TransCanada Corp., the Canadian company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, filed eminent domain proceedings against an estimated 90 Nebraska landowners secure the right to build the controversial project across their property.

If you owned land in Nebraska, how would you feel if a foreign company was taking control of your home against your wishes?

Originally Posted by Guest

TransCanada Corp., the Canadian company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, filed eminent domain proceedings against an estimated 90 Nebraska landowners secure the right to build the controversial project across their property.

If you owned land in Nebraska, how would you feel if a foreign company was taking control of your home against your wishes?

More details would be needed, however I would be suspicious of any intent to take control of one's home......although it could happen, I guess, if the home were located in the middle of the pipelines right of way.

More likely most would be limited to a path somewhere on the back 40.

Hence more detail would be required to conclude degree of "foreighn invasion".

Two judges have ordered temporary injunctions based on lawsuits by 80 landowners lawsuits against Canadian companies use of eminent domain.

TransCanada again blocked from using eminent domain along Keystone XL route - Omaha.com: Nebraska

Originally Posted by Guest

I admit I'm not as informed as I should be regarding Keystone XL. I guess I never dug into it too deeply because it was obvious from the outset Obama was against it and was conveniently utilizing various excuses of environmental impact and what have you so I never invested my limited time to do much research.

Having said that…wouldn't THOUSANDS of multi-year TEMPORARY jobs be created to build the pipeline? Roads, dams, bridges, railroads, sports stadiums, airports are all significant infrastructure projects with relatively few permanent jobs. Should those not be built because they won't result in many permanent jobs?

Also, wouldn't it be in our national interest to secure a reliable source of oil from our largest trading partner and arguably our closest ally, Canada? I understand the crude is high in sulfur, but it's my understanding we currently have refineries that refine high sulfur content oil with low pollution output. It hardly seems smart to ignore energy independence when it's potentially on our national doorstep. Perhaps the quality of this oil is not IDEAL, but it seems a better choice to accept a lower quality of oil than continue to be beholden to the middle east and hostile nations such as Venezuela. We've spent several $TRILLION in middle east wars of late, and many more $BILLIONS annually to assure the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf at market prices. This does not include the many thousands of American lives lost and injured. God bless our nation's sons and daughters in uniform!

I honestly want to know why Obama and the majority of democrats are blocking this. Do those of you on the left really believe the "potential" dangers to our environment outweigh securing energy independence for our nation and all its people? Isn't the nation's safety the highest priority of our elected officials?

Thank You

You put my thoughts into words, exactly.

It should have absolutely nothing to do with politics. Any pipeline built today will be a lot better than the 50 plus year old pipelines that currently run all over the US. I lived in Michigan when a 48" pipeline broke 200 yards from our house. There were over 600 homes evacuated for several days. The break contaminated everyone's wells. The pipeline was over 50 years old and had never been inspected. Oh, by the way, in the form of a settlement, we god $453 dollars per household, city water and a water bill.

Originally Posted by Guest

It should have absolutely nothing to do with politics. Any pipeline built today will be a lot better than the 50 plus year old pipelines that currently run all over the US. I lived in Michigan when a 48" pipeline broke 200 yards from our house. There were over 600 homes evacuated for several days. The break contaminated everyone's wells. The pipeline was over 50 years old and had never been inspected. Oh, by the way, in the form of a settlement, we god $453 dollars per household, city water and a water bill.

bee-eye-en-gee-oh

Originally Posted by Guest

It should have absolutely nothing to do with politics. Any pipeline built today will be a lot better than the 50 plus year old pipelines that currently run all over the US. I lived in Michigan when a 48" pipeline broke 200 yards from our house. There were over 600 homes evacuated for several days. The break contaminated everyone's wells. The pipeline was over 50 years old and had never been inspected. Oh, by the way, in the form of a settlement, we god $453 dollars per household, city water and a water bill.

I am sure that you appreciate the concern of the good people in Nebraska and sympathize with them in that that this oil is more of an environmental concern than what you experienced.

Originally Posted by Guest

I am sure that you appreciate the concern of the good people in Nebraska and sympathize with them in that that this oil is more of an environmental concern than what you experienced.

Of course we do.
How many of them are there?
How many homes affected VS being on the back 40?
What is the opinion of each of those who have such property?

Then we can address the issue fairly instead if emotionally.

Originally Posted by Guest

Of course we do.
How many of them are there?
How many homes affected VS being on the back 40?
What is the opinion of each of those who have such property?

Then we can address the issue fairly instead if emotionally.

For Nebraska and all the other states as well.
Why is there not an uproar coming from those affected in all the states.....instead of just from those with a political persuasion ONLY?

Originally Posted by Guest

I am sure that you appreciate the concern of the good people in Nebraska and sympathize with them in that that this oil is more of an environmental concern than what you experienced.

Then why don't we just shut down ALL of the pipelines and ship all oil by rail and truck? What I am saying is that everybody knows that with today's technology, the US can build a much better pipeline than what was built 50+ years ago. If anything, we should be shutting down all of the old pipelines and building new ones.

Originally Posted by Guest

Then why don't we just shut down ALL of the pipelines and ship all oil by rail and truck? What I am saying is that everybody knows that with today's technology, the US can build a much better pipeline than what was built 50+ years ago. If anything, we should be shutting down all of the old pipelines and building new ones.

Concur if you are talking about rebuilding America's infrastructure and shipping America's oil that significantly more environmentally friendly for America's use.

The senate begins today the procedure for taking a vote on overriding the president's veto.

Originally Posted by Guest

Then why don't we just shut down ALL of the pipelines and ship all oil by rail and truck? What I am saying is that everybody knows that with today's technology, the US can build a much better pipeline than what was built 50+ years ago. If anything, we should be shutting down all of the old pipelines and building new ones.

I think a more effective solution would be for all liberal democrats to immediately stop using all oil and gas products plus swear off electricity too. This would reduce carbon emissions, stick it to evil Big Oil where it hurts and then place the wacko environment secular religious movement in a position of moral authority

Get Ready: The Senate Will Start Trying To Override Obama's Keystone XL Veto Today | ThinkProgress

The debate is starting today.

Yea, right, how'd that work out for y'all?