Texas-size rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil

Julia Trigg Crawford stands on road in front of property neighboring her family farm, as work by TransCanada pipeline continued earlier this month -- work she opposes / AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez

SUMNER, Texas Oil has long lived in harmony with farmland and cattle across the Texas landscape, a symbiosis nurtured by generations and built on an unspoken honor code that allowed agriculture to thrive while oil was extracted.

Proud Texans have long welcomed the industry because of the cash it brings to sustain agriculture, but they also see its presence as part of their patriotic duty to help wean the United States off "foreign" oil.

So the answer to companies that wanted to build pipelines has usually been simple: Yes.

Enter TransCanada.

As the company pursues construction of a controversial 1,179-mile-long cross-country pipeline meant to bring Canadian tar sands oil to South Texas refineries, it's finding opposition in the unlikeliest of places: oil-friendly Texas, a state that has more pipelines snaking through the ground than any other.

In the minds of some landowners approached by TransCanada for land, the company has broken an unspoken code.

Nearly half the steel TransCanada is using is not American-made and the company won't promise to use local workers exclusively; it can't guarantee the oil will remain in the United States. It has snatched land. Possibly most egregious: They've behaved like arrogant foreigners, unworthy of operating in Texas.

To fight back, insulted Texas landowners are filing dozens of lawsuits, threatening to further delay a project that has already encountered many obstacles. Others are allowing activists to go on their land to stage protests. Several have been arrested.

• TransCanada submits new oil pipeline route
• Daryl Hannah arrested in Texas protesting pipeline
• Energy co. reapplies for Keystone XL oil pipeline

"We've fought wars for it. We stood our ground at the Alamo for it. There's a lot of reasons that Texans are very proud of their land and proud when you own land that you are the master of that land and you control that land," said Julia Trigg Crawford, who is fighting the condemnation of a parcel of her family's 650-acre Red'Arc Farm in Sumner, about 115 miles northeast of Dallas.

Oil and agriculture have lived in peace in part because a one-time payment from a pipeline company or monthly royalties from a production rig can help finance a ranch or farm that struggle today to turn a profit from agriculture. The oil giants also respected landowners' fierce Texas independence, even sometimes drilling in a different yard or rerouting a pipeline to ensure easy access to the minerals below.

TransCanada is different. For one, it has sought and received court permission to condemn land when property owners didn't agree to an easement.

"This is a foreign company," Crawford said. "Most people believe that, as this product gets to the Houston area and is refined, it's probably then going to be shipped outside the United States. So if this product is not going to wind up as gasoline or diesel fuel in your vehicles or mine then what kind of energy independence is that creating for us?"

Activists have handcuffed themselves to machinery. A group has moved into a grove of trees on a TransCanada easement. A 78-year-old great-grandmother, Eleanor Fairchild, whose late husband worked in the oil industry, spent a night in jail after trespassing — along with actress Daryl Hannah of "Splash" fame — on land condemned on her 425-acre farm. On Monday, eight others were arrested for their protest activities.

TransCanada's pipeline, some landowners say, is more worrisome than those built by other companies because of the tar sands oil the company wants to transport. They point to an 800,000-gallon spill of mostly tar sands oil in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010. It took Enbridge, the company that owns that pipeline, 17 hours to detect the rupture, and the cleanup is still incomplete.

With a pipeline, landowners give up control of the land for a one-time check, risking a spill that could contaminate their land or water for years. It's a risk many are willing to take in exchange for cash -- to a point.

Some say the risk of a spill now is too high to cooperate. Others want guarantees TransCanada will take full responsibility for a spill.

Many just want respect.

Most pipeline projects in Texas have been completed with an average of 4 percent to 10 percent of condemned land. TransCanada, however, has condemned more than 100 of the 800 or so tracts -- or about 12.5 percent -- of the land it needed to complete a 485-mile portion of the pipeline that runs through Texas.

Many of the lawsuits in Texas are about TransCanada's "common carrier" status. This allows companies building projects benefiting the public to condemn private property. The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled if a landowner challenges a condemnation, the company must prove its project is for the public good.

Crawford, whose family has denied other pipelines access to their land, argues that, since TransCanada's pipeline will have only one access point -- or a place where oil can get into the pipe -- at a hub in Cushing, Okla., it does not qualify for the status, which requires the pipeline be accessible in Texas.

"This is not about the money," said Crawford, who notes that TransCanada's final offer of $20,000 amounts to about $1 a year over 60 years, less time than her family has been on the land. "This is about the right of a landowner to control what happens on their land."

David Dodson, a TransCanada spokesman in Houston, said the company has agreements with 60,000 landowners in North America, hundreds of them in Texas. Many have been reached easily, he said. The problems in Texas, he believes, may just be a sign of the times.

"These days, anyone who attempts to build a linear infrastructure project, Texas, wherever it is, it doesn't matter, is facing increased opposition," Dodson said.

David Holland's 3,850-acre rice farm and ranch in southeast Jefferson County is littered with nearly 50 pipelines. In the five years since he was first approached by TransCanada, he said he has signed contracts with two other companies. He insists he would do the same for TransCanada -- if they offered him fair value for his 10.5 acres.

Until now, Holland said, he and other landowners had given pipeline companies a roughly 20 percent discount because it was cheaper than fighting Big Oil. TransCanada offered him more than $400,000 for his land. But that, he said, was about $200 less for every 16.5 feet than he had previously received. After Holland declined, the court allowed TransCanada to take the land for $13 for every 16.5 feet -- totaling slightly more than $20,000.

"Every landowner in the state is furious at them," he said.

Some landowners have reached agreements without a problem. Henry Duncan, whose 200-acre farm is across the road from the Crawford's, wouldn't say how much TransCanada paid, but feels he was fairly compensated for his seven acres. He does wish they would use American-made steel for the pipe and hire local workers. He, too, feels they bullied landowners, but is realistic.

Pipeline money helps keep his 100 head of cattle roaming the pastures. It could help him and his wife as they age.

"To be quite honest, I'd like to see another one come through because they pay good," Duncan said.

[wildemanne]

don't need ANY PIPELINE not beneficial to American workers, or country, let them ship their nasty crap on boats to china, to fuel the communist empire, we don't need any of their ooze or the toxic by products that go with it it's just some other millionaire oil man looking to make a fast buck at the expense of American lives and taxes

[podboq]

United States oil should belong to the people, not any company.

[KennethHargett]

OMG - That is not what this fight is about!!! It is about the devastation of tar sands development and the very serious dangers of tar sands diluted bitumen pipelines!!!

[anonymous010]

I seem to recall reading an editorial on CNN a while back about how this pipeline wouldn't be producing oil for the US, would be dirty, and wouldn't create any permanent jobs while all the Republicans in Congress (and many outside of Congress), adamantly insisted that these claims were wrong. They are all liars.

If this pipeline is to bring oil to the US, why does it need to go across the country? Refine the oil where it is drilled. It's being piped across the country down to the ocean, where it can be sent offshore. This pipeline is nothing but pure greed and evil rolled into one. Tear it down and tell TransCanada (and their greedy Republican supporters) to go f*** themselves.

[Mathion]

No one blows 7 billion dollars on a pipeline to help a country, improve employment or as a means to achieve "energy independence".

The United States is a new EXPORTER of oil, but we still import oil. Why?

Marketing and profits.

U.S. oil companies export all the oil they can because then they can sell it at global prices. The current global price for oil is 115/barrel (Brent - Europe) . The current US Market (WTI Cushing - Oklahoma U.S.) is 92.07. That's 23 dollars of profit the oil companies in the midwest aren't getting because midwest oil has no ready access to international markets.

Guess what Keystone will do for those midwestern oil reserves?

Yep, it will open them up to global markets where the oil can be sold at global prices. The result? Well, the Midwest enjoys a break on the price of gas right now because the oil refined for them is cheaper than oil refined in states that are closer to global market ports. And that difference in local versus global prices is why America exports (making a profit on sales) and imports (making a profit on the higher gas prices that result from this Shell game (and Chevron game, BP game, etc...).

Oh, and what happens to the jobs when those Midwest refineries close while Midwest oil is pumped to Texas, their refineries and the global market? Not only does the price of gas go UP, but jobs will ultimately be lost in the Midwest.

Others have already pointed out how the Keystone pipeline will be considerably less than promised with regards to the economy. Materials are actually far more expensive than the labor in this case, and with most of the money NOT being spent in the United States, along with likely terrorist attacks on it (which the oil companies don't mind because the oil price will skyrocket for far more profits since we're putting too many eggs in one basket with this), it's almost entirely a lose-lose for the American people.

And yet, there are those who defend it. All I can figure is that they're more interested in the money they make from oil company stocks than they are in the good of the nation.

[Necroscope84]

I'm a Texan and neither want nor voted for this. I am not supporting Romney. He's made it very clear that he is not the man for the job. His rudness, aroggance and demeanor have turned me off. Funny thing is I've always considered myself a conservative but this last year and alot of other things have really opened up my eyes. I guess it's better late than never and I don't really understand how I could have believed all of the propoganda for so long.

I know I keep posting this but I feel it's important. Much like me this man had his eyes opened to the real truth of being a Republican.

http://memspoliticalscrapbook.blogspot.com/2012/09/like-myself-some-republicans-do.html

And by the way SSI/Medicare, etc are Entitlements but not the way Republicans use the word. People are truly entitled to them because they've payed for them their whole lives. They've earned them so stop making it look like free hand outs. Anyone who's ever worked has payed for them so yes they ARE entitlements but they are NOT handouts like Republicans want to make you think. They are guilty of class warfare/general warfare and fear mongering in general. I will not support a bully/fear mongering/capital vulture like Romney and I do not support MORE OIL the way it's being done today. Everyone but America is benefitting from "More Oil" thanks to Republicans.

And Not one single government penny that goes to Planned Parenthood is used for abortions.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Romney and the "New" Republican party have opened my eyes for good. Voting Obama this year.

[Krowster]

Ahhh, my heart bleeds apple juice for all these greedy little people.

[wildemanne]

hope they hemorrhage dollars unstoppably for this abomination of greed

[WHAT-IS-HE-SMOKING]

BUT, BUT this can't be true, Mitty and his pack want this pipe line and he said this will increase employment and save the U.S.

[squidnuts]

Referring to Politifactcheck.com, About25% of Romney's assertions are out-and-out lies, and another 45% are to some degree, more or less exaggerations, taken out of context, muddled with fallacies of logic, and otherwise, distorted.
All presented evidence indicates the sole impetus for this pipeline is for the profits that accrue to Trans-Canada. All other angles and rationales presented are merely red herrings to distract those with property along the pipeline from having issues with the negative externalities potentially arising from it.

[aePiot]

Landowners opposing Big Oil
BUSINESS: Texas-size rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil: Texans have long welcomed the industry because of the ... http://t.co/IVBdeYXp
17 October 2012, 11:56 am
BUSINESS: Texas-size rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil: Texans have long welcomed the industry because of the ... http://t.co/IVBdeYXp
RT @restorereality: RT @restorereality: Texas rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil. TRUTH about #TransCanada pipeline. China + Oil Exports = America LOSES - ...
17 October 2012, 10:15 am
RT @restorereality: RT @restorereality: Texas rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil. TRUTH about #TransCanada pipeline. China + Oil Exports = America LOSES - ...
Texas rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil. TRUTH about #TransCanada pipeline. China + Oil Exports = America LOSES - http://t.co/ys7kOGrS
17 October 2012, 10:05 am
Texas rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil. TRUTH about #TransCanada pipeline. China + Oil Exports = America LOSES - http://t.co/ys7kOGrS
RT @KarlRovesBrain: Texas landowners say "NO!" to Big Oil. http://t.co/futwgIDH Well, whaddya know? #wiunion #obamabiden2012
17 October 2012, 9:58 am
RT @KarlRovesBrain: Texas landowners say "NO!" to Big Oil. http://t.co/futwgIDH Well, whaddya know? #wiunion #obamabiden2012
Texas-size rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil http://t.co/nZ0GbUUz
17 October 2012, 9:53 am
Texas-size rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil http://t.co/nZ0GbUUz
Texas-size rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil http://t.co/1DiZcXao via @CBSNews
17 October 2012, 9:40 am
Texas-size rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil http://t.co/1DiZcXao via @CBSNews
So Mitt Romney wants to being down Canadian oil? Huh. Texas landowners say "NO!" http://t.co/rhxeY3yq #awkward #debate
17 October 2012, 9:31 am
So Mitt Romney wants to being down Canadian oil? Huh. Texas landowners say "NO!" http://t.co/rhxeY3yq #awkward #debate
RT @KarlRovesBrain: RT @KarlRovesBrain: Texas landowners say "NO!" to Big Oil. http://t.co/rhxeY3yq Well, whaddya know? #wiunion #obamabiden2012
17 October 2012, 9:30 am
RT @KarlRovesBrain: RT @KarlRovesBrain: Texas landowners say "NO!" to Big Oil. http://t.co/rhxeY3yq Well, whaddya know? #wiunion #obamabiden2012
Texas landowners say "NO!" to Big Oil. http://t.co/rhxeY3yq Well, whaddya know? #wiunion #obamabiden2012
17 October 2012, 9:18 am
Texas landowners say "NO!" to Big Oil. http://t.co/rhxeY3yq Well, whaddya know? #wiunion #obamabiden2012
Texas-size rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil, fighting TransCanada oil pipeline http://t.co/Gscfw2FY
17 October 2012, 9:14 am
Texas-size rarity: Landowners opposing Big Oil, fighting TransCanada oil pipeline http://t.co/Gscfw2FY
- See more at: http://aepiot.ro/search?q=Landowners+opposing+Big+Oil&btnSearch=Search&rSearch=top#.UH7tz8XG80w

[MrsHippy]

Hey all you Alaskans, pay attention. If this is how TransCanada is treating Texans, don't expect them to treat you any better!

[Xenophilius]

That sub-heading was pretty Tarzan-esque: "Taking stand against pipeline TransCanada building, citing numerous gripes about way company treating them"