Sibby Online

Will Heidepriem help landowners?

[Note to Todd Epp readers: I would have pointed this out at Epp's web site, but he keeps deleting my comments. Epp thinks a Islamic fascist dictator of Iran deserves free speech, but Sibby can go to hell. And he wonders why he gets put into the anti-American catagory.]

The Mitchell Daily Republic reported today at the very top of their front-page today that South Dakota landowners have been served eminent domain condemnation papers by the Canadian owned TransCanada:

[Lillian] Anderson, of rural Langford, and her husband, Raymond, have been active in the fight against the pipeline since a representative arrived at their farm and made her feel "threatened."

Anderson said eminent domain papers have already been issued to many landowners in the area. Since they have one month to compose their reaction, she said that finding legal representation is important.

While she did not reveal the complete list of lawyers contacted so far, she did say Heidepriem is an option and has been contacted.

The report also mentioned the meeting I just attended:

Meanwhile, another meeting has been scheduled to discuss pipeline issues. Area residents will meet at 7 tonight at Joe’s Café in Alexandria.

Bernie Kayser, of Alexandria, said he is hoping to gather landowners who have refused to sign easements offered by TransCanada and are now under threat of eminent domain.

As a member of the Hanson Rural Water Board, Kayser said he is concerned with not only the potential displacement of rural water pipes but also what he considers a lack of liability on the part of TransCanada if the pipeline leaks.

He said he and others hope to find at least 50 landowners interested in fighting the pipeline.

"It’s hard to find the ones that haven’t signed (the easements)," he said. "I’m just trying to get some people in there."

Kayser said Salem resident Ed Miller, a former employee of Exxon, will deliver a presentation tonight detailing the potential dangers of oil leaks from the proposed pipeline.

Ed Miller presentation included research that sowed pipeline leads since 1985 amounted to 13 times the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez. His analysis also shows that TransCanada projections for the proposed pipeline grossly understates the likely hood and the amount of oil leaks based on an independent study, Enbridge’s Social Corporate Responsibility reports and U.S Office of Pipeline Safety data.

Note the mention of "at least 50 landowners". Lillian Anderson is being told to find 50 clients for Heidepriem in order to get his legal representation for herself…to fight a foreign big oil corporation, who does not appear to be negotiating in good faith and is seeking legal action to have its way with landowners on a one on one basis. She said that TransCanada has and is gobbling up South Dakota’s property rights legal talent for themselves. And I find it troubling that a single landowner (and even nine) total) has to go through so much trouble to get legal help. A murderer and a child molester has more rights.

Curt Hohn also spoke at tonight’s meeting and said that this could affect more than just the landowners that are in the path of the proposed pipeline. He said that a leak can impact his rural water customers. He also suspects TransCanda picked nine Day and Marshall County landowners who have been vocal about their opposition to the pipeline as another one of their intimidation tactics by serving the condemnations to make examples out of them.

The Mitchell Daily Republic was present tonight, so there should be more coverage in tomorrow’s paper.

TransCanada gains Canadian approval

From the Argus Leader:

In the busy energy universe that South Dakota has become, replete with coal, wind, ethanol and oil refining projects either continuing, in development or in concept stages, TransCanada took a step this week to keep up.

It announced Friday it has received regulatory approval from Canada's National Energy Board to build the first phase of the Canadian portion of its proposed Keystone pipeline. It would carry as much as 590,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Alberta through South Dakota to oil refineries in Illinois, and Oklahoma.

Now for the American side of the border:

In the U.S., TransCanada awaits federal and state regulatory approval.

"A final environmental impact statement should come out by the end of this year," Shapiro says.

It will be a prelude to the U.S. State Department deciding whether to allow the Keystone pipeline to cross the U.S. border, and decisions by state entities such as the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission whether to approve the project.

Dusty Johnson, South Dakota PUC chairman, says the PUC has set aside the first two weeks in December to gather evidence, including documents and testimony from both proponents and opponents. And the PUC already has dealt with the Keystone project at eight meetings and four public hearings.

"This very much shows we are taking this seriously," he says.
Unlike South Dakota, many states don't have authority over the project, he says.

The PUC is approaching Keystone from multiple perspectives, Johnson says. On one hand, it is tightly focused on the project as proposed, in which crude oil would pass through South Dakota.

"It's really unfair to the applicant to get confused on what the project might be 10 years down the road or 20 years," Johnson says.

But it is unfair to the landowners not to look into the long-term aspect of the pipeline. What happens when TransCanada or whoever they may sell it to abandons the pipeline? The question becomes, will it be left in a safe status? But the PUC is more in tune to the "economic impact" of the pipeline:

On the other hand, "in a broader sense, it has very much occurred to us that South Dakota is energy central right now ... Some staff members have made it clear the commission has never been busier," and the PUC is attentive to how Keystone might fit in with a proposed new oil refinery near Elk Point and with the array of other energy projects in the state.

"We are far-sighted," Johnson says.

Approval by the National Energy Board allows Keystone to convert 537 miles of existing Canadian Mainline natural gas pipeline to a crude oil pipeline and build 232 miles of pipeline, pump stations and terminals. The ruling also approves TransCanada's plan for assessing tolls and tariffs on the product Keystone carries.

Note that there are no "tolls and tarriffs" planed for South Dakota landowners. They are now confronted with eminent domain proceedings that look at current fair market value of the land itself. And one wonders how the general welfare to American can be extended to a Canadian corporation to the point that they can use eminent domain on American landowners.

Selling America out to foreign interests

I have received word that TransCanada has already filed eminent domain suits in the northern part of South Dakota in order to make way for their pipeline, even though the PUC has yet to officially approve. I have also heard word that land agents for TransCanada are bragging about how TransCanada and the South Dakota PUC have already secretly agreed to the pipeline. This report gives further concern for the globalists’ agenda and the lack of an open government:

EuroMoney PLC, the UK-based company that arranges dozens of financial conferences around the world each year, has refused to allow WND staff reporter Jerome Corsi to attend next week's "North American PPP (Public-Private Partnership) & Infrastructure Finance Conference" in New York, even though WND offered to pay the $1,999 conference fee required to attend.

"When government officials want to go behind closed doors with investment bankers and lawyers to discuss selling our public infrastructure to foreign investment leaders, investigative reporters need to be there to tell the public what is really going on," Corsi said.

"Why is it that all these PPP and SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) meetings are behind closed doors," Corsi asked, "and government officials and their supporters think that's normal? But when investigative reporters want to attend and report on what is being said, we are the ones who get accused of being the conspiracy theorists?"

"By refusing to allow WND to attend as a paying customer," Corsi argued, "EuroMoney is telling the American public that they intend to conduct a secret meeting designed to teach government officials how to sell out U.S. public infrastructure to foreign investment concerns."

"I'm sure we will all be told that EuroMoney seminars and PPP structures are really for our 'security and prosperity,' just as President Bush asserts for the SPP itself," Corsi continued. "Evidently we are just supposed to close our eyes and trust government officials, investment bankers, and international lawyers, putting aside national security concerns and other economic issues which we believe may be of concern to our readers."

According to the conference brochure, the purpose of the EuroMoney seminar is to teach state and local government officials in the U.S. how to lease a wide range of public assets to international and foreign private investment groups.

So as the big government socialists provide wealth to the big corporate capitalists, the big get bigger and the little guy gets trampled. And America’s freedoms get destroyed in the process. And such is the case with this TransCanda pipeline. The small farmer and rancher in South Dakota cannot say no to the foreign big oil interests who want easements on their lands to place a hazard underneath it. The ones that say no are being take to American courts by Canadian interests to force the pipeline onto them and their posterity.

In 2006, the South Dakota legislature passed a law 67 to 1`\ in the House and 35 to 0 in the Senate that says:

An Act to restrict the use of eminent domain under certain circumstances and to protect certain private property rights from acquisition by the use or threat of eminent domain.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. No county, municipality, or housing and redevelopment commission, as provided for in chapter 11-7, may acquire private property by use of eminent domain:

(1) For transfer to any private person, nongovernmental entity, or other public-private business entity; or

(2) Primarily for enhancement of tax revenue.
Section 2. No county, municipality, or housing and redevelopment commission, as provided for in chapter 11-7, may transfer any fee interest in property acquired by the use or threat of eminent domain within seven years of acquisition to any private person, nongovernmental entity, or public-private business entity without first offering to sell such fee interest back to the person who originally owned the property, or such person's heirs or assigns, at current fair market value, whether the property has been improved or has remained unimproved during the interval, or at the original transfer value, whichever is less.

Note that the restriction on eminent domain applies only to "county, municipality, or housing and redevelopment commission". The 2008 South Dakota legislature needs to revisit this issue and amend the law so that it also applies to state level entities that can approve such things as a foreign pipeline.

Bush administration follows Canadian law

There has been talk about the role President Bush has in setting up a North American Union. Today the Argus Leader is reported that the federal governent is now going to follow Canadian law in regard to the TransCanada pipeline project that is running through South Dakota:

A federal agency will allow TransCanada Keystone to design parts of its proposed crude oil pipeline for a stress level higher than current U.S. standards.

The company filed a copy of the approved federal waiver, issued by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission as part of the record in its request for a permit in the state.

The waiver "allows Keystone to design, construct and operate two new crude oil pipelines using a design factor and operating stress level of 80 percent of the steel pipe's specified minimum yield strength in rural areas," according to a document signed by Jeffrey Wiese, acting associate director of the agency.

The waiver would allow slightly thinner steel for manufacture of the pipe to reduce construction costs, said Dana Medlin, associate professor of materials and metallurgical engineering at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.

"A slightly lower safety factor, that's what we're talking about here," Medlin said, "Pipes are a little bit over-designed, anyway."

The special permit "provides some relief from the federal pipeline safety regulations," while at the same time "ensuring that pipeline safety is not compromised," Wiese wrote.

The standard in the U.S. is 72 percent of specified minimum yield strength. Wiese's communication noted that Canadian standards already allow operators to design and operate hazardous liquid pipelines at 80 percent.

It's a first for the federal agency, Wiese noted.

And the Canadian firm is already threatening to use eminent domain as a threat to get American land rights. Technically, they can't do that until and if the South Dakota PUC approves their project. Perhaps the "North American Union" is already here in spirit.

PUC hearing on TransCanada

From the Argus Leader:

A formal hearing on a Canadian company's plan to build a crude oil pipeline through South Dakota will be held in December, the state Public Utilities Commission decided Tuesday.

The PUC settled on a two-pronged approach to the matter, which is scheduled for a two-week hearing in the first half of December.

Anyone who wishes to offer comments about the project would have that opportunity in one portion of the December hearings.

The second portion would be a more formal hearing. Prefiled testimony would be required for that portion of the process, and those who offered such testimony would be open to cross-examination.

Big oil is not economic development?

On June 9, 2007 Todd Epp says this about the TransCanda pipeline:

The Fed also notes the potential economic impact such a crude line could have for the region.

Yesterday Todd Epp slams me as he says this about the TransCanda pipeline:

And never mind that this law pre-dates the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision about the use of eminent domain for purely economic reasons by about 84 years.

Todd Epp needs to clarify his position, is big oil a purely capitalist enterprise, or is the industry a "public use" that is good for the common good of our Nation?

Epp also said this about the law that allows TransCanda to use eminent domain:

The law has been on the books since 1921 and recodified in 1939. Obviously at this time, South Dakota and its legislature were dominanted by godless, Communist, property-taking secular humanists who dreamed of taking (but paying fair market value for) the property of stout yeoman farmers like the Sibson clan for silly projects like telegraph and telephone lines and oh, yes, by the way, petroleum pipelines.

And of course, there’s never been any opportunity to amend the law once the Right thinking Republicans who have run this state for the last forty years have been in power.

Epp must have been asleep. The legislature did react. Because of the uproar over Kelo, the South Dakota legislature passed HB1080 in 2006. It is now South Dakota Codified laws, 11-7-22.1:

11-7-22.1. Acquisition of private property by eminent domain for certain uses prohibited. No county, municipality, or housing and redevelopment commission, as provided for in this chapter, may acquire private property by use of eminent domain:

(1) For transfer to any private person, nongovernmental entity, or other public-private business entity; or

(2) Primarily for enhancement of tax revenue.

Source: SL 2006, ch 66, § 1.

Note that the law was limited to "county, municipality, or housing and redevelopment commission". Nothing there that would stop the "State" to acquire private property and hand it over to "public-private business entity" for economic development reasons.

And Todd Epp should also take interest in what Bob Mercer reported yesterday in the Mitchell Daily Republic (not online):

When Mike Rounds ran for governor in 2002, about the only connections we noticed between the successful insurance businessman and energy policy was that his dad, Don, was a long-time lobbyist for the petroleum industry and Mike’s record as a legislator wasn’t exactly pro-ethanol.

Since his election, Gov. Rounds has used the power of his state agencies to raise South Dakota’s profile in the energy sector. The recent revelation that there could be built a Hyperion oil refinery in southeastern South Dakota is the biggest news yet.

So Todd Epp better rethink his position. I can't beleive his is defending Mike Rounds and the interests of big oil.

This so-called hard-cored Republican blogger does not agree with the Country Club Republicans using the "power of the State" to take money and property from the common folk and hand it over to business interests purely for economic development reasons because it increases the amount of taxes the government collects. This marriage of big government Democrat socialism and GOP capitalism is not what I consider "free-market" limited government. This is not what I consider traditional American principles.

Gorilla refinery under fire

From the Argus Leader:

A group concerned about plans for an oil refinery north of Elk Point is planning the first in a series of community meetings.

The Save Union County Committee will hold a "public awareness workshop" at 3 p.m. Thursday. The meeting site will be announced soon, the group said.

Denny Larson, coordinator of the National Refinery Reform Campaign, will give a presentation, according to a statement.

"Refineries have traditionally been one of the nation's major sources of tons of toxic organic compounds, like cancer-causing benzene, and chemicals which cause asthma and childhood-development problems," according to the statement.

The San Francisco-based Refinery Reform Campaign wants to clean up America's oil refineries and reduce the nation's dependence on fossil fuels, according to its Web site.

So as the environmentalists have yet to weigh in on the TransCanada pipeline, they are taking aim at the proposed refinery. And one of the environmentalists’ favorite politicians is also taking interest:

Sen. Tim Johnson's economic development director, Matt Varilek, will be in the Elk Point, Vermillion, Yankton and North Sioux City areas today to meet with residents and get feedback.

"I want to hear more from the people of Union County, especially now that the 'Gorilla Project' has been unveiled," Johnson said in a statement announcing Varilek's trip.

If built, the $8 billion project would be the first oil refinery built in the U.S. since 1976. It would refine 400,000 barrels of oil into low-sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel each day.

The report does not state that the refinery is to use the same tarsand oil that TransCanada is pushing. During the PUC hearings, TransCanada admitted that there is room for a second pipeline within the 50 foot easement for the first pipeline. Even though they say there is no connection, one has to wonder.

And as I stated earlier, if refining oil from Canada is considered "public use", why not offer up the Badlands as a site for the refinery?

Sandlin weighs in on TransCanada

From the Argus Leader:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin weighed in on the eminent domain issue in her weekly phone conference with reporters Thursday.

She pointed out she is a strong proponent of private property rights and introduced a bill in Congress that would make it more difficult for local and state governments to condemn private property to aid private development. However, she noted public utilities, roadways and pipelines often are granted the use of eminent domain.

"I would hope TransCanada would be a good corporate partner and work with landowners who would be affected if the process goes through to avoid the need to exercise eminent domain in as many cases as possible," she said.

Before TransCanada can acquire land through condemnation, "the state PUC has to approve the project," she added.

But according to the report, the PUC has no authority over the issue of eminent domain:

Dusty Johnson, chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, which is in the early stages of gathering facts and reviewing TransCanada's permit application, says the issue of eminent domain is not a factor in the PUC decision to issue a permit.

"There are a lot of sticky things we have to look at in this case," he said. "I am relieved this sticky eminent domain issue is not something the PUC has authority over."

Primarily, the PUC will look at the environmental effect of the pipeline, whether it affects the safety and well being of people, and whether it interferes with the orderly development of the region it passes through.

Instead of passing the buck to the PUC, who has no authority ofver the issue of eminent domain, Herseth Sandlin should take a stand on whether a Canadian firm can use eminent domain to take property owned from South Dakotans in order to feed refineries of petroleum products, which do not seem to fit the definition of a "public utility".

And it was also stated at the PUC public hearings that TransCanada avoids crossing National Parks. So if this pipeline is considered a "public use" project, then why not use "public land" as much as possible? Now that would fire up the environmentalists, as it would affect their backyard. If the federal government believes this project is needed, why not offer up the Badlands. I am sure the idea that the brown Badlands being turned into Badlands black would be upsetting to Badlands Blue.

Big oil versus small farmer

Here is an Op-ed from the Mitchell Daily Republic regarding TransCanada’s threat of using eminent domain:

Eminent domain is a scary phrase.

Used in the past for sweeping projects, like laying railroad lines into the frontier, it’s a rather simple idea: Get on board or get out of the way, all in the name of what someone considers progress.

Eminent domain was brought up at a recent meeting in Alexandria to discuss a proposed pipeline project through eastern South Dakota. TransCanada wants to run a pipe from Canada to Illinois, which it will use to pump crude oil.

The problem is that landowners along the proposed route aren’t so sure they want the pipe across their property. The meetings were designed for landowners to learn more about the project and, we hoped, to ease their concerns about the confusing contracts they were being asked to sign.

Then came talk of eminent domain, or the power to take private property for public use, in exchange for just compensation to landowners. State law allows it, provided the pipeline meets certain criteria; TransCanada’s lawyers believe it does.

"Buster" Gray, an independent contractor working with TransCanada on the project, told The Daily Republic after the meeting that even if the company begins the eminent domain process, it still will try to negotiate agreements with the landowners who stand in the way.

That’s good news, but we still hope it doesn’t come to that.

We can’t blame landowners in the pipeline’s path for being suspicious. Whereas the pipeline is expected to produce jobs, a boost in property tax for counties and cash in the form of landowner contracts, it is a scary proposition.

Contracts presented to landowners aren’t easy to understand, many are saying. That doesn’t help the situation.

We realize that not everyone will be in agreement with the pipeline and especially its proposed route. We just don’t like the possibility of a large corporation simply taking the land it covets.

It’s important to keep in mind that eminent domain actually could be a good thing for some landowners. A jury in an eminent domain case could award a higher land price than TransCanada is offering. Also, if eminent domain is used, it could be better for landowners in the future, especially if there are serious problems with the pipeline, such as a major spill.

But considering TransCanada has billions of dollars and plenty of lawyers to help its cause, eminent domain in this case certainly is a David vs. Goliath proposition.

It’s hard not to side with the little guy.

Oil spill concerns regarding water supply

This just up from Seward, Nebraska:

Representatives of the Seward Citizens Committee on Pipeline Route shared their concerns about the proposed TransCanada Pipeline during the June 19 Seward City Council meeting.

The proposed pipeline route is west of Seward and runs within 1.5 miles of the city's wellfield and water treatment plant. Jon Kruse and Richard Zwick, both of Seward, asked the council to consider an alternate route for the pipeline around Seward.

One of their primary concerns is protecting the city's water supply in the event of a leak along the pipeline. According to A Spill Frequency Volume Study, Kruse said, a spill of between 50 and 1,000 barrels or up to 42,000 gallons may happen anywhere along the pipeline once in 12 years. A spill of more than 10,000 barrels might happen once in 50 years.

In addition to the oil that would leach into the groundwater, Kruse reviewed the chemicals that are included in crude oil, among them benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

"These compounds are more water soluble and can disperse further and more rapidly in both surface and ground waters than other crude oil substances," Kruse said. "These compounds pose a significant threat to water quality."

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency allows just 5/1,000th part per million of benzene in drinking water. In addition, Kruse said, a study conducted by Iowa State University found that petroleum and crude oil products may leach through PVC pipe, which is what the city's water system uses, and contaminate the water.