Feds Pave Way for Fracking Industry to Perpetrate Biggest Land Grab in U.S. History -

[DanBlue]

Folks researching the land they wish to build a log home on might find the below resource helpful....Thanks!


http://www.stuarthsmith.com/feds-pave-way-for-fracking-industry-to-perpetrate-biggest-land-grab-in-u-s-history/

[edkemper]

With the apparent results of the vote yesterday, this is even more likely to continue.

[DanBlue]

With the apparent results of the vote yesterday, this is even more likely to continue.

Unfortunately yes...I did a tremendous amount of due diligence on this subject before I purchased my land. The Marcellus Shale footprint completely ends about 70 miles south of where my land is..Northern and Western PA, Ohio and West Virginia have the most abundant shale, and a VERY liberal legislation to allow the oil & gas companies to do as they wish!! Isn't it ironic that property taxes are cheap in these states??? Go figure! If they want to drill on your land, they are going to drill on your land..AND, you'll only pay $100 per year in taxes!!! Freedom and Liberty at its best! I love it!

The Southern Tier region of NY has about 20% of the natural gas resources PA has if that, and the drilling logistics are much more complex in NY than in PA, not to mention NY still has yet to allow the drilling in the Southern Tier region, and they likely will never allow the big fracking operations to touch NY.

It would be very expensive for the Oil & Gas companies to drill in NY anyway even if it were legal! The small amounts of shale in the Southern Tier are geologically marginal...it would be a very big gamble for the gas companies to even drill in NY and if they did happen to hit a natural gas vein, the payoff would certainly be marginal.

These oil & gas companies don't even want to fool around with the NY political "red tape." This is the same "red tape" that says you can only have a 10 round magazine for your rifle..I'll take New Yorks hard line position on the gun magazine stuff all day long, because it's the same political hard line posture that will preserve the natural beauty of the Southern Tier in the State of NY! High property taxes in NY??? Happy to pay..on time, year after year!

No fracking, no sink holes, no "land grab" no chemicals infesting my water table....thank you kindly!

[loghousenut]

I guess that's one more reason to live in sunny southern Oregon. No more loggers, no more mills. Just a bunch of pot heads.

[thoner7]

Actually, it's less likely to continue.

The whole premise that the government can take land from one citizen and give it to another is a severe stretch of the fifth amendment. A true conservative would see this as black and white, and the answer obvious, while a liberal would read into it and try to stretch the law into meaning something else. (This is also why "shall not be infringed" can mean limiting to 10 rnd mags and the outright banning of certain firearms)

This is/was no more evident than in the SC case dealing in exactly this type of land grab situation. The five most liberal judges voted for, the most conservative judges voted against.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Just because one side backs fracking does not mean they would support this type of land grab. After all, the only reason it's Constitutional is because of five liberal Supreme Court justices.

[DanBlue]

The only thing that matters to me are facts. Fact 1: The Marcellus Shale ends 70 miles South of where I bought my land in a state that does not allow the big companies to do this fracking nonsense....I'm less likely to have to deal with any drama in my wooded, outdoor living homestead..that's it. Don't care who is in office..at federal level, state, or county, Supreme Court, blah blah blah..I'm not near this Marcellus Shale drama,, and that's what matters to me and what I desire to accomplish with my land and cabin..real simple.

Speaking in absolute terms i.e.how a Liberal or Conservative will behave has no meaning whatsoever in this country..it never did. The powers that be would like you to "believe" there are differences, but holistically, it's all designed to make liberal/conservative citizens argue about the crap that does not matter, while industry leaders and banks write the legislation, and avoid taxes.....

"Just because one side backs fracking does not mean they would support this type of land grab."??? Central New York Oil & Gas is planning to cut a 50 foot wide tract through Mr. Swarts' land...they are "grabbing" that land..it is happening in real life, real time...Lets call Mr. Swarts, the fellow in PA that's battling his land grab court case in PA and ask him how it's all working out for him...what a complete disaster!!! Just having to deal with the courts with something like this is a headache none of us need to deal with...

Obama is much much more of a Hawk than Bush ever dreamed of being, and Kennedy did more to ramp up Defense spending while Eisenhower desperately tried to stop defense spending...Eisenhower even went so far as to warn us of the "Military Industrial Complex" in his speech when he left office..watch that sometime..it's amazing..Truman (a Democrat) dropped the atomic bomb... The talking points and concerns within every election cycle stays the same...none of it matters...The power brokers laugh at us for evening buying into the idea that liberals and democrats are different ideologically while they control things behind the curtain..I quit buying into what seemed to be "fundamental" differences at about 18 years old..I'm now 41.

[DanBlue]

I'd love to be in Oregon...

[rckclmbr428]

I grew up with 2) 24" gas lines running through our property, never bothered us, in fact they would come mow the gas line right aways at least once a year, and would typically mow anything else that was close by. Was great for riding dirt bikes on also

[rreidnauer]

I'd have to agree. Once the transport lines are in and the actual fracking done, there's hardly anything obtrusive about it. I'm actually part of a landowners group trying to attract a lease from the gas companies. The chance of a pad on my property is practically nil, as they target mostly farm fields to set up their fracking pad. (which can be a couple acres, but has to be level) If anything, the worst part of fracking, during the actual fracking process, is all the tanker trucks tearing up the roads.

It's not hard keeping them off your land. Don't sign a lease agreement, they don't come on. They just set up on an adjacent property and horizontal drill under you, and you get no royalties.

By the way, here, gas rights are not the same thing as mineral rights, which changes up the whole land grab argument.

[DanBlue]

From what I can tell, there's an upset fellow that owns land in PA that feels compelled to protect his rights as a land owner. Because he wants to protect his "rights", he's having to hire attorneys and deal with the court system to try and stop a gas company from cutting a 50 foot wide area of old growth trees on his property so the gas company can run some pipes..If folks don't see the fundamental issues with this, then I need to just stick to discussing log sizes and tools on this forum.

I appreciate the fact that some folks wouldn't mind gas lines running through their property..that's perfectly fine. But there are some of us that wouldn't want gas lines on our land, not to mention being bullied and having to fight a company in court to keep said company from cutting down nice trees on that land...land that we THOUGHT we had rights to.... it's just completely unacceptable to me....

[rckclmbr428]

The idea of private land ownership in this country is a farce. You only own the right to pay taxes on the land, as long as you actually pay the taxes. If you stop someone else will be sold that right.

[thoner7]

From what I can tell, there's an upset fellow that owns land in PA that feels compelled to protect his rights as a land owner. Because he wants to protect his "rights", he's having to hire attorneys and deal with the court system to try and stop a gas company from cutting a 50 foot wide area of old growth trees on his property so the gas company can run some pipes..If folks don't see the fundamental issues with this, then I need to just stick to discussing log sizes and tools on this forum.

I appreciate the fact that some folks wouldn't mind gas lines running through their property..that's perfectly fine. But there are some of us that wouldn't want gas lines on our land, not to mention being bullied and having to fight a company in court to keep said company from cutting down nice trees on that land...land that we THOUGHT we had rights to.... it's just completely unacceptable to me....

I very much have a problem with it, don't get me wrong.

I just wanted to point out that the blame seemed to land on the wrong side of the political spectrum.

[jasonfromutah]

I may be off subject a bit, but I can speak with a little experience.

Gas leases are great. I work with oil and gas companies and I can assure you that most, if not all people who have a mineral rights lease on their property are WELL compensated. If I owned land, I would absolutely love to lease out my land. The companies I have dealt with are not the mean monster the media portrays them to be. They go out of their way to make everyone happy. A large pipe line came through our community a few years back. It was installed. re-seeded in just a few months.

Now, having said this, I am 100% against people telling you what you can and cannot do with your property. I hate home owners associations, and ordinances that tell you that you have to paint your house a certain color, can only have so many cars parked in your drive way etc.....

I can definitely see both sides here. I am just giving you my opinion.

I am pro fracking and pro drilling. We are becoming less dependent on foreign oil. This is a great thing to me!

[loghousenut]

Lil ole owil well sure does hep run a rainch!


... Old Texas proverb... complete with proper west Texas spelling.





I'm on neither (I mean all) sides of this one.

[rreidnauer]

. . . . . The companies I have dealt with are not the mean monster the media portrays them to be. They go out of their way to make everyone happy. . . . .Steve Wolfe up in NE Pennsylvania was to have a gas line laid across his property. He ASKED if they would re-route it, and suggested a new path. The gas company did.

Got to remember it's humans dealing with humans, and crap in = crap out. Or is it, you catch more flies with honey, than vinegar. Ehh, either way. . . .

[DanBlue]

Freedom means freedom period. i.e. being able to do what you wish to do on land you own and pay taxes on. Unfortunately that fellow battling a gas company in PA, his freedom is being compromised..it's happening.

BTW, being less dependent on Foreign Oil-meaning OPEC removes the US dollar peg off of oil-the US dollar will lose about 30% of its value overnight..how do you folks think we've been able to enjoy cheap money and easy cheap credit in this country for 60 plus years??? It aint because we're smart, entitled, or because God has blessed the US in some devine way because we're so great, it's because nations must use US dollars to purchase OPEC oil...if that changes and we go to a basket of currencies, billions of US dollars flood back to this country, and things fundamentally change in a big, big way...that's the deal....

I'm all for moving the US dollar off of the OPEC oil peg, but it sure is going to desperately upset the "sheep" in this country and change American lifestyles in a big, bad way....

[DanBlue]

Steve Wolfe up in NE Pennsylvania was to have a gas line laid across his property. He ASKED if they would re-route it, and suggested a new path. The gas company did.

Got to remember it's humans dealing with humans, and crap in = crap out. Or is it, you catch more flies with honey, than vinegar. Ehh, either way. . . .

I subscribe to the honey/vinegar philosophy daily in my business with great success....Steve Wolfe is certainly fortunate..I for one simply wouldn't even want to have to deal with discussing any of this stuff as it might pertain to my land with anyone at all but that's just me...

[DanBlue]

I'm simply on the side of not really trusting legislators or big gas firms with deep pockets sniffing around my land for resources, areas to lay gas pipes, drilling near my water table, etc....that's just me...I'm simply voicing the fact that I wouldn't even want to risk having to potentially "deal" with any of it...I tried to mitigate these risks by purchsing land well away from the shale areas..that's all.

[DanBlue]

Lil ole owil well sure does hep run a rainch!


... Old Texas proverb... complete with proper west Texas spelling.





I'm on neither (I mean all) sides of this one.

I'm simply on the side of not really trusting legislators or big gas firms with deep pockets sniffing around my land for resources, areas to lay gas pipes, drilling near my water table, etc....that's just me...I'm simply voicing the fact that I wouldn't even want to risk having to potentially "deal" with any of it...I tried to mitigate these risks by purchsing land well away from the shale areas..that's all.

[edkemper]

> Or is it, you catch more flies with honey, than vinegar. Ehh, either way. . . .

JMHO - I've personally found you can catch a lot more flies with manure or rotting flesh of any type than with any brand of honey or vinegar. Perhaps it's just different in the West.

[WNYcabinplannin]

Here in western NY, particularly the finger lakes region where my cabin is, fracking is highly unpopular. I have neighbors on both sides. I see both pros and cons, particularly these:
Pro- get off foreign oil, NG/LP cleaner than coal, domestic job boost, and NYS needs the $$.
Cons: massive amount of fresh water needed. Non disclosure of brine ingredients (I get it, multiple companies/ trade secrets?) but if they want us to trust it's safe we got to know what IT IS!?!.
Biggest no from me is this: a permanent ban on the pocket above NYC. Rest of the state is fair game. If it's too risky for NYC, it's too risky for the rest of us!
Engineer from Suburban Propane (my LP for cabin) said they shouldn't do "hydraulic fracking" bc there's actually a GLUT right now.
Ok my $.02 from NY tonight.

[Mrs. Len]

Very disturbing on every level, can't imagine how awful it is for that poor guy! Old growth trees...unreal?! We are in the foothills of the Olympic Mountains, so at least aren't facing that type of scenario. Imminent Domain has been used illegally for a long time.

[rreidnauer]

I was just watching a story on Oklahoma PBS of a city using eminent domain to acquire homes that were in risk of going into forecloser and displacing the families living in them. Then the city would set up a new mortgage so the families could afford to stay.

Maybe for the good, maybe not, but one thing that is for sure, it is an abuse of the premise of eminent domain. It goes on for MANY things. Not just the 'evil' gas drillers.

[DanBlue]

Hello WNYcabinplannin..There is NO WAY IN HELL anyone with a vested interest ANYWHERE NEAR NYC wants this drilling...because folks know it's dangerous and it causes earthquakes/sink holes, etc...These real-estate guys and the city of New York are way to savvy to allow it......it's just bad stuff..kinda like land fills...we want them, we need them, just not in my back yard right??

[DanBlue]

I was just watching a story on Oklahoma PBS of a city using eminent domain to acquire homes that were in risk of going into forecloser and displacing the families living in them. Then the city would set up a new mortgage so the families could afford to stay.

Maybe for the good, maybe not, but one thing that is for sure, it is an abuse of the premise of eminent domain. It goes on for MANY things. Not just the 'evil' gas drillers.

The gas drillers aren't evil folks..The reason I want a hand made log cabin I've built myself speaks to the same reason that I want a natural, wooded environment with clean water....I don't want gas being drilled anywhere near my wooded land..I don't want sections of our beautiful landscape destroyed so gas lines can be run..it defeats the purpose of why I'm building in the woods..

I'm an end user of land fills, but I wouldn't want my land close to a land fill...I wouldn't want the trash trucks cutting a road through my land to drive the trash through...So that's why I've bought my land 70 miles north of where the marcellus shale formation...I'm simply mitigating my risk of being bothered...I desire an ecosystem as natural as it might have been 200 years ago...that is what I personally am attempting....What would Theodore Roosevelt say? You all should watch the National Geographic series "The National Parks" produced by Ken Burns....

[rocklock]

There is NO WAY IN HELL anyone with a vested interest ANYWHERE NEAR NYC wants this drilling...because folks know it's dangerous and it causes earthquakes/sink holes,...

OK, I have avoided this topic until now. My brother-in-law has been fracking for at least 20 years. He just retired. I talked to him. His response about the dangers of fracking stuff is BS. He said that they pump cement into the hole that is some times 3 to 5 miles under ground, then pump pressurized water to put hair line cracks in the cement, then reduce the pressure to draw the gas or oil out. Horizontal drilling has changed drilling. Now drilling rigs must be able to bend steel pipes. My nephew is currently the master on one of these new rigs. They are very powerful and not cheap. But one rig can drill many wells in all different directions.

Fracking is not dangerous. Fracking will not cause earth plates to move (earth quakes) nor sink holes. Its high pressure cement with hairline cracks in it.

[slamasha]

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/03/26/G34045.1.abstract
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/04/tracing-links-between-fracking-and-earthquakes/

There are many scientific studies that link fracking with earthquake activity. Also, water contamination could be an issue. Industry would give out grants to justify it's all OK (and employees would believe so), but independent researches show it's not that harmless.

My nephew is a Chemical Engineer and he worked for ExxonMobil for a while, he believes fracking could be dangerous.
/2 cents/

[rreidnauer]

Earthquakes can and do happen from fracking. However, it's areas already prone to them, and typically they tend to be very mild, or even unnoticed. But it's easy for the media to say "an earthquake happened where fracing activity is going on" but fail to include the fact that everyone probably slept through it because it was so minor.

I too don't buy the fracing induced water contamination arguement. Gas drilling is many, many times below any aquifer, and as Rockock has already pointed out, the well is sealed to allow the strata to be fractured under (incredibly) high pressure. If it were not, fracing fluid would be ejected out the top of a well. (explosively)

Rocklock said they use water, which is true, but it isn't just water. There are chemicals used to help break bonds in the strata layers and to help convey sand particles that are also pumped in to hold the fractures open. Not to be unexpected, they can be bad. I once asked a rep for the industry, why they don't reuse the fracing fluid, and the answer was the chemical composition changes after reacting with the strata. But there is no argument that there IS water contamination happening from fracing fluid. The thing is, it's not the well that is doing it. It's the tanker drivers on a late night run, dumping it somewhere they aren't suppose to, to save a buck or an hour. Given a little time to work it's way down to the water table, and bango, you got all the proof one needs to say fracing wells contaminated my water.

Sinkhole argument I believe is BS. Fracing doesn't create any giant voids. We're talking minute fractures the size of a grain of sand.

I can see an oil guy thinking gas drilling being a bad thing. Look, the public is always going to fear what it doesn't understand. And it doesn't take much to get a few myths rolling, especially with today's media, which is more concerned with ratings than fact. (Trivia: when the shopping cart was first invented by Sylvan Goldman in 1937, the public was afraid/apprehensive to use them. It's just human nature to fear the unknown)

[Drummerboy]

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/03/26/G34045.1.abstract
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/04/tracing-links-between-fracking-and-earthquakes/

There are many scientific studies that link fracking with earthquake activity. Also, water contamination could be an issue. Industry would give out grants to justify it's all OK (and employees would believe so), but independent researches show it's not that harmless.

My nephew is a Chemical Engineer and he worked for ExxonMobil for a while, he believes fracking could be dangerous.
/2 cents/

Last week read an article that scientists underestimated the risk of earth quakes, example Oklahoma had 2 earthquakes a year before fracking, last year had 435 mol

[rreidnauer]

And "earthquake" being a very generalized word for something catastrophic to imperceptible, of those 435 quakes, how many were strong enough to even be felt?

There could be the arguement made that fracing could be helping to avoid a catastrophic earthquake by triggering smaller ones and releasing built up stress.

[rreidnauer]

Biggest no from me is this: a permanent ban on the pocket above NYC. Rest of the state is fair game. If it's too risky for NYC, it's too risky for the rest of us!.Curios where that data comes from. Everything I checked, shows NYC at the extreme Eastern edge of of any shale gas reserves. If there is this 'ban', I'd wager it's for investment value protection than it is for safety.

[DanBlue]

Thank you rreidnauer for pointing out a fact that I failed to mention. The fact that perhaps someone could dump this chemical laden liquid water into a creek or river or whatever just to save a buck is certainly a possibility..this is a perfect example of the potential "drama" involved with this fracking business that I just don't want anywhere near my woods, land, water, and cabin...Again, that's just me...I'm sure most oil & gas companies follow the rules, and are responsible...but some folks will always cut corners...this is a great example of the risks involved...I just want to mitigate those risks as much as possible..what's wrong with that??? I do not want gas lines running through my land, I do not want water and chemicals being blasted at high pressures under my land...I don't care how deep it might be, etc..fracking doesn't cause sink holes?? Is this an absolute?? No one on this message board can claim this in absolute terms, I'm sorry...Maybe the fracking doesn't aid in sink hole development, or tiny little earthquakes but I certainly don't want to bet my land or cabin on it..that's just me....

Roclock, I believe (as any human being with reasonable intelligence) would agree that the truth about the fracking as a danger in at least some capacity (even just a slight bit) is real...the truth , as they say, is somewhere in the middle...I'm not a scientist, but I'm not stupid..I simply wouldn't want any of the drama that goes along with this drilling business...maybe it's perfectly safe..but a person wanting to have as much of a natural environment as possible for their country living in the woods" lifestyle" would not want fracking on their land or have to deal with trucks up and down the roads, or the gas pipes running through their land..or some stupid employee of the gas company dumping or "accidentally" spilling a tanker of the crap somewhere in the woods, etc....

And please don't forget the original topic. There is a land owner in Pennsylvania fighting an oil & gas company in court to keep said gas company from cutting a path to run gas lines on his land.... My original topic has nothing to do with the idea that fracking is safe or unsafe...the topic has to do with the fact that a company desires to cut down a path through some trees on his land without his consent to lay some pipes...and he is having to deal with this in court...now THAT is BS my friend, and that is the issue I wanted to bring to folks attention...Point is, If there is anyone on here looking for the full natural, cabin in the woods lifestyle, you might want to look for land away from the natural gas resources as to avoid any potential heartache...the risk is minimal, but why risk it at all.....

[spiralsands]

Curios where that data comes from. Everything I checked, shows NYC at the extreme Eastern edge of of any shale gas reserves. If there is this 'ban', I'd wager it's for investment value protection than it is for safety.

The reservoirs UPSTATE supply water to the CITY. Apparently New York State won't risk ruining what has been a very good water supply to its biggest economic area.

[rocklock]

Roclock, I believe (as any human being with reasonable intelligence) would agree that the truth about the fracking as a danger in at least some capacity (even just a slight bit) is real...the truth , as they say, is somewhere in the middle...I'm not a scientist, but I'm not stupid..I simply wouldn't want any of the drama that goes along with this drilling business...maybe it's perfectly safe..but a person wanting to have as much of a natural environment as possible for their country living in the woods" lifestyle" would not want fracking on their land or have to deal with trucks up and down the roads, or the gas pipes running through their land..or some stupid employee of the gas company dumping or "accidentally" spilling a tanker of the crap somewhere in the woods, etc...

Two pull quotes "because folks know it's dangerous and it causes earthquakes/sink holes,..". "maybe it's perfectly safe..."

I am a human being with reasonable intelligence. There is a big difference between what happens on my land (which the county controls much, because I built on wet lands) and fracking. That was my point, fracking is not inherently dangerous. Man is a puny little animal. The earth is a gigantic ball of molten lava with a very thin crust of soil and water. Putting a 8 inch steel pipe with some cement in the earth at a depth of miles to suck up hydrocarbons can't be dangerous.

We can't even stop or change the direction of lava moving at the breakneck speed of 100 yards a day in Paa on the big island.

In closing, I support living in the woods, with as much of a natural environment as possible. But where you choose to live, like in a wet land, determines what environmental challenges you face.

My hobby is building flintlock firearms there is a rock in the lock or rocklock.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s274/flintlock1/guns/119-1935_IMG.jpg

[AkChas]

A "not in MY backyard" story of fracking....... involving an Exxon CEO. (Wall Street Journal).

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304899704579391181466603804

[DanBlue]

Two pull quotes "because folks know it's dangerous and it causes earthquakes/sink holes,..". "maybe it's perfectly safe..."

I am a human being with reasonable intelligence. There is a big difference between what happens on my land (which the county controls much, because I built on wet lands) and fracking. That was my point, fracking is not inherently dangerous. Man is a puny little animal. The earth is a gigantic ball of molten lava with a very thin crust of soil and water. Putting a 8 inch steel pipe with some cement in the earth at a depth of miles to suck up hydrocarbons can't be dangerous.

We can't even stop or change the direction of lava moving at the breakneck speed of 100 yards a day in Paa on the big island.

In closing, I support living in the woods, with as much of a natural environment as possible. But where you choose to live, like in a wet land, determines what environmental challenges you face.

My hobby is building flintlock firearms there is a rock in the lock or rocklock.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s274/flintlock1/guns/119-1935_IMG.jpg

I certainly did use absolutes in my flurry to write that post...Absolutes are ignorant when it comes to science none of us know the true answers to...I apologize for this oversight. I should have written "could be unsafe" and "could possibly be the cause of the tiny earthquakes sinkholes" this is 100% accurate...because we don't know for sure, I'm one that wishes to mitigate risk, and try to avoid the shale area...simple.

Fracking is absolutely potentially dangerous when you factor in all the drama it potentially brings to a community and the land.... I want to avoid all of those potential risks...including court battles over the use of my land....

I own a Kentucky flint rifle and love it!

[edkemper]

Perhaps a better question might be is there such a thing as a safe and responsible power (Corporation) company? They are responsible to their (investors) share holders, not the safety of their neighbors. Are they required to pay for the clean-up of what they leave behind? Or do "we" have to pay the price, twice? Then there is the question of where the product goes after extraction. Does the gas stay in America or is it sold overseas? The debris from extraction, does it stay in America or go overseas? Mega corporations are worldwide corporations. Private property owners building log homes are generally responsible neighbors.

[DanBlue]

A "not in MY backyard" story of fracking....... involving an Exxon CEO. (Wall Street Journal).

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304899704579391181466603804

Thank you AkChas....This is PRICELESS...a perfect example of the "drama" I want to avoid....just priceless!

As ExxonMobil’s CEO, it’s Rex Tillerson’s job to promote the hydraulic fracturing enabling the recent oil and gas boom, and fight regulatory oversight. The oil company is the biggest natural gas producer in the U.S., relying on the controversial drilling technology to extract it.
The exception is when Tillerson’s $5 million property value might be harmed. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit that cites fracking’s consequences in order to block the construction of a 160-foot water tower next to his and his wife’s Texas home.
The Wall Street Journal reports the tower would supply water to a nearby fracking site, and the plaintiffs argue the project would cause too much noise and traffic from hauling the water from the tower to the drilling site. The water tower, owned by Cross Timbers Water Supply Corporation, “will sell water to oil and gas explorers for fracing [sic] shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” the suit says.
Though Tillerson’s name is on the lawsuit, a lawyer representing him said his concern is about the devaluation of his property, not fracking specifically.
When he is acting as Exxon CEO, not a homeowner, Tillerson has lashed out at fracking critics and proponents of regulation. “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,” he said in 2012. Natural gas production “is an old technology just being applied, integrated with some new technologies,” he said in another interview. “So the risks are very manageable.”

[DanBlue]

Perhaps a better question might be is there such a thing as a safe and responsible power (Corporation) company? They are responsible to their (investors) share holders, not the safety of their neighbors. Are they required to pay for the clean-up of what they leave behind? Or do "we" have to pay the price, twice? Then there is the question of where the product goes after extraction. Does the gas stay in America or is it sold overseas? The debris from extraction, does it stay in America or go overseas? Mega corporations are worldwide corporations. Private property owners building log homes are generally responsible neighbors.

Thanks edkemper...your post brings to mind all my friends in the Gulf Coast region of the US....Just ask anyone from the Gulf Coast how safe gas & oil pipes are in transfering oil/gas resources safely.

[rreidnauer]

Nothing wrong with you not wanting any of the gas business on your property Dan. However, I do think you do make this a subject of safety, and not just a case of a man trying to keep a pipeline off his land. Like I mentioned before, eminent domain goes on all the time for many reasons. Highways, powerlines, railroads, wind farms, sewer lines and plants, even hotels. So why the post for fracing "land grab"? Clearly, it must be a matter of safety, or more precisely, the unknown. I'm not a major proponent of the gas industry, but I am of reality. When someone is using fear for facts, I'll tend to say something about it. I've really been waiting for someone to bring up the very voicturous Pennsylvania woman with the burning tapwater, but so far has gone unmentioned.

[rocklock]

rod;
Where does this woman live, flaming wells, sulfur springs or some other place where natural gas is every where?

[DanBlue]

That's exactly what that deal was..it likely had nothing to do with fracking..

[DanBlue]

Nothing wrong with you not wanting any of the gas business on your property Dan. However, I do think you do make this a subject of safety, and not just a case of a man trying to keep a pipeline off his land. Like I mentioned before, eminent domain goes on all the time for many reasons. Highways, powerlines, railroads, wind farms, sewer lines and plants, even hotels. So why the post for fracing "land grab"? Clearly, it must be a matter of safety, or more precisely, the unknown. I'm not a major proponent of the gas industry, but I am of reality. When someone is using fear for facts, I'll tend to say something about it. I've really been waiting for someone to bring up the very voicturous Pennsylvania woman with the burning tapwater, but so far has gone unmentioned.

I appreciate the question. Actually, I haven't ever thought about the city wanting to use my land for a road, etc..I guess the shale deal to me simply has several components that cause concern for me, and the natural gas is such a valuable resource that by hook or by crook, industry leaders and politicians seem to be likely to do whatever it might take to get what they want when they want it...much more so than a county road, etc...perhaps I'm wrong, but I did purposly buy my land as far away from the shale as possible...I would be lying if I said I believe the drilling (AND ALL THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT) is 100% safe..that's it.

[DanBlue]

Nothing wrong with you not wanting any of the gas business on your property Dan. However, I do think you do make this a subject of safety, and not just a case of a man trying to keep a pipeline off his land. Like I mentioned before, eminent domain goes on all the time for many reasons. Highways, powerlines, railroads, wind farms, sewer lines and plants, even hotels. So why the post for fracing "land grab"? Clearly, it must be a matter of safety, or more precisely, the unknown. I'm not a major proponent of the gas industry, but I am of reality. When someone is using fear for facts, I'll tend to say something about it. I've really been waiting for someone to bring up the very voicturous Pennsylvania woman with the burning tapwater, but so far has gone unmentioned.


Well, I'm certainly not trying to scare anyone..I'm just pointing out the obvious (as those responding to my initial posting have helped the dialogue evolve into other considerations) that the Marcellus Shale region is creating, and has the POTENTIAL to create drama for those looking to homestead in a natural, quiet country environment..period. There are natural disasters we can not plan for and mother nature throws us curve balls all the time..I understand there is lava in the earth and a volcano could possibly erupt under my home, and a wave the size of Nantucket could flood the entire Eastern Seaboard that would ruin my week. I know the Tug Hill region of NY where my land is gets 100 feet of snow per season (If S ever HTF in a bad way in this country, do you think folks without resources are going to be hanging around up in Tug Hill??? They are going to head South)..This was a consideration of mine as well...I'm not a conspiricy theorists, but I do have a client who is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank in NYC, and a voting member on the Council on Foreign Relations..I have an older brother with the FBI in DC...so lets just say I listen, and I'm keeping my eyes open....

My final Point: If you're looking to purchase land for that lifelong dream and you desire to mitigate the risk of being bothered with BS (outside of natural disasters you can't control) , then avoid the Marcellus Shale region of the US because there just so happens to be lots of action and lots of drama surrounding this region at present.

[rreidnauer]

rod;
Where does this woman live, flaming wells, sulfur springs or some other place where natural gas is every where?


That's exactly what that deal was..it likely had nothing to do with fracking..
Quite right. The flammable tapwater issue was present before fracing even came to the region. Just methane from the much, much shallower coal seams of the area. She lives(ed) in a relatively densely populated area, yet her neighbors weren't complaining. Didn't stop her from getting a lot of media coverage and trying to pin it on fracing operations to make some easy cash.

Think I'll let this dog lie and just agree with ya Dan, that when working to find that perfect homestead, doing everything you can to mitigate risk is never a bad thing as long as you don't find yourself passing up that perfect piece of land over an unfounded fear.

[DanBlue]

Quite right. The flammable tapwater issue was present before fracing even came to the region. Just methane from the much, much shallower coal seams of the area. She lives(ed) in a relatively densely populated area, yet her neighbors weren't complaining. Didn't stop her from getting a lot of media coverage and trying to pin it on fracing operations to make some easy cash.

Think I'll let this dog lie and just agree with ya Dan, that when working to find that perfect homestead, doing everything you can to mitigate risk is never a bad thing as long as you don't find yourself passing up that perfect piece of land over an unfounded fear.


Thank you kindly rreidnauer, you're absolutely correct.

Take care!

[edkemper]

Yet we shouldn't forget the proposed pipeline from Canada, through our country to the West Coast. It will carry the dirtiest oil on the planet and be refined on the coast and sold overseas. But the toxic waste will remain on the West Coast where we will have to foot the bill to clean-up and dispose of the waste. Not sure anyone along the route was expecting to share their land for this pipeline when a pipeline could be built across Canada to their own ports.

Fracking isn't the only threat from our oil and power companies.

[rocklock]

several corrections ed;

1. The XL pipeline goes to the southern coast (Houston, Texas) I believe.
2. The pipeline will not go through Canada because of two things, The Rocky Mountains and a ton of law suits by native peoples.
3. The dirtiest oil probably be sold first because it is the stuff that roads are made of... hence there are little left over. In the past there were distillates left over, now they split the molecule into smaller and smaller pieces.
4. There have been several train accidents that have cost lives because the oil will get to the refineries one way or another.
5. Guess who is making money hand over fist... that guy that bought a railroad several years ago from Omaha and who supports our president... Yea that right there is politics in this decision or lack of one.
6. This is the most studied pipe line in the history of the world.
Enough already, I have just self deleted, but it was really good....

[edkemper]

Rocklock,

You are absolutely correct. I mixed up my pipelines. However, the point is, they are springing up all over the place, through eminent domain.

Ed

COOS BAY LNG
• Feds say environmental and safety impacts of Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay can be mitigated
• Landowners tell proposed LNG export terminal in Coos Bay: 'Keep your pipeline off my property'
• Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay: Five takeaways on earthquake and tsunami risks
• Clatsop County was biased against pipeline for Oregon LNG, must reconsider permit
• Jordan Cove LNG terminal at Coos Bay designed for Cascadia quake, tsunami though hazards remain

Bill Gow stands on a wooden platform perched high above a lush valley south of Roseburg, his Stetson tipped back as he surveys the 1,400-acre ranch where his family runs cows for a living.

"This is why I worked 24-7 my whole life, so I could wake up and have this," he says. "This is all I ever wanted."

It's not hard, then, to understand Gow's sense of violation, his creeping feeling of helplessness, with a Canadian energy company's plan to carve a swath the width of freeway through his land and bury a 36-inch-diameter, high-pressure gas pipeline.

Calgary-based Veresen Inc. and its pipeline partner, Tulsa-based Williams Companies Inc., are not asking if Gow wants to host their gas line. They're telling him. If regulators approve Veresen's plan to build an export terminal for liquefied natural gas in Coos Bay, its Pacific Connector Pipeline is coming across his land.

The only thing left to settle is the price. And he may not have much say in that either.

It's called eminent domain.

About this series
The Oregonian is reporting a series of stories on what the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas project in Coos Bay involves, its effect on communities and the global economics driving this push to export natural gas.
The next installment will look at environmental impacts of the proposed terminal and pipeline as soon as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission releases its draft environmental impact statement. Add your questions and comments at the end of this story, or send them to investigative reporter Ted Sickinger at tsickinger@oregonian.com.
To read previous installments, watch videos and see more photos and diagrams, go to oregonlive.com/watchdog
More than 300 southern Oregon property owners are in the same position. The Pacific Connector would stretch halfway across the state, from a gas hub in Malin, southeast of Klamath Falls, to feed the proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project in Coos Bay.

Along its 230-mile path, contractors would clear-cut public and private forests, tunnel under hundreds of rivers and streams and plow across more than 400 parcels of privately owned land.

The projects backers say they can accomplish all this in a fair and equitable manner, while minimizing environmental and property damages. They say eminent domain is a last resort, used only if it's impossible to reach a mutually agreeable deal with a landowner, and only after an impartial arbitrator determines a fair price for easements and damage.

Yet the threat of condemnation is the company's silent partner in any negotiation. And many landowners want nothing to do with the project.

"They're Canadian, they want to get their gas to China, and we're in the way," said Francis Eatherington, the president of the Oregon Women's Land Trust, a nonprofit that could see a half-mile section of the pipe on its retreat east of Canyonville. "It's our own government that's not standing up for its citizens."


Rancher objects to pipeline
Bill Gow, and rancher southeast of Roseburg, discusses his objections to the Pacific Connector Pipeline.
Landowners offer a litany of complaints about the pipeline company. It has refused to release a list of landowners. It has warned property owners that if they fight in court, they likely won't recover their attorneys' fees. Federal rules allow the pipe to be built to lower safety standards in rural areas. And landowners contend the company's initial offers for easements are insultingly low.

Yet federal energy regulators already have decided that exporting natural gas to Asia from a proposed terminal in Coos Bay would be good for the U.S. economy.

Gas exports will provide a small "net benefit" over time, some studies conclude. Those benefits are concentrated in gas producing states and other locales along the supply chain, including Coos Bay. So the U.S. Department of Energy has determined that Jordan Cove is "not inconsistent with the public interest."

If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state regulators, in turn, decide the project's environmental impacts are acceptable, then Pacific Connector will have the right to condemn property along the route and run the pipe where they've planned.

"It's a big club," says David Dodson, a former spokesman for the pipeline giant TransCanada Corp. "Eminent domain laws were designed to get things built. It's a very one-sided process, and it's not in landowners' favor."

***

In many ways, the Pacific Connector pipeline is a classic property rights fight, a David-versus-Goliath, not-in-my-backyard debate that plays out in countless pipeline, road and power line projects around the country.


View full size

Infrastructure projects are necessary. Americans like gas in their cars. They want the lights to come on when they flip a switch. There are 18,000 miles of pipeline in Oregon alone. And you rarely hear folks complaining about exporting agricultural products to Asians.

Yet Jordan Cove is unique among the natural gas export projects that have been evaluated so far, which amplifies the larger policy question facing all of them: Is there a "public interest" in exporting natural gas?

Consider:

• All three natural gas export projects approved by federal regulators so far are conversions of existing import terminals on the Gulf Coast, with existing pipelines in existing rights-of-way. Jordan Cove is brand new. Its pipeline is much longer, traverses more difficult terrain, affects more landowners and causes deeper ecological impacts.
• Studies suggest that exporting significant quantities of gas will put upward pressure on domestic gas and electricity prices as rising demand from U.S. utilities and manufacturers competes with new foreign demand. The jury is still out on this. Energy companies say any impact will be minimal, as North American reserves are more than adequate to accommodate expected exports. But there are significant questions about the long-term productivity of shale gas fields, as well as the environmental impacts of fracking. And export critics point to Australia, where gas prices are expected to triple as huge LNG export projects come on line and domestic prices become linked to the international market.
• Jordan Cove is majority-owned by a Canadian energy company, Veresen Inc. By extension, a foreign company could be using eminent domain against U.S. citizens to export gas -- much of it Canadian gas -- to Asian customers. That may be a great economic opportunity for corporations at either end of the supply chain, but the project isn't geared to serve Oregon consumers.
• Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector do offer a windfall of temporary construction jobs, more than 150 permanent jobs around the terminal, and hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenues to Coos County and other local jurisdictions. Those benefits have garnered local support and feature prominently in federal regulators' cost benefit analyses of the project.
• Federal regulators start out with the presumption that gas export projects are a public good. Backers make their case, but the burden of proof is on opponents to demonstrate a project harms the country.
The question of "public interest" has been hovering over the LNG debate in Oregon for a decade, when Jordan Cove and two other projects on the Columbia River were first proposed as gas import terminals. At the time, the gas lobby insisted that diversifying the Northwest's natural gas supply was essential to its economic future.

That rationale ultimately collapsed under the weight of the North American shale gas and fracking boom. But not before the state of Oregon sued to overturn the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 2009 approval of the proposed Bradwood Landing terminal. It later asked FERC to withdraw its 2009 approval of Jordan Cove's import proposal.

In both cases, it argued there was no need for imported gas, that FERC failed to demonstrate a public interest in the facilities and that its environmental analyses were fatally flawed.


View full size
The proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project, seen in this artist's depiction, would include a natural gas liquefaction, storage and shipping facility (left) as well as the 420-megawatt South Dunes Power Plant (right) on the North Spit of Coos Bay. At center is a wood chip terminal owned by Roseburg Forest Products.
Courtesy of Jordan Cove

Now that the projects have been flipped to export proposals, Jordan Cove's backers argue that their project is a market-driven response to healthy and sustainable North American gas supplies and international demand. It will create revenue and jobs in upstream industries, benefitting the U.S. economy. Oregon benefits from the trickle down affect of jobs and tax revenues. Thus, it serves the public interest.

U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., tried to pass a bill in 2012 to prohibit the use of eminent domain for pipelines serving export facilities. But it got no traction.

Landowners along the pipe route and other opponents aren't swayed by the local benefits for Coos Bay. And the potential condemnation of Oregonians' property to support gas producers' profits seems outlandish to them.

***

Katherine Clark has spent the past 50 years on the south slope of Stukel Mountain, just south of Klamath Falls. But at 76, she's ready to sell the 3,600-square-foot home her husband built, the 56 acres of crop- and pastureland, and finally retire closer to her grandkids.

She was hoping for more than a half million dollars. But she says Pacific Connector' planned route bisects a second home site that she'd already gotten permitted by the county. The route runs through her prime cropland. And she's convinced a pipeline fear factor will undermine what any buyer is willing to pay for the rest.

"This is my whole retirement here, and I've put off selling it," she said. "Some people say it doesn't matter much, but everyone I've talked to cares."

With good reason, says Neil Olsen, a Portland lawyer who specializes in land-use issues. Pipeline companies offer one-time payments for permanent rights-of-way. They typically don't account for future property appreciation. You can't build or plant certain crops in the right-of-way. And the company comes by every few years to maintain its path through the property.


A property owner's concerns
John Clarke, a resident of Winston, Or., discusses the impacts of the Pacific Connector pipeline near his home.
Moreover, Olsen says, "almost every time you have a partial taking, you have damages to the remainder, and sometimes it's very significant."

Pacific Connector sent Clark an option agreement last year that put a value on the temporary and permanent easements: $5,757, an offer she considered insulting.

"Call it a lowball offer, or starting low, but their job is to get a project done on time and on budget, and those goals conflict with property owners constitutional rights" to just compensation, Olsen said.

Clark's consternation echoes along the pipe route.

Richard Rust says he spent $6,000 to carve off 90 acres of his property and get a permit for a ridge-top home site with views across the Camas Valley, west of Roseburg. A couple was lined up to buy it for $400,000. But he says the deal fell apart when he learned the Pacific Connector would cross the ridgeline, right through the home site.

"I don't know what the average person is supposed to do," Rust said. "By the time you go hire a lawyer it's going to cost you a lot of money, and you'll probably lose anyway."

The ripple effects go beyond individual landowners.

The owners of Messerle & Sons, a family owned tree farm and ranch in Coos County, say the existing pipe route would impact about 10 percent of its timber, and make remaining stands more difficult to harvest. Fred and Dave Messerle say they support of the LNG project. But they won't cooperate with Pacific Connector unless it moves to an alternate route that maximizes use of public land and minimizes impacts on private property.

Seneca Jones Timber Co. executives say the pipe will effect 2,000 acres of their timberland, another 1,000 acres of property for roads, as well as public lands where Seneca harvests and transports logs. They point to federal agencies' double standard for accommodating a highly disruptive pipeline through public lands while restricting any ground-disturbing activities by timber companies.

The losses Seneca foresees include a reduction in value from harvesting immature trees, the permanent loss of farmable land, increased harvest costs on fragmented holdings and the inability to haul heavy equipment or logs across the pipe route.

Monica Jelden, the company's land use manager, says Seneca Jones has been meeting with Pacific Connector for eight years, but has yet to receive assurances that it will be made whole on its increased costs and losses.

"Our mills don't run on cash," Jelden said. "They run on logs. We need fiber through the mills to sustain those jobs."

***

Pacific Connector officials say many landowners along the route fundamentally misunderstand its process for acquiring rights of way.

It's not in the land speculation business. It's not even buying land. When and if the project gets approved, it wants to get pipe in the ground without delay. So it's motivated to make fair deals for easements and accommodate individual landowners' concerns.

"We're not saying this is the next best thing to heaven," said Pacific Connector spokesman George Angerbauer. "But we're saying these are reasonable, fair negotiations that take everything into account that they're worried about."

Angerbauer said the company is prepared to pay full damages where the pipe disrupts future uses. That can include the loss of revenues from future crops, new fencing to retain livestock, or the revenue from timber spoils.


Pipeline's lawyer discusses eminent domain
Richard Allan, a land-use lawyer working for Pacific Connector, discusses land acquisition and eminent domain issues for the pipeline serving the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay.
Richard Allan, a Portland land-use attorney working with Pacific Connector, says landowners lose nothing by talking with the pipe's land-use team and allowing them to survey. They can still participate in local land-use decisions and FERC's licensing process. But those who stonewall the company don't stop the pipeline, while depriving the company of the information it needs to come up with a fair price or modify the route where possible.

"The only people who ultimately benefit from going to court are the lawyers," he contends.

Pacific Connector ran an option program to acquire easement agreements that expired last summer. That was a one-time deal, Angerbauer said, designed to provide property owners with some upfront compensation for the inconvenience of surveying and other activities.

The company says only 38 out of 304 affected landowners signed the agreements – about 13 percent. The company already has decided to increase what it pays landowners for permanent easements on their land, from what was often 25 percent of the land's market value to a minimum of 50 percent.

"We're not trying to look at the low end of the range," Angerbauer. "We're looking to give landowners a deal they'll feel good about."

Landowners who signed the option agreements may not get a second bite at the apple, however. The agreements are binding, at the price that was set. All that remains is a determination of damages for crop losses and other use restrictions.

John Tansey, an 85-year-old who owns 50 acres of mostly timberland on a mountainside near Myrtle Creek, says he's already having second thoughts. The pipe route only touches a corner of his property and the company has already paid him more than $2,000, "but I'm kind of against it."

He worries about fire danger, adequate insurance if anyone gets hurt on his land and the damage to his private road and land from hauling heavy equipment up the mountainside. "There so many things they don't tell you about."

James Seaton, another Myrtle Creek resident, says the pipe only affects about a third of an acre at the back of his 20-acre property, and he took the $2,000 because he needed it.

"My wife passed away recently and we spent lot of money while she was sick," he said. "The way they're talking, it'll be 3 or 4 years before they do anything. I didn't think I'd live that long anyway."

-- Ted Sickinger

[Shark]

It may be good, it may be bad. Oil & gas companies make huge profits, but guess what, I'll be willing to wager 99% of folks reading this today will go out & use a product that came from, was made with, or runs on, some type of gas or oil.

At the end of the day, it's more dangerous getting out of the house & driving to work ;)

*going to play in traffic*

[DanBlue]

Rocklock,

You are absolutely correct. I mixed up my pipelines. However, the point is, they are springing up all over the place, through eminent domain.

Ed

COOS BAY LNG
• Feds say environmental and safety impacts of Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay can be mitigated
• Landowners tell proposed LNG export terminal in Coos Bay: 'Keep your pipeline off my property'
• Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay: Five takeaways on earthquake and tsunami risks
• Clatsop County was biased against pipeline for Oregon LNG, must reconsider permit
• Jordan Cove LNG terminal at Coos Bay designed for Cascadia quake, tsunami though hazards remain

Bill Gow stands on a wooden platform perched high above a lush valley south of Roseburg, his Stetson tipped back as he surveys the 1,400-acre ranch where his family runs cows for a living.

"This is why I worked 24-7 my whole life, so I could wake up and have this," he says. "This is all I ever wanted."

It's not hard, then, to understand Gow's sense of violation, his creeping feeling of helplessness, with a Canadian energy company's plan to carve a swath the width of freeway through his land and bury a 36-inch-diameter, high-pressure gas pipeline.

Calgary-based Veresen Inc. and its pipeline partner, Tulsa-based Williams Companies Inc., are not asking if Gow wants to host their gas line. They're telling him. If regulators approve Veresen's plan to build an export terminal for liquefied natural gas in Coos Bay, its Pacific Connector Pipeline is coming across his land.

The only thing left to settle is the price. And he may not have much say in that either.

It's called eminent domain.

About this series
The Oregonian is reporting a series of stories on what the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas project in Coos Bay involves, its effect on communities and the global economics driving this push to export natural gas.
The next installment will look at environmental impacts of the proposed terminal and pipeline as soon as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission releases its draft environmental impact statement. Add your questions and comments at the end of this story, or send them to investigative reporter Ted Sickinger at tsickinger@oregonian.com.
To read previous installments, watch videos and see more photos and diagrams, go to oregonlive.com/watchdog
More than 300 southern Oregon property owners are in the same position. The Pacific Connector would stretch halfway across the state, from a gas hub in Malin, southeast of Klamath Falls, to feed the proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project in Coos Bay.

Along its 230-mile path, contractors would clear-cut public and private forests, tunnel under hundreds of rivers and streams and plow across more than 400 parcels of privately owned land.

The projects backers say they can accomplish all this in a fair and equitable manner, while minimizing environmental and property damages. They say eminent domain is a last resort, used only if it's impossible to reach a mutually agreeable deal with a landowner, and only after an impartial arbitrator determines a fair price for easements and damage.

Yet the threat of condemnation is the company's silent partner in any negotiation. And many landowners want nothing to do with the project.

"They're Canadian, they want to get their gas to China, and we're in the way," said Francis Eatherington, the president of the Oregon Women's Land Trust, a nonprofit that could see a half-mile section of the pipe on its retreat east of Canyonville. "It's our own government that's not standing up for its citizens."


Rancher objects to pipeline
Bill Gow, and rancher southeast of Roseburg, discusses his objections to the Pacific Connector Pipeline.
Landowners offer a litany of complaints about the pipeline company. It has refused to release a list of landowners. It has warned property owners that if they fight in court, they likely won't recover their attorneys' fees. Federal rules allow the pipe to be built to lower safety standards in rural areas. And landowners contend the company's initial offers for easements are insultingly low.

Yet federal energy regulators already have decided that exporting natural gas to Asia from a proposed terminal in Coos Bay would be good for the U.S. economy.

Gas exports will provide a small "net benefit" over time, some studies conclude. Those benefits are concentrated in gas producing states and other locales along the supply chain, including Coos Bay. So the U.S. Department of Energy has determined that Jordan Cove is "not inconsistent with the public interest."

If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state regulators, in turn, decide the project's environmental impacts are acceptable, then Pacific Connector will have the right to condemn property along the route and run the pipe where they've planned.

"It's a big club," says David Dodson, a former spokesman for the pipeline giant TransCanada Corp. "Eminent domain laws were designed to get things built. It's a very one-sided process, and it's not in landowners' favor."

***

In many ways, the Pacific Connector pipeline is a classic property rights fight, a David-versus-Goliath, not-in-my-backyard debate that plays out in countless pipeline, road and power line projects around the country.


View full size

Infrastructure projects are necessary. Americans like gas in their cars. They want the lights to come on when they flip a switch. There are 18,000 miles of pipeline in Oregon alone. And you rarely hear folks complaining about exporting agricultural products to Asians.

Yet Jordan Cove is unique among the natural gas export projects that have been evaluated so far, which amplifies the larger policy question facing all of them: Is there a "public interest" in exporting natural gas?

Consider:

• All three natural gas export projects approved by federal regulators so far are conversions of existing import terminals on the Gulf Coast, with existing pipelines in existing rights-of-way. Jordan Cove is brand new. Its pipeline is much longer, traverses more difficult terrain, affects more landowners and causes deeper ecological impacts.
• Studies suggest that exporting significant quantities of gas will put upward pressure on domestic gas and electricity prices as rising demand from U.S. utilities and manufacturers competes with new foreign demand. The jury is still out on this. Energy companies say any impact will be minimal, as North American reserves are more than adequate to accommodate expected exports. But there are significant questions about the long-term productivity of shale gas fields, as well as the environmental impacts of fracking. And export critics point to Australia, where gas prices are expected to triple as huge LNG export projects come on line and domestic prices become linked to the international market.
• Jordan Cove is majority-owned by a Canadian energy company, Veresen Inc. By extension, a foreign company could be using eminent domain against U.S. citizens to export gas -- much of it Canadian gas -- to Asian customers. That may be a great economic opportunity for corporations at either end of the supply chain, but the project isn't geared to serve Oregon consumers.
• Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector do offer a windfall of temporary construction jobs, more than 150 permanent jobs around the terminal, and hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenues to Coos County and other local jurisdictions. Those benefits have garnered local support and feature prominently in federal regulators' cost benefit analyses of the project.
• Federal regulators start out with the presumption that gas export projects are a public good. Backers make their case, but the burden of proof is on opponents to demonstrate a project harms the country.
The question of "public interest" has been hovering over the LNG debate in Oregon for a decade, when Jordan Cove and two other projects on the Columbia River were first proposed as gas import terminals. At the time, the gas lobby insisted that diversifying the Northwest's natural gas supply was essential to its economic future.

That rationale ultimately collapsed under the weight of the North American shale gas and fracking boom. But not before the state of Oregon sued to overturn the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 2009 approval of the proposed Bradwood Landing terminal. It later asked FERC to withdraw its 2009 approval of Jordan Cove's import proposal.

In both cases, it argued there was no need for imported gas, that FERC failed to demonstrate a public interest in the facilities and that its environmental analyses were fatally flawed.


View full size
The proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project, seen in this artist's depiction, would include a natural gas liquefaction, storage and shipping facility (left) as well as the 420-megawatt South Dunes Power Plant (right) on the North Spit of Coos Bay. At center is a wood chip terminal owned by Roseburg Forest Products.
Courtesy of Jordan Cove

Now that the projects have been flipped to export proposals, Jordan Cove's backers argue that their project is a market-driven response to healthy and sustainable North American gas supplies and international demand. It will create revenue and jobs in upstream industries, benefitting the U.S. economy. Oregon benefits from the trickle down affect of jobs and tax revenues. Thus, it serves the public interest.

U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., tried to pass a bill in 2012 to prohibit the use of eminent domain for pipelines serving export facilities. But it got no traction.

Landowners along the pipe route and other opponents aren't swayed by the local benefits for Coos Bay. And the potential condemnation of Oregonians' property to support gas producers' profits seems outlandish to them.

***

Katherine Clark has spent the past 50 years on the south slope of Stukel Mountain, just south of Klamath Falls. But at 76, she's ready to sell the 3,600-square-foot home her husband built, the 56 acres of crop- and pastureland, and finally retire closer to her grandkids.

She was hoping for more than a half million dollars. But she says Pacific Connector' planned route bisects a second home site that she'd already gotten permitted by the county. The route runs through her prime cropland. And she's convinced a pipeline fear factor will undermine what any buyer is willing to pay for the rest.

"This is my whole retirement here, and I've put off selling it," she said. "Some people say it doesn't matter much, but everyone I've talked to cares."

With good reason, says Neil Olsen, a Portland lawyer who specializes in land-use issues. Pipeline companies offer one-time payments for permanent rights-of-way. They typically don't account for future property appreciation. You can't build or plant certain crops in the right-of-way. And the company comes by every few years to maintain its path through the property.


A property owner's concerns
John Clarke, a resident of Winston, Or., discusses the impacts of the Pacific Connector pipeline near his home.
Moreover, Olsen says, "almost every time you have a partial taking, you have damages to the remainder, and sometimes it's very significant."

Pacific Connector sent Clark an option agreement last year that put a value on the temporary and permanent easements: $5,757, an offer she considered insulting.

"Call it a lowball offer, or starting low, but their job is to get a project done on time and on budget, and those goals conflict with property owners constitutional rights" to just compensation, Olsen said.

Clark's consternation echoes along the pipe route.

Richard Rust says he spent $6,000 to carve off 90 acres of his property and get a permit for a ridge-top home site with views across the Camas Valley, west of Roseburg. A couple was lined up to buy it for $400,000. But he says the deal fell apart when he learned the Pacific Connector would cross the ridgeline, right through the home site.

"I don't know what the average person is supposed to do," Rust said. "By the time you go hire a lawyer it's going to cost you a lot of money, and you'll probably lose anyway."

The ripple effects go beyond individual landowners.

The owners of Messerle & Sons, a family owned tree farm and ranch in Coos County, say the existing pipe route would impact about 10 percent of its timber, and make remaining stands more difficult to harvest. Fred and Dave Messerle say they support of the LNG project. But they won't cooperate with Pacific Connector unless it moves to an alternate route that maximizes use of public land and minimizes impacts on private property.

Seneca Jones Timber Co. executives say the pipe will effect 2,000 acres of their timberland, another 1,000 acres of property for roads, as well as public lands where Seneca harvests and transports logs. They point to federal agencies' double standard for accommodating a highly disruptive pipeline through public lands while restricting any ground-disturbing activities by timber companies.

The losses Seneca foresees include a reduction in value from harvesting immature trees, the permanent loss of farmable land, increased harvest costs on fragmented holdings and the inability to haul heavy equipment or logs across the pipe route.

Monica Jelden, the company's land use manager, says Seneca Jones has been meeting with Pacific Connector for eight years, but has yet to receive assurances that it will be made whole on its increased costs and losses.

"Our mills don't run on cash," Jelden said. "They run on logs. We need fiber through the mills to sustain those jobs."

***

Pacific Connector officials say many landowners along the route fundamentally misunderstand its process for acquiring rights of way.

It's not in the land speculation business. It's not even buying land. When and if the project gets approved, it wants to get pipe in the ground without delay. So it's motivated to make fair deals for easements and accommodate individual landowners' concerns.

"We're not saying this is the next best thing to heaven," said Pacific Connector spokesman George Angerbauer. "But we're saying these are reasonable, fair negotiations that take everything into account that they're worried about."

Angerbauer said the company is prepared to pay full damages where the pipe disrupts future uses. That can include the loss of revenues from future crops, new fencing to retain livestock, or the revenue from timber spoils.


Pipeline's lawyer discusses eminent domain
Richard Allan, a land-use lawyer working for Pacific Connector, discusses land acquisition and eminent domain issues for the pipeline serving the proposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal in Coos Bay.
Richard Allan, a Portland land-use attorney working with Pacific Connector, says landowners lose nothing by talking with the pipe's land-use team and allowing them to survey. They can still participate in local land-use decisions and FERC's licensing process. But those who stonewall the company don't stop the pipeline, while depriving the company of the information it needs to come up with a fair price or modify the route where possible.

"The only people who ultimately benefit from going to court are the lawyers," he contends.

Pacific Connector ran an option program to acquire easement agreements that expired last summer. That was a one-time deal, Angerbauer said, designed to provide property owners with some upfront compensation for the inconvenience of surveying and other activities.

The company says only 38 out of 304 affected landowners signed the agreements – about 13 percent. The company already has decided to increase what it pays landowners for permanent easements on their land, from what was often 25 percent of the land's market value to a minimum of 50 percent.

"We're not trying to look at the low end of the range," Angerbauer. "We're looking to give landowners a deal they'll feel good about."

Landowners who signed the option agreements may not get a second bite at the apple, however. The agreements are binding, at the price that was set. All that remains is a determination of damages for crop losses and other use restrictions.

John Tansey, an 85-year-old who owns 50 acres of mostly timberland on a mountainside near Myrtle Creek, says he's already having second thoughts. The pipe route only touches a corner of his property and the company has already paid him more than $2,000, "but I'm kind of against it."

He worries about fire danger, adequate insurance if anyone gets hurt on his land and the damage to his private road and land from hauling heavy equipment up the mountainside. "There so many things they don't tell you about."

James Seaton, another Myrtle Creek resident, says the pipe only affects about a third of an acre at the back of his 20-acre property, and he took the $2,000 because he needed it.

"My wife passed away recently and we spent lot of money while she was sick," he said. "The way they're talking, it'll be 3 or 4 years before they do anything. I didn't think I'd live that long anyway."

-- Ted Sickinger

Edkemper, I believe you've outlined very clear examples of the drama I've been talking about on this message boardhere....What a disaster!

[project]

Sorry people I don't mean to stir things up but there is absolutely nothing wrong with fracking. Don't believe all the media hype and do a little research. I find it ironic that all the people that want the oil and gas industry gone would never want to give up all the things that come from said industry.

[spiralsands]

I find it ironic that all the people that want the oil and gas industry gone would never want to give up all the things that come from said industry.

That is a generalization you cannot support. It's sort of like saying that it's ironic that those people who talk about living off the grid and supporting American freedom also support the rights of multinational energy corporations to declare eminent domain across private land.

[BoFuller]

Sorry people I don't mean to stir things up but there is absolutely nothing wrong with fracking. Don't believe all the media hype and do a little research. I find it ironic that all the people that want the oil and gas industry gone would never want to give up all the things that come from said industry.

Well, you're stirring. I don't think there is absolutely anything right about cracking.

[loghousenut]

Well, you're stirring. I don't think there is absolutely anything right about cracking.


Put your reading glasses on and get with the program, Bro... This has nothing to do with cocaine!

[project]

Well, you're stirring. I don't think there is absolutely anything right about cracking.

Fracking has been going on for decades without any problems. It wasn't until all the media hype against the evil oil companies and their large profits that drilling for natural gas became a problem. You can go all over the state of Alaska where no fracking has been done and natural gas bubbles up in the streams. I'm curious as to why you think it's so harmful??

[project]

That is a generalization you cannot support. It's sort of like saying that it's ironic that those people who talk about living off the grid and supporting American freedom also support the rights of multinational energy corporations to declare eminent domain across private land.

Energy corporations aren't the only ones that declare eminent domain. The rail roads and highways also used eminent domain to cross the country.

[BoFuller]

Fracking has been going on for decades without any problems. It wasn't until all the media hype against the evil oil companies and their large profits that drilling for natural gas became a problem. You can go all over the state of Alaska where no fracking has been done and natural gas bubbles up in the streams. I'm curious as to why you think it's so harmful??

I have several relatives in Ohio who have had the water table ruined from fracking. They pull all the good fresh water out and then the fracking process forces polluted water back into the ground water.

[project]

I have several relatives in Ohio who have had the water table ruined from fracking. They pull all the good fresh water out and then the fracking process forces polluted water back into the ground water.

There is no way that fracking can pollute ground water. There are many ways that can happen but fracking just isn't one of them. The fracking process occurs thousands of feet below any ground water . The casing down to where the fracking occurs is several layers of steel pipe and concrete and the fracking is only done at the very bottom of the well bore. The only way fracking can contaminate ground water is if someone has a well that is 14,000+ feet deep . I'm sorry to hear about your relatives water being contaminated. There are several ways it could have happened but it wasn't the fracking. There should be a list of chemicals on file with the rail road commission that was used in the drilling process that they can compare to the contamination. There are also geological studies that have to be done to determine surface casing depths and the drilling contractor can only use water base mud until they are well below any water table, if not then the drilling contractor was at fault.

[spiralsands]

When multinational energy corporations say gas mining is safe, it must be, right? After all, look at Picher, Oklahoma. Look at the benefits that city was left with after the corporate shills were finished stripping the profits out of the ground. Trust the multinationals!! They have YOUR interests in their hearts!

[jasonfromutah]

Project:

A big thumbs up from me, for fracking! I also support the energy companies for the good that they do.

I work with them and although there are mistakes that happen, they are core to our economy.
Being less dependent on foreign oil is a good thing.

The media (and our current administration) is doing its best to destroy this industry.

[rreidnauer]

I can easily see how local water table levels could be affected by nearby fracing ops, and have some property owner's wells dry up. No question they do use a lot of water. And again, the actual fracing doesn't contaminate ground water, however, handling of waste fracing fluid can. But it could also be other things that could contaminate a supply strained auquifer. Perhaps farm or industry chemicals. How many Super Fund sites are there in this country? So indirectly, fracing *could* contaminate water supplies. Of course, so could a derailed train load of chemicals, or a mishap at a manufacturing plant, etc. There is always risks, and there can be no reward without it.

[edkemper]

The media (and our current administration) is doing its best to destroy this industry.

I wasn't aware that our neighbors along the gulf coast were so ill informed. It was the media and the President that were the cause of their present state of affaires. After all, how could an oil well dug so many thousands of feet below the surface ever cause us any problems? Especially with the wonderful (moral and ethical) corporate leaders in the industry looking after our best interests.

Especially considering the oil debacle along the gulf was only the first mishap to ever occur in the fuel industry.

Name one faction of our power industry that doesn't have plenty to be shamed for. Decades of Nuclear Power disasters worldwide? Decades of Oil industry disasters worldwide? Natural Gas disasters worldwide? Coal industry disasters worldwide.

I agree with you. What could possibly go wrong?

[project]

The energy sector isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it would be hard to live without it. People often talk about living off the grid with no need for oil and gas but that just isn't possible without drilling unless we are prepared to live by candle light . If anyone has a way to light a home any other way I'm all for it.

[loghousenut]

When I lived in the middle of heaven, 6 miles from the power lines, I loved all that homemade power almost as much as I loved the gas station that allowed me to drive 1-1/2 hours to work, hop in the truck, drive to Portland and back, and then drive home for a shower. That fuel was slavery and freedom at the same time and I loved it. I often wonder how different my life woulda been if I hadn't been able to afford a fillup every day.

I am not in this catfight so I probably oughta stay out. I wasn't in the catfight about the spotted owl either but I still bought lumber when I needed it and was glad of it.

[dazedandconfused]

We should all buy those electric cars with those batteries that would solve it ;)

[loghousenut]

We should all buy those electric cars with those batteries that would solve it ;)

Not enough range... I'll stick with the Suburban.

[jasonfromutah]

Ed:

Name me industries that do not have problems of some sort!

I'm thinking of turning in my keys to my evil automobiles due to
deaths, emissions, corruption, and their overall disgusting behavior of this industry.

[Smug]

I guess the Amish got it figured out, but even the Amish man loves to see that oil and gas man show up with a lease in his hand.

[oldtrapper]

I have lived a large chunk of my life in Williston, ND and have been through the shale oil explosion. When I've seen the magnitude of what the energy companies do, I have come to the conclusion that they are amazingly responsible. I have not derived one nickel from that development, but have had a very close look at it. I recall having coffee one day when a neighbor came to the door laughing and said "don't look now but you are being fracked." At 10,000 feet deep, who would know? The biggest problems with the energy boom are social in nature.

[slamasha]

Don't know what to do about it (yes, the development of oil/gas industry is good for economy), but there is also the irreplaceable ground water depletion threat associated with that.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140819-groundwater-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis/

The tendency is that this is going to grow and eventually start tapping into strategic resources. It's inevitable though, you can't stop an energy boom.
Also, when I mentioned "contamination", I wasn't very accurate. I meant converting water resource into a chemical solution... This will be a problem for newer generations to solve, I guess.
As for the individual rights of the private land-owners - I think the feds+oil+gas companies should not override them.

[edkemper]

Ed:
Name me industries that do not have problems of some sort!

Then again, name an industry that does more damage to our environment than the oil, gas and coal industry? Or even name an industry that tries harder and spends more money to stop the development of better answers?

Know what I mean?

I can't go without either. But I can try to minimize use and minimize the damage I personally do to what I leave behind.

[edkemper]

As for the individual rights of the private land-owners - I think the feds+oil+gas companies should not override them.

I thought we the people owned this country. However, "we" the majority have given way to "we" the ultra rich that now own the country. Not unlike the country we ran from to take over this country.

[project]

This leads to the knowledge that not all energy is created equal when it comes to water usage. According to the Virginia Water Resources group, natural gas gets top marks for efficiency in the energy industry, yielding the most energy per unit volume of water consumed. Only about 10 gallons of water are required to extract enough natural gas to generate 1,000 kWh of electricity. By comparison, a coal-fired power plant delivering the same amount of energy would use about 140 gallons of water.

That's from an article on industrial water usage in the us. There are plenty of studies published on the matter but you're not going to hear about it on MSNBC

[edkemper]

Do you know how much water it takes for one quarter pound hamburger? 220 gallons.

[donjuedo]

That's considering the drinking water for the life of the cow, and maybe growing the food. (http://water.usgs.gov/edu/sc1.html) It seems like it's getting off on a bit of a tangent to me.

[jasonfromutah]

Then again, name an industry that does more damage to our environment than the oil, gas and coal industry? Or even name an industry that tries harder and spends more money to stop the development of better answers?

Know what I mean?

I can't go without either. But I can try to minimize use and minimize the damage I personally do to what I leave behind.

And you do not think the oil companies minimize the damage?

I live within 40 minutes of 100's of well sites, a coal mine, gas plants.....etc.
There is no damage Ed!

[edkemper]

Not in my backyard.

[rreidnauer]

Not in my backyard.And that is what it really is about. Just like the Nantucket offshore wind farm that Ted Kennedy fought against because he could have seen it from his beach cottage.

[loghousenut]

In these parts we fight to keep from seeing people like Ted Kennedy in our cottages.









I AM NOT BEING POLITICAL... Don't even think about tainting this thread with politics! Keep it all about the facts as we all agree on them.

[project]

Ed I don't blame you for not wanting it in your back yard. I don't want it where I can see it where I'm building either. I do have land in tx with a gas well on it and the land is still leased for more drilling but I will not lease where I'm going to build my house. Not because of fracking but just because I don't want a location in my yard..

[DanBlue]

Sorry people I don't mean to stir things up but there is absolutely nothing wrong with fracking. Don't believe all the media hype and do a little research. I find it ironic that all the people that want the oil and gas industry gone would never want to give up all the things that come from said industry.

Absolutes being used again in a posting..reckless. Project, I would gladly use draft horses and wagons if necessary...100% leather shoes, remember when real guns were made of wood and steel? I only own guns made of wood and steel..no plastic. Without petro to run the combustable engine, communities would get smaller, the dreaded suburb would finally die, and life would go on with a bit of adaptation..I'd be fine with it to be honest..it would take some time, but we all would adapt.

[DanBlue]

Project:

A big thumbs up from me, for fracking! I also support the energy companies for the good that they do.

I work with them and although there are mistakes that happen, they are core to our economy.
Being less dependent on foreign oil is a good thing.

The media (and our current administration) is doing its best to destroy this industry.

Yea...you make the very point I'm trying to articulate and keep the focus on. The fact that mistakes do happen..that is potentially a big issue for any reasonable person that believes in protecting the basics within a natural environment....I just wouldn't want any mistakes to happen on anyones land.

[edkemper]

A big thumbs up from me, for fracking! I also support the energy companies for the good that they do.

I work with them and although there are mistakes that happen, they are core to our economy.
Being less dependent on foreign oil is a good thing.

Being less dependent on foreign oil is a two sided blade. The domestic power controllers may be the core of our economy. But is that a good thing? It used to be "Farmers feed America." No longer. Without fuel, modern farms couldn't farm anymore. Without Chemical Companies, modern farms couldn't farm anymore. So, power companies feed America now. But they also take plenty of our food away. (Gulf coast is one example)

While some call them the core of our economy, many feel they detrimentally control to much of our modern economy.

One might even say that the owners of the big private energy companies now control our political system.

On the other hand, when the employees have a job and are able to support their families, I understand why they would feel supportive.

But the mistakes that are often made are catastrophic to say the least.

[jasonfromutah]

Good grief. Let this thread die.

[donjuedo]

Yeah, I started looking for a way to selectively block one thread. No joy.