We don't need no stinking permission: Why wouldn't Nebraska property owners want the TransCanada pipeline across their land?
Eminent domain:
"Taking pipe" is a common slang term that implies the pipe taker is on the receiving end of a bad deal. While, an extensive search by CatMap Editorial Board interns could not determine the exact origins of the expression, it is believed to be sexual in nature. Whatever the exact connotation, it is appropriate for the concerns of Nebraska and Kansas farmers embroiled in the malevolent efforts of TransCanada to run the proposed Keystone XL oil pimpline* across their land. With or without their permission.
Some observers claim the Canadian oil company is simply playing hardball. Others seem to think they are employing bullying tactics. A quick look at the following quotation from an editorial piece written by Robert Jones, VP of misinformation for Keystone Pipelines, might help you clear that up for yourself. After he mentions the respect and fairness stuff that PR ghostwriters include before they explain where the pipe is relly going to be inserted, he goes on to say, "Our strong preference is to reach voluntary agreements. We utilize eminent domain only as a last resort. While the legal process is an important backstop, we would prefer not to use it."
We won't shoot you unless you force us to.
Even that "last resort" statement seems a little disingenuous, coming as it does on the heels of TransCanada's demand to landowners in August that they sign easements within 30 days or face land condemnation proceedings. Note if you will that property owners are invited to TransCanada's Take it Or Leave It seminars on the condition that they sign non-disclosure documents, otherwise known as gag orders. How come?
Let's back up and get some clarity. Why would anyone oppose the extra income they would receive from allowing the pipeline to traverse their property? See column two for more!
MAYBE IT'S ALL THOSE TOXIC LEAKS AND EXPLOSIONS!
To answer those questions, let's start with a little drama and check the headlines!
Well, once area of concern could be the little EXPLOSION that wiped out a suburban San Francisco neighborhood in Sept 2010. Still counting the bodies on that one, and naturally the whiners are saying they smelled gas for several weeks before the explosion. While the CatMap Editorial Board has complete faith in the competency and ethics of Pacific Gas and Electric, the fact is that the pipeline still exploded.
And besides, that was natural gas, not oil. The oil pipelines are far less of a risk, unless of course, you don't want your land and the surrounding ecosystem destroyed by toxic goop. But with today's modern oil extraction and transportation technology, what could go wrong?
Well, something sure went wrong in Michigan and Illinois, didn't it? For example, the August spill of ONE MILLION GALLONS of oil into the Kalamazoo River. Missed that one, did you? Even FOX News reported on it. Enbridge, the same pipeline company that messes up the Kalamazoo, also had a September spill in Romeoville, IL, spilling an undetermined amount of crude into the area. Will it end up in the Des Plaines River> The pipeline company says no worries. It could happen to anyone.
Is this just a sudden problem, a statistical aberration? Not at all. The last decade has seen 2,500 significant pipeline incidents in the United States over the last ten years, resulting in 161 fatalities and 576 injuries.
And even though BP has committed to cleaning up the whole darn thing and it was months ago, the Deepwater Horizon thing has still got a few people concerned. It could be all the dead fish and birds…but then again, the could also be the work of Big Ag's dead zones. Hard to tell.
So maybe we don't trust the pimpline boys or the petro chemical industry.
With this in mind, consider that TransCanada has applied for a safety waiver. The waiver would allow cheaper, thinner steel to be used in the walls, and also permit operating at a higher pressure. Great idea!
Is that the lesson we took from Deepwater Horizon? Let's cut back on safety?
