Just as Bob Mercer notices that the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission staff is inclined to say that TransCanada has met the requirements for renewing its application to build Keystone XL across South Dakota, TransCanada decides to ask the U.S. State Department to suspend its national pipeline application:
“We are asking State (Department) to pause its review of Keystone XL based on the fact that we have applied to the Nebraska Public Service Commission for approval of its preferred route in the state,” TransCanada Chief Executive Officer Russ Girling said in a statement.
The news comes shortly after the White House on Monday said it still expects Obama will make a decision on whether to grant a permit to TransCanada Corp for the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline before he leaves office in January 2017 [link added; Bruce Wallace, “TransCanada Asks U.S. to Suspend Review of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline,” Reuters, 2015.11.02].
Nebraska-shmebraska—TransCanada must figure that the chances that a Republican will win the 2016 Presidential election are greater than the chances that President Obama will say yes to their pipeline. TransCanada’s willingness to delay may also have to do with the slump in oil prices: TransCanada may figure they can ride out the price trough and wait to build the pipeline until prices rebound and drillers can better afford to pull their product up out of the Alberta tar sands.
Either way, if the President grants TransCanada its suspension, West River landowners can get at least one more year of production out of their land before TransCanada seizes it with eminent domain, wrecks it with their pipeline digging, and places that land and our water at permanent risk of oil spills.
I would like a citation of law or regulation that provides for the ability of the State Department to “suspend” an application. It might be “lawless” for the State Department to agree to a suspension.
While we wait, maybe the puc should be examined to see how much they may have gotten in corruption from outside interests, as that seems to be how Pierre is run under outlaw rule. Maybe the Koch brothers are just angling for a bailout with NAFTA on their project. They can show piles and piles of pipe they paid for from any country other than the United States for proof of their loss.
Cory, TransCanada already has obtained their easements by using the threat of eminent domain or, in at least one case, by actually taking a landowner to court. If President Obama denies the KXL permit then what happens to the easement? We don’t really know. We landowners will probably institute a lawsuit to have the easements returned. The same thing happened to the DME coal train in southwest South Dakota. Kevin Scheifer used condemnation to obtain the right of way and now no coal rail will be built in the foreseeable future. What is wrong with this picture? Where are our state legislators who claim they believe in private property rights?
I’m confused. I thought approving KXL was going to have immediate job creation and amazing economical boost!! And the constant drum beating of “why is Obama waiting” and “doesn’t he care”…….seems to now be on KXL’s shoulders, no?
So, jobs are important or not??……or more to the point – it is and always was a bunch of hogwash what Noem, Thune, et al were saying about the benefits of KXL.
Don’t suspend Mr. President. Deny the pipeline and make them start all over if Rubio wins.
Paul, I’d need to see the easement contracts. Do they contain any language making the easement contingent on approval and commencement of the project within a specific period of time? Do they limit use of the land to Keystone XL or a similar pipeline project?
In a way, I suppose it would be nice if the landowners got to keep the money but didn’t have the pipeline risk under their cattle and crops. Of course, if the easement remains, they still lose free use of the land.
Donald, good legal question! I know federal and local laws are different, but can I apply for a variance, then go to my county zoning officer and say, “Keep my application on file, but don’t take it to the county commission until after the next election”?
The press indicates that the State Department can reject the request.
Cory, a group of us landowners along the Keystone XL formed a group called Protect South Dakota Resources to negotiate separately with TransCanada. Our members owned 1/3 of the 313 miles of the route. We obtained an easement for our PSDR members that will insure a safer pipeline and more equitable treatment for the landowner. At TransCanada’s insistence the landowners had to sign a non-disclosure agreement that does not allow us to discuss the terms of the easement.
I can tell you what their offered original easement called for. TransCanada wanted a perpetual easement for one or more pipelines. There was no provision for what would happen if the pipeline was never built, the easement was forever so I assume that they could put fiber optic lines, power lines, wind towers, or whatever their little heart desires on that easement. One of the big things that TransCanada tries to do in their easement is to switch liability to the landowner. If the rancher is out fencing and digs a posthole that penetrates the pipeline then the landowner is liable for all cleanup costs if a spill occurs. You also cannot build any structure, dam across, or plant trees on the 50 ft. easement.
If the KXL is not built then the landowner gets to keep the easement payment but I do not want that easement encumbering the property. I will buy the easement back if that is what they want. TransCanada has already spent $2.4 billion on the project. I will help them recoup a little of that if it will make them happy.
I would question whether the State Department can “reject” a request that can’t be legally made in the first place. They just need to say, “We have no ability to accept or reject your request because the law does not provide for your ability to make such a request.” What if the State Department said, “OK, request granted. Consideration of this matter is suspended until the year 2099?” I hardly think that would be acceptable to TransCanada. TransCanada could withdraw their request. They would then have to re-submit it.
I would think this has a lot to with it.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/10082015/oil-slump-canadian-tar-sands-producers-emissions-global-climate
There is no money to be made at current prices.
Whatever kills it, WROG, I hope it gets killed!
Paul, I think I’d be inclined to go with you and choose the full use over my land over a cash payment and perpetual encumbrance. No structures, no improvements, not even trees on that 50-foot swath—pretty much all you could do with the land, even absent the pipeline, would be run cattle and grow crops.
I suppose the confidentiality of the easement agreement is independent of the status of the project. Even if TransCanada drops KXL, those easement agreements probably remain secret.
Where is slick Mike on this deal.
This Just In … “DAGGER” ???
“We have communicated to them our intention to continue the review,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby. “We’re not required to pause it based on an applicant’s request. There’s no legal basis to do that.”
Kirby said a lot of interagency work has gone into the review.
The decision to move forward with the State Department review puts the project in jeopardy. The Obama administration is widely expected to reject the proposed pipeline in the coming weeks or months, bringing to a close the years-long drama on its fate.
AP is reporting President Obama is going to reject KXL!