PDA

View Full Version : Executive order for pipelines




invisible
01-24-2017, 12:37 PM
Didn't see this posted yet. With the best cabinet members that the fracking industry could supply, how could we expect anything less? And of course, there couldn't possibly be any conflict of interest with the President's personal investments, could there? Nah, nothing to see here, move along.

This is an "approved" news source, isn't it?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-to-sign-orders-reviving-pipeline-projects-sources-say.html


President Trump signed executive orders on Tuesday effectively reviving the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, which had been stalled by the Obama administration under pressure from environmental and other groups.

To that end, the president signed three other orders related to pipeline construction, including one expediting the environmental permitting process for infrastructure projects and one directing the Commerce Department to maximize the use of U.S. steel.

pcosmar
01-24-2017, 12:55 PM
Heard that..

Some good, Some bad

add it to the bad list,,

phill4paul
01-24-2017, 01:06 PM
This was a certainty.

dean.engelhardt
01-24-2017, 01:09 PM
Was there an expectation that Trump would respect private property?

invisible
01-25-2017, 01:38 PM
I'm surprised that this thread isn't full of trumpettes telling us how great eminent domain is.
It'll be interesting to see how quickly our new President breaks obomba's record on use of EO's.

Ender
01-25-2017, 02:06 PM
I'm surprised that this thread isn't full of trumpettes telling us how great eminent domain is.
It'll be interesting to see how quickly our new President breaks obomba's record on use of EO's.

Agree-

And- Obama's EO record is pretty low comparatively. He only beat JFK, Bush Sr, & Ford for EOs in the past 115 yrs.

afwjam
01-25-2017, 02:09 PM
Executive orders that aren't used to repeal executive orders, should not be used.

UWDude
01-25-2017, 10:01 PM
I'm surprised that this thread isn't full of trumpettes telling us how great eminent domain is.
It'll be interesting to see how quickly our new President breaks obomba's record on use of EO's.

It has been moved 70 miles away from the reservation.
Right now you are assuming eminent domain with no proof.

dannno
01-25-2017, 10:15 PM
I'm surprised that this thread isn't full of trumpettes telling us how great eminent domain is.
It'll be interesting to see how quickly our new President breaks obomba's record on use of EO's.

Pretty sure the eminent domain and land stuff was secured under Obama's watch.

The pipeline never went onto the Reservation, it was near it where they claimed some sacred sites existed, and they claimed it could affect one of their watersheds.

Not sure if you were under the impression something else was going on.

phill4paul
01-26-2017, 09:28 AM
Pretty sure the eminent domain and land stuff was secured under Obama's watch.

The pipeline never went onto the Reservation, it was near it where they claimed some sacred sites existed, and they claimed it could affect one of their watersheds.

Not sure if you were under the impression something else was going on.


It's not solely the Native Americans that are fighting against the pipeline...

Landowners: Fight pipeline, oppose eminent domain for private enrichment

Our Story County farmland has been in my family since 1854. My great grandfather, grandfather, and father fought to protect this land. Today I feel I must do the same.

A Texas company proposes to permanently take an easement from our land and put a crude oil pipeline through it. This pipeline would carry 570,000 barrels of crude oil daily across my land and the land of over 2,600 landowners in Iowa. The pipeline is proposed by Dakota Access, LLC, a development subsidiary of the Texas Fortune 500 Energy Transfer Partners L.P.

Dakota Access is trying to rush this land grab through before people realize what is happening. There are numerous issues to be carefully considered; not just for affected landowners, but all Iowans.

Dakota Access can't do this without a permit from the Iowa Utilities Board. If they get it they will have the ultimate hammer of government — eminent domain — to take their easements without our consent.

Taking someone's land by government mandate can only be justified when the project is in the public interest. Eminent domain was first used in Iowa to provide rural citizens access to electricity and telephone capability. Rural Iowans benefitted from that. It should not be used so a private company can make billions of dollars, on energy that will be neither produced nor consumed in Iowa. There should be no eminent domain for a crude oil pipeline.

While the construction of the pipelines may last only a couple of years, there is lasting negative impact. As many Iowa farmers already know first hand, once the pipelines are laid, you can no longer build on that land. Furthermore, pipelines permanently reduce the yield potential of the land by compaction and destroy the soil structure.

A Northeast Iowa farmer recently told me since a natural gas pipeline was dug in in 2000, he has suffered a 35 percent average yearly yield loss. Similarly, an Iowa State University agronomist professor warned farmers could feel soil compaction for up to 20 years and slicing our fields and our drainage tile diagonally ruins our land and damages our environment. When you take our yield, you take our land's value.

Iowans who care about their drinking water should pay attention; this pipeline poses a great danger. This pipeline will pump 570,000 barrels of crude oil daily across Iowa's two main watersheds that provide drinking water to a majority of Iowans. Pipeline leaks happen. North Dakota alone reported 139 pipeline leaks in 2012. And they are serious. North Dakotans are still cleaning up an oil spill from over a year ago. On Sept. 29, 2013, a farmer discovered a spill of more than 20,000 barrels of crude oil. The company's original cleanup cost estimate of $4 million has soared to more than $20 million.

So, a Texas company is trying to get Iowa's government to help them take farmland so they can save over $40 billion in transportation costs. Given this pipeline is so valuable, they should be willing to pay farmers the true value of using their land to build it and not rely on government to condemn Iowa farmers for a pipeline.

If you agree, join me and many other Iowa farmland owners who are fighting this pipeline.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/01/22/landowners-fight-pipeline-oppose-eminent-domain-private-enrichment/22156905/

pcosmar
01-26-2017, 09:53 AM
There should be no eminent domain for a crude oil pipeline.

the bottom line,

UWDude
01-26-2017, 10:44 AM
Are these the same corn subsidized Iowan farmers?

dannno
01-26-2017, 11:22 AM
Are these the same corn subsidized Iowan farmers?

Apparently they are the same ones who cheered eminent domain when it was a telephone company, but not for oil companies.

phill4paul
01-26-2017, 12:08 PM
Apparently they are the same ones who cheered eminent domain when it was a telephone company, but not for oil companies.

The precept of public domain is that if it is used it benefits the public good. Most in the rural areas would tell you they are glad to have phone and electricity. What does the pipeline give them except reduction of farmable land?

dannno
01-26-2017, 01:02 PM
The precept of public domain is that if it is used it benefits the public good. Most in the rural areas would tell you they are glad to have phone and electricity. What does the pipeline give them except reduction of farmable land?

They will benefit from cheaper oil and energy costs. Do you know what fertilizer is made out of?

It's a slippery slope they got themselves onto.

Ender
01-26-2017, 01:14 PM
They will benefit from cheaper oil and energy costs. Do you know what fertilizer is made out of?

It's a slippery slope they got themselves onto.

Eminent Domain is the slippery slope. It is plain WRONG unless BOTH PARTIES ARE IN FAVOR.

As a farmer I can use any kind of fertilizer I wish, organic, preferably- but if Big Oil takes a third of my farm, I can't gain back those profits and I can't personally control oil spills and leaks which happen all the time. NO ONE should be able to take a section of someone else's personal property & profits for their own gain.

And if you're talking cheap oil & energy, then work to legalize hemp, which is cheap AND safe.

dannno
01-26-2017, 01:20 PM
Eminent Domain is the slippery slope. It is plain WRONG unless BOTH PARTIES ARE IN FAVOR.

As a farmer I can use any kind of fertilizer I wish, organic, preferably- but if Big Oil takes a third of my farm, I can't gain back those profits and I can't personally control oil spills and leaks which happen all the time. NO ONE should be able to take a section of someone else's personal property & profits for their own gain.

And if you're talking cheap oil & energy, then work to legalize hemp, which is cheap AND safe.

Oh ya, I'm against eminent domain, I disagree with Trump on that point.. I'm just making the point that Obama is for it, Trump is for it, the farmers who are complaining about it now cheer it on (except for when they think it doesn't benefit them), so focusing on Trump in this situation just shows how biased people are against Trump.

I mean, the article above has a farmer who is FOR eminent domain complaining about eminent domain IN THIS CASE but is all for it in other cases that they personally agree with.

TheCount
01-26-2017, 01:43 PM
Oh ya, I'm against eminent domain, I disagree with Trump on that point.. I'm just making the point that Obama is for it, Trump is for it, the farmers who are complaining about it now cheer it on (except for when they think it doesn't benefit them), so focusing on Trump in this situation just shows how biased people are against Trump.

http://www.auntieannes.com/public/images/pretzels-nutrition/soft-pretzels@2x.png

dannno
01-26-2017, 01:54 PM
http://www.auntieannes.com/public/images/pretzels-nutrition/soft-pretzels@2x.png

Ok, so you see no problem with a farmer who is FOR eminent domain, COMPLAINING about eminent domain? That's what I'm trying to explain here, that is where the pretzel is, not what I said.

TheCount
01-26-2017, 02:09 PM
Ok, so you see no problem with a farmer who is FOR eminent domain, COMPLAINING about eminent domain? That's what I'm trying to explain here, that is where the pretzel is, not what I said."I'm against eminent domain, but I'm going to make four posts in this thread minimizing its importance in support of its use in this case."

dannno
01-26-2017, 02:35 PM
"I'm against eminent domain, but I'm going to make four posts in this thread minimizing its importance in support of its use in this case."

I've actually said the opposite several times, I do not support eminent domain in this case or ANY case. Your reading comprehension is completely atrocious, or you are being purposefully obtuse.

The point is that the ONLY people who are against eminent domain seem to be a few people on this forum in the corner of the internet and a few other proponents of liberty.

EVERYBODY ELSE involved in this entire situation and the vast, vast majority of the population is all for eminent domain when they agree with it personally. Every government official, even the farmers who are fighting the eminent domain are all for eminent domain when they agree with it.

So to single out Trump and attack him on it when almost everybody in the entire world is for eminent domain is just retarded.

Yes, he should be criticized on it, but no more than anybody else who agrees with eminent domain including the farmers who are complaining about their land being stolen.

phill4paul
01-26-2017, 02:59 PM
I've actually said the opposite several times, I do not support eminent domain in this case or ANY case. Your reading comprehension is completely atrocious, or you are being purposefully obtuse.

The point is that the ONLY people who are against eminent domain seem to be a few people on this forum in the corner of the internet and a few other proponents of liberty.

EVERYBODY ELSE involved in this entire situation and the vast, vast majority of the population is all for eminent domain when they agree with it personally. Every government official, even the farmers who are fighting the eminent domain are all for eminent domain when they agree with it.

So to single out Trump and attack him on it when almost everybody in the entire world is for eminent domain is just retarded.

Yes, he should be criticized on it, but no more than anybody else who agrees with eminent domain including the farmers who are complaining about their land being stolen.

How many of the people besides Trump, that you refer to, used an E.O. to expedite the process that will lead to eminent domain for the pipeline? Perhaps because it is singly within his power he is being singled out. D'yathink?

Ender
01-26-2017, 03:07 PM
I've actually said the opposite several times, I do not support eminent domain in this case or ANY case. Your reading comprehension is completely atrocious, or you are being purposefully obtuse.

The point is that the ONLY people who are against eminent domain seem to be a few people on this forum in the corner of the internet and a few other proponents of liberty.

EVERYBODY ELSE involved in this entire situation and the vast, vast majority of the population is all for eminent domain when they agree with it personally. Every government official, even the farmers who are fighting the eminent domain are all for eminent domain when they agree with it.

So to single out Trump and attack him on it when almost everybody in the entire world is for eminent domain is just retarded.

Yes, he should be criticized on it, but no more than anybody else who agrees with eminent domain including the farmers who are complaining about their land being stolen.

That's exactly the point, Dannno. if it's YOUR property & you agree to telephone lines, fine. If it's YOUR property & you do not agree to oil pipes, then it's YOUR property and should be YOUR decision.

ETA: Trump should be criticized because he is TPTB now. Obama is no longer in office- and he did stop the pipeline for further research & advice.

dannno
01-26-2017, 04:28 PM
That's exactly the point, Dannno. if it's YOUR property & you agree to telephone lines, fine. If it's YOUR property & you do not agree to oil pipes, then it's YOUR property and should be YOUR decision.

ETA: Trump should be criticized because he is TPTB now. Obama is no longer in office- and he did stop the pipeline for further research & advice.

What you described is not eminent domain. If everybody who wanted telephone lines allowed them to be constructed on their property, then they wouldn't need to use eminent domain.

It's very possible they used eminent domain in many cases where property owners would have agreed anyway, but if they didn't they wouldn't have had a choice.

dannno
01-26-2017, 04:30 PM
How many of the people besides Trump, that you refer to, used an E.O. to expedite the process that will lead to eminent domain for the pipeline? Perhaps because it is singly within his power he is being singled out. D'yathink?

I would bet that the pipeline would have been built over the same land under Obama that it did under Trump, Trump may just end up doing it a little faster.

The farmer who is willing to use eminent domain when he agrees with it (even if the landowner does not) but is losing part of his land because as the landowner he disagrees with it.. Well, I do appreciate the farming community but in a way it's almost kind of karmic.

phill4paul
01-26-2017, 04:40 PM
I would bet that the pipeline would have been built over the same land under Obama that it did under Trump, Trump may just end up doing it a little faster.

The farmer who is willing to use eminent domain when he agrees with it (even if the landowner does not) but is losing part of his land because as the landowner he disagrees with it.. Well, I do appreciate the farming community but in a way it's almost kind of karmic.

So..take the shift off what Trump has done by saying Obama would have done it also even though not as fast. The end result is the same. I would have condmned Obama, did in fact, and now I'll condemn Trump. It's just the way I roll.

These farmers are not the farmers that agreed to the eminent domain. That would have been their father's father. They probably agree with it because they realize how they would live if their were no phone service or electricity. Perhaps at the time the monies payed for easements was worth it. I'm betting it was. I don't know when the electric lines and phone service ran through the rural areas, but I'm pretty sure it was 2 generations prior.

Krugminator2
01-26-2017, 05:26 PM
I hate the anti-capitalist Indians and hippies protesting this. I really enjoyed watching them trespass on private property and get water cannoned. I could watch that everyday. They have no case and the oil companies should release wild dogs on them.

But eminent domain should really only be used in extreme circumstances. I think the Iowa farmers have a point. I don't think this pipeline comes anyway close to being an acceptable use of eminent domain. It isn't even clear the Keystone Pipeline will even get built now, so it couldn't have been that crucial. I suspect the Dakota Pipeline falls in the same category.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-26-2017, 06:17 PM
"I'm against eminent domain, but I'm going to make four posts in this thread minimizing its importance in support of its use in this case."


Why are you putting words in quotes that no one said?

PatriotOne
01-26-2017, 06:28 PM
If Soro's is against the pipeline then I am for the pipeline. I hope Trump names a drone after him.

Standing Rock Protests Tied to Soros-Funded Group

Posted to Energy January 10, 2017 by Erin Mundahl

http://www.insidesources.com/standing-rock-protests-tied-soros-funded-group/

Ender
01-26-2017, 06:31 PM
What you described is not eminent domain. If everybody who wanted telephone lines allowed them to be constructed on their property, then they wouldn't need to use eminent domain.

It's very possible they used eminent domain in many cases where property owners would have agree anyway, but if they didn't they wouldn't have had a choice.

Your quote, Bro:


Apparently they are the same ones who cheered eminent domain when it was a telephone company, but not for oil companies.

UWDude
01-26-2017, 09:50 PM
that will lead to eminent domain for the pipeline?

Proof? fortune telling again?


I think the Iowa farmers have a point.

Story from a Texan, using anecdotes from an Iowan farmer from a different pipeline.

phill4paul
01-26-2017, 09:54 PM
Proof? fortune telling again?


Story from a Texan, using anecdotes from an Iowan farmer from a different pipeline.

As you so often are, eduardo. Incoherent.

UWDude
01-26-2017, 09:56 PM
As you so often are, eduardo. Incoherent.

I think I still have many neg-reps from Eduardo, and his sock puppets.

And Eduardo was, IIRC, a christian extremist. I'm not, if you had bothered to check my post history first, before throwing out a wild claim.

SO, now, proof there will be a eminent domain? And now, since you made another false assumption to divert from your first, proof I am Eduardo?

Krugminator2
01-26-2017, 09:58 PM
Story from a Texan, using anecdotes from an Iowan farmer from a different pipeline.

I am talking about the Dakota Access Pipeline which is the one that has been in the news. I don't know even what you are talking about Texan or anecdotes or what that means.

Here is an article from the Des Moines Register explaining what is happening. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/04/david-young-eminent-domain-iowa-pipeline-raises-concerns/91539132/

UWDude
01-26-2017, 10:08 PM
I am talking about the Dakota Access Pipeline which is the one that has been in the news. I don't know even what you are talking about Texan or anecdotes or what that means.

Here is an article from the Des Moines Register explaining what is happening. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/04/david-young-eminent-domain-iowa-pipeline-raises-concerns/91539132/

Yes, but the path has just been re-routed, and the Texan is talking about a pipeline by the same company, while the Iowa story is about a pipeline from a different company, and a natural gas company, to boot, in the first article you posted.

In the second article, it says "protesters and some land owners" are concerned about the eminent domain. It does not say "land owners whose land the pipeline will be going through". All in all, it says 35 showed up. How many were protesters, how many were "landowners", and how many were actual landowners threatened with eminent domain?

So is there any proof eminent domain will be used to take land to build the Dakota Access. Do you know of any farmers who currently are objecting to the offers given them for their land? Furthermore, should we always take the word of a farmer their land is worth more than the value offered? I mean Iowa is already one of the most heavily subsidized farm states in the nation. It is not like farmers are above using politic to get themselves more money.

Also, railroads tried to buy up land to encircle other railroads during the railroad boom days. Should we just let their obstructions stand, and make railroads re-route lines for hundreds of miles, because of "property rights"?

phill4paul
01-26-2017, 10:33 PM
I think I still have many neg-reps from Eduardo, and his sock puppets.

And Eduardo was, IIRC, a christian extremist. I'm not, if you had bothered to check my post history first, before throwing out a wild claim.

SO, now, proof there will be a eminent domain? And now, since you made another false assumption to divert from your first, proof I am Eduardo?

Sure you do. Sure you do. Proof? Did you and eduardo have a love hate? Since you are beyond repute I doubt it. Just another little sock that mined for some rep and then went all batchit stir the pot. What proof do you need that there will be eminent domain. It's already there. But, if the federal re-examined then the trial is put off. Now the trial, with federal approval of the process, moves forward. Yippeee!

timosman
01-26-2017, 10:44 PM
Sure you do. Sure you do. Proof? Did you and eduardo have a love hate? Since you are beyond repute I doubt it. Just another little sock that mined for some rep and then went all batchit stir the pot. What proof do you need that there will be eminent domain. It's already there. But, if the federal re-examined then the trial is put off. Now the trial, with federal approval of the process, moves forward. Yippeee!

Nurse! This patient needs to be sedated.

phill4paul
01-26-2017, 10:54 PM
Nurse! This patient needs to be sedated.

Thanks for your contribution, eduardo.

UWDude
01-27-2017, 09:40 PM
Just another little sock that mined for some rep and then went all batchit stir the pot.

You have been here since 2007, I have been here since 2010. I have a long post history. You can look through it. I've never used a sock puppet. Never had a reason too. I am proud of every word I have written, except when I bought into the quantitative easing hysteria, and said silver would be $200 by 2012.