TransCanada Argues Back

The Aberdeen American News ran a strong editorial two Sundays ago backing away from support for the TransCanada Keystone pipeline [Editorial, "TransCanada Should Slow Down Process," Aberdeen American News, 2007.10.14]. During the summer, Aberdeen's newspaper had taken the position that TransCanada's project would help us get off our addiction to Mideast oil (a questionable assertion itself, as increased production on our continent gets gobbled up in increased demand rather than offsetting any imports). Since then, the behavior of TransCanada has made the AAN's editorial board -- not to mention some other South Dakotans -- question their support for the pipeline.

Just as irksome to the AAN as TransCanada's distinctly unneighborly, un-Canadian behavior is our own state officials' "uncharacteristically quiet" response to Big Oil's quick turn to lawyers and eminent domain to get what it wants for less than what free-market negotiations would require. A foreign company starts harassing our citizens and threatening to take our land, and the highest official response we get is the PUC's Dusty Johnson telling us the eminent domain question isn't the PUC's business? One would think that a governor sworn to protect his citizens best interests be on the phone and the news saying, "Just a minute, buddy," offering some legal assistance for citizens facing the onslaught of fancy corporate lawyers, and urging his people in the PUC, DENR, and other regulatory agencies to maybe turn up the heat on this corporate invader. Instead, the landowners have to turn to the Democratic State Senate Minority Leader to fight for them in court.

In the spirit of fairness, AAN gave Robert Jones, vice-president of the Keystone Pipeline Project, equal time in this Sunday's paper [Robert Jones, "Pipeline Project Working to Serve, Respect S.D. Landowners," Aberdeen American News, 2007.10.21]. The closest he comes to explaining how the project will "serve" the South Dakotans from whom he would steal land is the usual vague corporate propaganda about meeting "the energy needs of the Midwest." Again, here's a perfect chance for a visionary governor to say, "Meet our energy needs? Hey, how about instead of letting foreigners steal our land to pipe oil to some other state, let's let our farmers keep their land and meet our energy needs by generating our own energy with wind and biomass!" Instead of accepting on face a greedy corporation's claim that it has more rights to our land than our own people, we should take our destiny in our own hands, build wind turbines like crazy, and pump some money into SDSU's ag department to figure out how to make cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass.

VP Jones also doesn't make clear how jumping to eminent domain so quickly shows "respect" for South Dakota landowners. True believers in the free market would keep negotiating, would find a way to sell people on their project. And if people don't want to participate, well, that's still their right in the free market. Again, notice how good capitalists are happy to turn to state power when it serves their interests (and it all too often does).

But hey, don't let us propagandists, corporate and otherwise, dominate the discussion. Read some more on your own:

1. On the sort of research and action required to address spills (which, contrary to TransCanada's assertions, will happen): Steve Bennish, "Feds look into threats to area drinking water," Dayton Daily News, 2007.10.19.
2. On the dangers posed by crude oil and by the chemicals workers must use to clean up spills (which not just alarmists but Murphy's Law say will happen): Susan Q. Stranahan, "The Valdez Crud," Mother Jones, March/April 2003.