Ed. note: This is a weekly column by Elie Mystal, Managing Editor of Above the Law Redline. This space will focus on the laws that exist, should exist, and should be put out of their misery.
OVER-REGULATED:
The Pipeline That Won’t Die: How about we agree to build the Keystone pipeline, but only send beer or whiskey through it? Would that please everybody? No? Well, then I’m out of ideas.
The latest legal obstacle to the pipeline has nothing to do with the ongoing pissing match between Republicans in Congress and President Obama. Instead, a district judge in Nebraska has granted an injunction that will at least temporarily stop TransCanada Corp from moving forward.
The issue is called eminent domain. That is the government’s authority to appropriate or “take” land from private holders for important government purposes. Many landowners in Nebraska agreed to sell an easement on their land to TransCanada so that it could build the pipeline, but some did not. TransCanada applied for a takings action to get the easements from landowners who didn’t sell. But that’s tricky because — as we all know — the federal government has yet to authorize construction of the pipeline. Even if it does, there is now a lot of good, expert evidence out there that the pipeline is far from the kind of necessary action that would justify a taking of private land.
What’s really funny is that, in broad strokes, Republicans are against eminent domain actions (Big Government, taking your stuff), while Democrats favor them (for the greater good).
Read additional Breaking Energy coverage of Keystone eminent domain issues in Texas here.
At this point, constructing sentient, Terminator-style robots that we couldn’t fully control would be less political than this damn pipeline.
Birds Who Are Just Passing Through: There’s a law called the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which makes it illegal to kill over 1,000 species of birds. It’s illegal to kill these birds, even accidentally.
At first, it wasn’t obvious to me how you would “accidentally” kill a migratory bird, what with all their flying and darting about. But of course you can kill them accidentally, for instance if they run into your jet engine. Or maybe if it doesn’t notice your giant windmill. But then, how can it be illegal to kill something that impales itself on your turbine? It’s not like you put a bird feeder in the middle of your wind farm.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is considering a new law that would give people permits to accidentally kill migratory birds. This seems like an excellent way to balance nature with industry. At least until the North American Flamethrower Corp. applies for a permit to build in the ancient nesting grounds of the rare “It Still Looks Like A Pigeon” thingy.
UNDER-REGULATED:
Another Pipeline: No, really, TransCanada Corp has plans for another pipeline, this one from North Dakota.
TransCanada executives confirmed Friday they have signed contracts with shippers for enough capacity on the proposed 285-mile Upland pipeline to go forward with the project. It would move as many as 70,000 barrels a day of oil away from North Dakota’s Williston Basin, giving producers another alternative to shipping that crude by rail.
Speaking of rail, Canadian rail workers are on strike and some politicians up north want to pass legislation that forces them to go back on the job.
Canada is trying to drink our milkshake, man.
Blindness: Hands down, my favorite story of the week. From the Patriot News:
A Commonwealth Court panel has refused to award workers’ compensation benefits to a natural gas industry employee who claimed he was partially blinded by accidental exposure to fracking chemicals.
The state judges made that call Wednesday by upholding a workers’ compensation judge’s decision that James Dershem had not proven his vision problems were related to a mishap at a gas drilling site.
You’d think it would be a pretty open and shut case: either you got fracked in the eye or you didn’t. But no. It’s so much more complicated than that:
Fluid got into his eyes even though he was wearing goggles, Dershem claimed. He said he flushed his eyes with bottled water, but by the end of his work shift the vision in his right eye had become blurred. He said he now can see nothing but a “black blur” in his right eye and has only limited vision in his left eye.
In disputing the workers’ comp claim, [the employer] noted that Dershem never reported the supposed accident, even though it was part of his job to document such mishaps. The employer also insisted that only unused fresh water was in the tanks at the well site when Dershem claimed he was exposed.
Is it likely that somebody got dangerous chemicals in his eyes, washed them out with a bottle of Dasani or something, and then never reported that he got a face full of fracking chemicals? On the other hand, is it likely that a man who works around dangerous chemicals just randomly can’t see out of his right eye anymore?
Somebody’s lying here. That I can clearly see.
