Keystone XL Hits New Turbulence as South Dakota Permit Hearing Implodes

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

5 posts / 0 new

to read Julie Dermansky's article published on truth-out.org 8/3/2015, click on

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32190-keystone-xl-hits-new-turbulence...

"Holes too big to fix were poked in TransCanada's narrative that its Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be the safest pipeline ever built. And questions were raised about how the pipeline company's financial dealings are set up during Public Utilities Commission hearings in Pierre, South Dakota last week where state regulators are tasked to decide if the company is capable of following the rules the state set when the original Keystone pipeline permit was granted in 2010.

A team of lawyers representing Native American tribes and the grassroots group Dakota Rural Action took the upper hand during the proceedings as they tried to have a TransCanada executive's testimony impeached. The proceedings took on a circus-like atmosphere when TransCanada was unable to prevent lines of questioning it didn't like.

The commissioners seemed unsure of its own procedures. At one point, Commissioner Gary Hanson expressed frustration that he was having trouble drawing a distinction between TransCanada's evidence and its advertising statements..."

demandside's picture
demandside
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

Quote demandside:

to read Julie Dermansky's article published on truth-out.org 8/3/2015, click on

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32190-keystone-xl-hits-new-turbulence...

"Holes too big to fix were poked in TransCanada's narrative that its Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be the safest pipeline ever built. And questions were raised about how the pipeline company's financial dealings are set up during Public Utilities Commission hearings in Pierre, South Dakota last week where state regulators are tasked to decide if the company is capable of following the rules the state set when the original Keystone pipeline permit was granted in 2010.

A team of lawyers representing Native American tribes and the grassroots group Dakota Rural Action took the upper hand during the proceedings as they tried to have a TransCanada executive's testimony impeached. The proceedings took on a circus-like atmosphere when TransCanada was unable to prevent lines of questioning it didn't like.

The commissioners seemed unsure of its own procedures. At one point, Commissioner Gary Hanson expressed frustration that he was having trouble drawing a distinction between TransCanada's evidence and its advertising statements..."

I was wondering what's been going on with regards to Keystone XL. Thanks for posting the above.

I am VERY concerned about what our next president will do with regards to this pipeline.

Even if President Obama denies the permit for the pipeline to cross international borders, the next administration could reverse that decision.

However, if the South Dakota Public Utility Commission decides TransCanada isn't up to the job, TransCanada will have to start the entire re-permitting process again.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

I'm just now sinking my teeth into that article! WOW what BASTARDS TransCanada people are!

Bruce Ellison, one of the lawyers for the interveners, had handed Goulet a copy of the company's root cause analysis report of the incident, before pointing out the corrosion area was much larger than Goulet had described. One of the defects involved a section of pipe where the wall had eroded 96.8 percent, which Ellison noted was close to a rupture incident.

TransCanada lawyers objected to any reference to the report because Goulet claimed he had never seen it and that it was classified. But since the report had already been entered into evidence, the interveners' lawyers were allowed by the Commission to continue questioning him.

In the course of discovery, TransCanada provided the report in question as part of the unclassified documents, and therefore could not exclude the report from evidence, the Commission said.

After that dispute was settled, Goulet admitted he knew the location of sites where the pipeline had been dug up for inspection and repair.

As indicated in the 'root cause' report, Site 5 was only 200 feet from the Mississippi River, the primary drinking water source for 18 million Americans, as well as agricultural water for crop production.

LIES LIES LIES!!! COVER-UPS TOO!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

MORE DECEPTION FROM TRANSCANADA!

Goulet testified that the considerably lower amount of taxes TransCanada paid was less than had been estimated before construction - although the tax rate has since increased.

While he stated he didn't know the technical details of how the taxes are applied, he went on to testify that "TransCanada Pipeline LP is the owner of the Keystone XLpipeline," explaining that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada Corporation. While TransCanada Corporation has assets in excess of $50 billion, not all of that value would be assessed for tax purposes. Only the subsidiary's assets would, Goulet explained. While TransCanada estimated that Keystone 1 would deliver at least $45 million in tax revenue to communities, Goulet admitted that the company has only paid $18.4 million over the first 5 years of the pipeline's operation. That's roughly a third of what TransCanada had estimated as the benefit it would deliver in tax revenue to affected communities.

Goulet cited higher capital and operating costs for the discrepancy, blaming regulatory delays, technical changes, and inflation were responsible for the costs ballooning to nearly $2 billion for the Keystone 1 project.

YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD GIVE UP ON BUILDING THIS PIPELINE!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

MORE DECEPTION......get rid of the witness before he spills the beans!!

by placing Mr. Diakow's written testimony into the record they opened the door to full cross-examination of him under the applicable administrative procedure rules. Apparently not wanting to have him questioned, TransCanada withdrew him as a witness and asked the Commission to strike his testimony from the record."

The Commission limited the scope of all further testimony for both parties to be pertinent to the amended conditions of the original 2010 permit, strictly limiting evidence presented for the remainder of the trial.

Peter Caposella, the lawyer representing the Rock Sioux Tribe said in all his years as an attorney, he had never seen a plaintiff remove their own witness in such a manner.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Impeachment: The Difference Between Nixon & Trump

Thom plus logo There is a very simple reason why some Republicans participated in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, but none have so far broken ranks against Trump. That reason is the US Supreme Court.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system