her federal allies are even worse. Myopic Harper has been furiously gutting environmental protections at all levels, at the most crucial juncture in convincing Americans of Canada's environmental credibility. And they've backed it up with constant obstruction of environmental treaties on the international stage.
These guys couldn't give away a condom on hooker stroll.
Their growing desperation can be gauged by their spying - with the connivance of industry - on law-abiding opponents of the tar sands and pipelines.
Last month, the lobby group for Canada's energy industry called an unprecedented press conference to respond to Neil Young's campaign siding with an Alberta First Nation's opposition to rapid tar sands expansion.
But it's far, far from over yet.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN