Oerdin
Deity
It is not on their land, the people who do actually own the land have agreed, end of story. Just build it.
We don't need pipelines at all. If pipelines don't exist to transport oil to refineries, then the oil is simply transported by other means - typically by rail, sometimes by truck or ship depending on where it is going to/from. Since pipelines make transporting oil cheaper, so the oil that makes it to the refinery is a couple bucks a barrel cheaper than it would be if transported by rail. This pretty much exclusively benefits the company that pumps the crude, maybe some benefit to the refining company as well.
They shouldn't go through anyone's backyard, IMO, unless they can convince people to sell the right-of-way. Eminent domain for a pipeline is absurd. Now, pipeline opponents tend to make environmental arguments, but those are pretty silly - the cost savings aren't nearly enough to spur oil development which otherwise wouldn't happen, and pipeline oil spills, while far more devastating where they happen than a train or truck spill (less so than a maritime spill, obviously), do happen far less often. The other side of this is that the public benefit in terms of the environmental benefit of preventing spills is unproven at best, especially where pipelines cross major rivers. A pipeline spill in a river is a major environmental disaster.
So, taking people's property for pipelines should not be considered a public good sufficient to allow for eminent domain, but of course eminent domain is interpreted stupidly broadly, so there's no getting around the precedent. But pipelines are not vital, not necessary, and not of any provable benefit to the public.
As MobBoss states pipelines are cheaper and safer so they should be used where possible.
The route should be chosen to minimise impact but it should be considered that one of the numerous truck movements that it will replace could crash and spill its contents.
The pumps on the pipeline can also be electrically driven so reducing pollution.
No one's property is being taken. This isn't an eminent domain case. The pipeline is all on federal land (as far as I can find).
I understand that using a pipeline is not only cheaper but it's also a magnitude safer all around than transport by other means.
They aren't going through anyone's back yard, and God forbid that we actually not do something cheaper and safer just because someone objects to it.
ALABAMA -- Fuel supplies in at least five states are threatened by a gasoline pipeline spill in Alabama.
When it’s working, the Colonial Pipeline company’s “line one” carries fuel from Houston to New York, filling the gas tanks of millions of people.
And when it’s not working, there are long lines to get gas, mammoth price spikes and even dry pumps in parts of Georgia and Tennessee.
It’s all because of a massive fuel spill in central Alabama.
At least a quarter billion gallons of gas erupted from an underground pipe. It’s been shutdown since the spill was discovered September 9.
And now six southern states are under emergency orders: Tennessee, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, and North Carolina. This is allowing fuel trucks to work longer hours in hopes of averting a crisis.
“I hit like three gas stations and all of them empty,” said one person.
“We have a pipeline burst and there’s a shortage, so I’m trying to fill up,” another person said.
Patrick Dehaan is a senior petroleum analyst at Gasbuddy. He said the South should brace for 20 to 40 cent price bumps per gallon.
“I don’t think we have seen such a large disruption of fuel supplies since Hurricane Katrina back in 2005,” he said.
The broken pipeline ends in Northern New Jersey.
Crews began excavating the leaking pipeline on Friday afternoon, but the cause and status of the leak is still unknown and there’s no firm timetable for a fix. In the meantime, gas is being shipped to the east coast by truck, and also tanker ship.
Improving rail infrastructure is also an option.
Prior to 2013, more oil was spilled per billion barrels transported by pipeline than by rail. 2013 was anomalous, but it's worth noting that oil has to be transported by rail regardless of whether most of its transport is by pipeline. So it's by no means factual that pipelines are safer. They haven't always been by any means.
Truck and rail movements are more likely to cause spills, but the spills they cause generally have far less environmental impact. They do tend to have greater inconvenience impact, which is of course the most important issue to the average American suburban drone. "What? The freeway is closed for two HOURS while they clean up five thousand pounds of oil? It would be so much better if that were a hundred thousand pound pipeline spill out in the wilderness where it wouldn't be cleaned up at all."
And in researching this, everything I've read has indicated that pipelines are indeed safer, especially in terms of risk to human life per oil transported.
Btw, it's logically false to point at a single pipeline leak and try to produce a counter argument. It'd be like me pointing to all the pipelines that ARE working right and saying 'see? No problems'.
Build the pipeline, turning Earth into Venus Mk II seems like a great idea.
Gary Childress said:It doesn't sound like much of a choice unless they discontinue oil production in those locations that will be supplying the pipeline altogether, maybe not a bad option either. Much of the oil is probably coming from fracking which seems rather environmentally unsound.
You are correct. Immanent domain actually has nothing to do with the matter at hand that I can see.
It is absolutely absurd though that a "pipeline to nowhere" a couple hundred feet long can be proposed and approved that "just happens" to connect on each end to a similar "independent project" without anyone recognizing that when they get caught at it the world is going to cave in on them. It is such an absurdly obvious avoidance of regulation that I can't believe anyone would really try it...but apparently they have.
Unless I'm completely missing the facts and buying some hyped up accusations here, but it sure looks like it holds together. This is Army Corps of Engineers, which is more up your alley than mine. What do you think? Are they likely to play that kind of edgy legal maneuvering game?
Tim, in a self reported anonymous survey of the top 1000 corporations in America, two thirds admitted to breaking environmental laws on a weekly basis. Never underestimate the aggressive risk taking corporate management is willing to go to regardless of ethics.