Texas rancher won't budge for Keystone pipeline

(CBS News) DIRECT, Texas - The Keystone XL pipeline is a massive, controversial oil delivery project cutting through America's heartland. The company behind the project says, if it's completed, it could help reduce America's dependency on foreign oil.

Thousands march in D.C. to protest Keystone pipeline
Keystone pipeline temporarily shut down
GOP bid to authorize Keystone pipeline fails

That pipeline would carry oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. The northern part has not been approved, but the southern stretch is already under construction - except where a few Texas ranchers are standing in the way.

The Keystone XL Pipeline extends two miles a day into Texas, but it can't get past Julia Trigg Crawford.

Construction on the Keystone XL oil pipeline

/ CBS News

Crawford has 650 acres of land and TransCanada only wants a small piece, but Crawford won't let them take it.

"I don't think they have a right to take it," she said. "I mean if it was 650 inches or something, I wouldn't want them to take it."

Plans call to bury the oil pipe a quarter-mile upstream from Crawford's creek, which is critical for her livestock and crops. She's worried about a leak. She rejected a $21,000 offer from TransCanada. The company says it's too late to go around Crawford's land, so Transcanada has sued her.

"I just don't believe that a Canadian organization that appears to be building a pipeline for their financial gain has more right to my land than I do," Crawford said.

Henry Duncan

/ CBS News

Most ranchers here, like Henry Duncan, welcomed the pipeline. Duncan lives just across a two-lane country road from Julia Crawford.

He won't say what TransCanada paid him to bury pipeline through his 200 acres, but it's enough to pay his real estate taxes for the next two years.

"I've got one line that's coming across the backside of me and my cattle are eating on top of it, and it's not hurting them any, so I don't see how this can hurt them any," Duncan said.

If TransCanada came to him and said they wanted to put in a second line, Duncan said he'd have no problem complying.

"In a heartbeat, yeah for sure," Duncan said.

Crawford acknowledges that the more she sees the pipeline, "the more it's like the odds are getting longer."

But Crawford promises that, whatever the odds, she's an immovable object: A tall Texas rancher with grit.

[cbsblogger]

God bless her. No greedy foreign corporation has a right to take private property unless the owner wishes to sell it. The decision should be totally up to the landowner, not the foreign corporation. We will rue the day that we accept having global corporations rule our politicians and government.

[TimeToEvolve]

The oil and pipeline corporations cannot even mention this work without lying about it. Bottom line it will not decrease dependency on oil, will not create meaningful jobs and will only further destroy the earth's climate. There are no other facts.

[MTPennies]

Please remember it is NOT Canada that wins either - it is the OIL COMPANY that will reap any benefit. Canada only gets royalties (provincial (or state) and federal portions)on the profit Transcanada will make. It is a big controversy for us too esp. because it is true the heavy crude does not pay as well as the light crude - so the only $$ benefit to Canada is volume based as it leaves here not what the refined product will get on the open market. In other words we will still only get the royalites on 60ish percent of the going rate for a barrel of oil.

[winsonsinguy]

Can somebody explain to me a how commercially owned pipeline transporting commercially owned products sold on the open market decreases our national dependance on foreign oil?

The last time I checked oil is bought and sold on the open market and for a profit.

Unless we nationalize oil production we will continue to get oil from the open market. Same goes for prices at the pump.

It's rather stupid, Americans are yelling and screaming for this pipeline to be installed. We might as well be yelling and screaming for proposed pipelines in all the other oil producing countries as well because "ITS ALL BOUGHT AND SOLD ON THE OPEN MARKET FOR A PROFIT." That is a fact!

What America does get for its participation in this oil pipeline project is. We get use billions of gallons of our fresh water to refine oil before its sold on the open market. Oh by the way anybody realize that there is a severe lack of fresh water in the southern states. Southern ranchers are actually shipping their livestock to the north because they don't have water or vegetation.

Anyway, Next we get all the extra emission from this really dirty oil.

I guess I would be ok with the oil pipeline if we built a really long exhaust system that pipes the emissions back up to Canada. I would also ask that they supply the fresh water for any oil refined.

[AmazingGrce]

Great logic in the companies actions. We'll start building as quickly as possible. Having all the land access/purchases completed doesn't matter. Once we get a bit of it built then we can plead our case in the courts for imminent domain for the good of all. After all the US courts consistently favor businesses and cities over individuals rights.

[ENDER7727]

Way to go ranchers, stop that pipeline.

I just love the way the article describes the pipeline. "but the southern stretch is already under construction - except where a few Texas ranchers are standing in the way". So all we need is these few texas ranches to agree then were all set to go, except for the other Half of the country....lol

[daffy64]

This pipeline from a foreign country should reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.


Huh?

[daffy64]

Guess I didn't get that memo. Funny how the Canadian "socialist" economy is doing better, despite just being a "suburb".

[marx_marvelous]

it is my understanding that russia purchased the canadian oil sands, that transcanada tried to build a pipe across canada and is STILL cleaning up the mess, that the US will transport and refine but the oil belongs to russia, that this particular oil contains more greenhouse potential than other types, and that any texan who sells out to transcanada is a self-serving commie sympathizer

[Zeitgeist3]

With all the arguing over the need for oil, we've become a nation of addicts willing to get our fix by digging through garbage. The Tar Sands oil is a heavy oil with a high sulfuric content much like coal oil. This type of oil is what we normally use to asphalt roads with. The frenetic desire to move this oil from Canada into the U.S. is fishy because we prefer our oil to be "sweet" or light for gasoline consumption. The amount of energy it takes to get this thick molasses oil down through the pipeline supersedes the merit of the oil. It costs more to extract, push and refine it than you can get for it after it's refined. My question is...Who is paying the bigger bill? To move all of this garbage product is expensive. It doesn't matter if you raise the price of gasoline, the price to refine it will go right up with it. I believe it will be sold to the Chinese in exchange for them leaving our Gulf or "sweet" oil alone. They had been threatening to drill outside of U.S. waters after all. Does that make it okay to tunnel under land or set pipes on people's property? No. But then when you're dealing with the oil companies who don't bat an eye while drilling a slanted well under adjoining reservation land you have to wonder whether the U.S. will provide welfare to its own citizens,the unneeded Americans, by passing out "Smallpox blankets". If the economic hitmen won't convince you, the jackals will get rid of you. That's the American oil way.

[cfrank1959]

You might check the spot price of Brent vs. Canadian oil. Around $115 a barrel to $65 a barrel. Bring Canadian oil in and you'll have cheaper gasoline.

[frankie2fing]

Your an idiot frank. It's cheaper because it is harder to refine, and yields less volitales. Less gasoline, higher price. But we do not get it, we have to bid for it. Just like all the gasoline we are EXPORTING right now. Do some homework, stop getting teabagged by the kocks...

[lvas12]

Folks just look at the map http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/keystone-xl-pipeline-map-of-proposed-route-and-factfile-1.1160336
There is already a pipeline from Canada to st Louis area - which is just fine for Canada if they want to sell oil to the US. Really the need for the NEW pipeline is so that all the oil in the north/south Dakota fields that is US oil can be sent to Galveston and sold on the world spot oil market. Also then Canada - instead of sending oil down the existing pipeline to sell in st Louis market - it will go to Galveston as well to be sold on the world spot market. Doe anybody really believe any differently? The effect this will have on US market? Well less oil for US market and you know what less oil means - it means higher prices for us at the pump. Gees you folks that are for the pipeline need to think logically for once instead of letting foxnews think for you.

[lvas12]

I see you don't argue with any of the facts i put forth - just that i called out fox news (who misrespresent this project). so typical repbug in that you don't really have any facts on your side LOL