We agree that the state has no right to interfere with private property rights of those who refuse to contract with Trans by taking through eminent domain.
Now, it just seems we disagree about the role this pipeline will play in gas prices in the midwest. Surely, you would accept Trans statistics or forecasts on this issue?
First, I agree that the state should not interfere with personal property rights, however based on the New London interp of the 5th Amendment, the state does have that right. Like it or not, you cannot disagree with this FACT.
Second, please tell me you aren't relying on the hatchet piece on Trans pasted below in concluding gas prices will go up in the MW due to the pipeline. If so,
. Even the "studies", performed by left leaning think tanks, revealed an immaterial effect on gas prices. Furthermore, even if WTI were to actually skip on by the MW and go overseas for refining, that gas ultimately ends up right back here in the US. Increasing the supply of fuel refined with lower input costs isn't going to make it more expensive. If anything, it would further force OPEC to increase Brent Crude production, which also would reduce the cost of gas. The left is basically arguing that the Bakken and Canadian WTI is going to be pumped off the face of the earth.
from TransCanada Studies:
It would cost Midwesterners more in fuel prices if Keystones went through!
“Rather than providing the US with more Canadian oil, Keystone XL will simply shift oil from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast, where much of it can be exported to international buyers – decreasing US energy supply and increasing the cost of oil in the American Midwest,” concludes a new study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental advocacy non-profit group, citing numerous TransCanada studies and the transcripts of Canadian federal hearings.
But that is not merely Verleger’s opinion. It’s based on findings of the economic consultants hired by TransCanada – contained in their analyses of the pipeline’s impact on Canadian oil producers and in official testimony before Canada's National Energy Board.
“Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil,” concludes a 2009 analysis on behalf of TransCanada by Purvin & Gertz, Inc., an oil economics firm based in Houston. “Access to the [US Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest market] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude.”
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46689167/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/#.T1rd0fFmLl8
Regardless, the gas prices argument (up, down or the same), remains a red herring in what should be an argument regarding the role of government in our economy. Let markets decide these battles, not some neerdowell parading around as Commander in Chief who owes manbearpig a political favor.
To date, I have yet to read a coherent and legitimate argument justifying the irrational decision to bureaucratically stonewall this project. It's politics, end of story.
I don't give a crap if you call yourself conservative, liberal, blue, red or green, the conclusions you've drawn regarding this issue are idiotic and uninformed, and can't possibly be based on any known set of economic principles.
How building something as simple as a pipe, the likes of which have been built and buried in this country for decades, can create a whole new brand of science and economics, is an giant red flag as to the motives and truthfulness of the claims of its opponents. Anyone who is even remotely interested in engaging in cognitive discourse regarding this issue can see that.
