TransCanada pipeline easement beneath swimming pool nixes property sale

The Plaintiffs in this case wanted to sell their residential property.  They listed the property for sale and the Defendant agreed to purchase it for $1,685,000.  The Agreement of Purchase and Sale was dated August 25, 2014 and the transaction was scheduled to close on November 28, 2014.  The property featured a pool, cabana and patio in the backyard.

After entering into the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, the Defendant discovered that a TransCanada Pipelines Limited ("TCPL") easement ran directly under the pool, cabana and patio.  An agreement provided that TCPL could remove the pool and cabana if necessary, and the agreement and the easement were the subjects of ongoing litigation between the Plaintiffs and TCPL.  The Agreement of Purchase and Sale between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant did not expressly reference the easement or the litigation.

The Defendant discovered the easement on November 6, 2014.  On November 7, 2014, the Defendant advised the Plaintiffs that he would not close the deal, and requested the return of the $50,000 purchase deposit.  The Plaintiffs refused to return the deposit and commenced an action against the Defendant for damages resulting from the failure to close the deal.  The Defendant counterclaimed for the return of the deposit.

As the Court explains in its decision on the claim and counterclaim, the Plaintiffs had constructed the pool, cabana and patio in 2011 without the consent of TCPL.  The TCPL easement dated from 1992, but the Plaintiffs were apparently unaware of it when excavations began (it was actually the second of two TCPL easements on the property).  TCPL permitted the Plaintiffs to encroach on the TCPL easement on certain conditions including:

(a)   The owners agree to sign a formal agreement prepared by TCPL which will be registered against the title of the land and will carry forward with future ownership;

(b)   In the event TCPL’s future operations, new installations, integrity or maintenance programs require the removal of the improvements (the pool and cabana) situated on its easement, the Owner agrees to remove the improvements immediately upon receipt of notice. The Owners and TCPL agree to equally share (50/50) the cost to remove the improvements;

(c)   The Owners covenant and agree that upon the Owner’s sale or disposition of the Lands, the Owners shall fully disclose the restrictive covenant to any prospective purchaser.

A letter containing those terms was registered on title to the property, but the Plaintiffs did not otherwise advise the Defendant of the letter or the subsequent litigation between TCPL and the Plaintiffs.

After the Defendant failed to close the transaction, the Plaintiffs defaulted on their mortgage and the property was sold under power of sale in May, 2015 for $1,730,000.  Although the sale price was higher than the price the Defendant would have paid, the Plaintiffs claimed they received $78,100 less in the power of sale because of the difference in the real estate commission charged (5% vs. 2.5%).

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the damages they claimed from the Defendant.  Instead, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim and granted judgment to the Defendant for the return of the $50,000 deposit.  The Court ruled that the Defendant was entitled to rescind the Agreement of Purchase and Sale because the (second) TCPL easement and associated encroachment agreement and litigation had not been disclosed to the Defendant in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.  As the Court noted:

The reference to a single easement in Schedule A of the APS did not provide the defendant with notice or disclosure of the 1992 easement or the June 2, 2011 letter agreement. Schedule A did not referentially incorporate the 1992 easement or make it part of the APS. This is especially true when the wording of Schedule A is compared to the wording of Schedule A in the earlier Purbas APS, which specifically referenced the TCPL litigation. Accordingly, the existence of the 1992 easement, the June 2, 2011 letter agreement, the unexecuted “Agreement To Install Swimming Pool and Cabana”, and the cloud of the litigation in relation to the plaintiffs’ refusal to execute the agreement, all meant that the plaintiffs did not comply with paragraph 10 of the APS which required the title to be free from all registered restrictions except as specifically provided in the agreement.

Read the decision at: Savo and Robichaud v Moursalien.

NEB confirms that no standards exist for maintenance of depth of cover over pipelines after installation

The National Energy Board ("NEB") has just released its report into its investigation of various whistleblower allegations made against TransCanada PipeLines Limited (read the report here).  I haven't read through the report in full, but I was drawn to the section dealing with inadequate cover over a pipeline.  In its observations, the NEB notes that:

"Other than during the design and initial installation of the pipeline, CSA does not address requirements for maintaining the depth of cover during the life of the pipeline.  In a general sense, OPR section 6.5(1)(e) requires companies to: identify the hazards and potential hazards; assess the risk associated with those hazards; and implement controls to prevent, manage and mitigate those hazards.  TransCanada has recognized the low depth of cover as a hazard, has assessed the consequence of a hazard to be low because the site was in an unused, fenced in pasture area and has mitigated the risk by installing fencing to secure the site."

In other words, there is no regulation in place for NEB-regulated pipelines with respect to the depth of cover that must be maintained over a pipeline.  Once a pipe is installed, it is left to the company to determine what depth must be maintained over a pipeline to avoid potential hazards.  For people who have read through the CSA Standards applicable to pipelines (which requires an expensive licence), this gap in regulations was obvious.  In some cases, landowner groups have successfully negotiated agreements with pipeline companies requiring maintenance of depth of cover over pipelines to a specific minimum depth and requiring the payment of compensation where restrictions on land use are imposed.  But what about everyone else with a pipeline on their lands?

Isn't depth of cover an important enough component of pipeline safety that it should be the subject of specific prescriptive regulations?

OEB launches Energy East consultation

The Ontario Energy Board has set up a website with information about its pending public consultation on the TransCanada Energy East Project.  Although the project falls within the federal jurisdiction, the Province of Ontario intends to participate in the approval process as an intervenor and is seeking comments on the positions it should be taking on the following four areas of "potential impact":

The impacts on Ontario natural gas consumers in terms of rates, reliability and access to supply, especially those consumers in eastern and northern Ontario

The impacts on pipeline safety and the natural environment in Ontario

The impacts on local communities as well as First Nations and Métis communities

The short and long term economic impacts of the project in Ontario

Public meetings will be scheduled for February and March, 2014.

The website can be accessed at: The Ontario Energy Board Energy East Consultation.

 

NOVA/TransCanada withdraws application to "decommission" 266 km line

In August, 2012, NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (part of TransCanada Pipelines) applied to the National Energy Board (NEB) for permission to "decommission" a 266-km stretch of pipeline.  Essentially, the application would see the abandonment of the line in place, but NOVA contended that it was "decommissioning" the line because service on its "pipeline" would continue.  The NEB disagreed and directed that it would consider the application as one to abandon a pipeline.

On February 8, 2013, NOVA wrote to the NEB to withdraw its application, saying that it was reviewing its proposal in light of the NEB's comments: February 8, 2013.  The NEB confirmed this development in its letter to NOVA dated February 25, 2013.

Landowners should keep an eye on these developments.  It appears that pipeline companies are taking the position that, as long as they continue to transport materials somewhere on their pipeline systems, none of their abandonments are actually "abandonments" within the meaning of the NEB Act.  Instead, the companies will suggest that they are "decommissioning" pipelines, depriving landowners and other interested parties from public hearings, participant funding, etc.

NEB Decommissioning - Pipeline Abandonment without landowner participation

Recently I wrote about an application filed by TransCanada Pipelines Limited for the "decommissioning" of part of its NOVA pipeline system in Alberta.  The National Energy Board (NEB) has created a category of "decommissioned" for pipelines permanently removed from service, but in situations where service on the "pipeline" system continues (i.e. customers are not affected).  The responses to information requests issued to TransCanada by the NEB reveal the dangerous position into which this "abandonment but not abandonment" places landowners.

Essentially, TransCanada is abandoning its pipeline in place.  However, since there is no abandonment application required under Section 74 of the NEB Act, there does not need to be a public hearing and there does not need to be landowner participation in the decision-making process.  Even if there was participation available, landowners would have no access to participant funding from the NEB; this is not one of the types of applications for which funding is made available (much like the ongoing abandonment cost estimate hearing process in which landowners must fund their own participation).

Read TransCanada's responses to the information requests at: NOVA response.

TCPL files major decommissioning application with NEB

The NOVA Gas division of TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TCPL) has filed a major pipeline "decommissioning" application with the National Energy Board (NEB).  TCPL proposes to "decommission" in place the vast majority of a 266 km length of pipeline, capping it, filling it with an inert gas, and leaving it to corrode in the ground.  The application is at the following link: Decommissioning Application. 

Several years ago, the NEB introduced the concept of "decommissioning", which effectively allows a pipeline company to abandon its pipeline in place without having to make an application to abandon.  Where there is no application for abandonment, landowners have no access to participant funding to support their involvement in the approval process. 

NEB issues Hearing Order for Pipeline Abandonment Costs Estimates

The National Energy Board (NEB) has issued a Hearing Order in the LMCI Stream 3 proceeding dealing with pipeline abandonment cost estimates.  An oral hearing will be convened to consider the reasonableness of the costs estimates presented by each Group 1 company (including Enbridge, TransCanada, etc.)  The following timetable of events is included in the NEB's Order:

Although landowners and other interested parties will be able to participate as intervenors, no participant funding is being made available. 

Read the Hearing Order at: MH-001-2012.

Keystone XL Pipeline Application rejected by U.S. Government

Read the CBC.ca News story here: Keystone XL pipeline proposal rejected — for now.

Former Pipeline Inspector attacks TransCanada construction practices

Mike Klink, formerly a pipeline inspector for Bechtel, recently wrote an editorial piece expressing concern over the workmanship he witnessed during the construction of TransCanada's Keystone Pipeline and the risk that it will be repeated in the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.  Bechtel was an inspection company working on behalf of TransCanada.  Klink says that he witnessed the use of substandard steel that cracked during welding, faulty safety tests and the installation of insufficient foundations.  He warns, "If it were a car, the first Keystone would be a lemon.  And it would be far worse to double down on a proven loser with Keystone XL."  Klink points to fourteen spills as having already occurred on the relatively new Keystone pipeline.

Read the opinion piece at: journalstar.com

TransCanada plans removal of 5.6% of 14,000 km of pipelines on abandonment

TransCanada Pipelines Limited has also submitted its application to the NEB for approval of its abandonment costs estimates.  TCPL has over 14,000 km of pipelines in Canada (not including the Keystone), more than half of which run through agricultural land.  Of the almost 8,000 km of pipe through agricultural lands, TCPL proposes to remove 1.7% on abandonment.  The rest of the pipe will be left in the ground with no continuing protection going forward. 

Read TransCanada's application at: TransCanada Preliminary Abandonment Costs Estimates. 

Keystone pipeline decision shelved until 2013

The US State Department has ordered an environmental assessment of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in the US, meaning that the project is shelved until after the 2012 Presidential Election.  Read CBC.ca's story at: Keystone XL delayed.

CBC's The Current - Keystone vs. Landowners

"In its bid to move unrefined bitumen from the oilsands of Alberta to refineries in Texas, TransCanada pipeline is finding some of its toughest opponents aren't environmentalists or regulators but the ranchers and farmers whose land the pipeline will cross."

This morning, the CBC Radio One program The Current looked into the relationship of landowners with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in the United States (click here to see the program page and a link to the archived broadcast). 

 

I was asked by the program to comment on the existence of "eminent domain" law in Canada (here known as expropriation), as well as any differences between the challenges faced by pipeline landowners in Canada and those in the United States.  My comments come at the end of the program, just before the host notes that TransCanada declined an invitation to speak on the basis that it is still involved in eminent domain proceedings in the U.S.

Nebraska Senator stands up for Keystone XL landowners: Press Release

LINCOLN, NE, September 27, 2011 – Today, Senator Bill Avery, who could not be in attendance to present his remarks at a scheduled US State Department Hearing on the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline pending application, released this statement:

“For the record, I am not opposed to an international pipeline. I realize that there are currently hundreds of natural gas and oil pipelines across Nebraska and across the United States. I have sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton indicating that while I do not oppose the pipeline or its purpose, based on our historical need for oil and gas, I have several very serious reservations about TransCanada’s operations and procedure for route approval.

I am extremely concerned about TransCanada’s questionable record of pipeline maintenance. Keystone I has already experienced 12 spills in its first year but claims no fault because those spills were at pumping stations. That’s more first-year spills than any other pipeline in US history. Keystone I was recently issued a Federal Corrective Action Order in June, 2011 by the US Department of Transportation to take necessary action to protect the public, property and the environment from potential hazards associated with two spills this summer in Sargent County, North Dakota and Doniphan County, Kansas.

There is absolutely no denying that spills will happen. Enbridge dumped over 1 Million gallons of tar sand crude into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, polluting and closing the waterway to fishing and swimming for 6 months. ExxonMobile spilled 42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River contaminating America’s National Park waterway. The good people of Louisiana, where I attended Tulane University, will suffer for decades from the tragedy of British Petroleum’s offshore explosion. Spills can and will happen. They will poison our waterways and kill our wildlife. The Sandhills are home to the endangered Whooping and Sandhill Crane migratory bird species, the endangered American Burying Beetle, and dozens of waterfowl and wildlife. Even worse, viscous tar sands, which won’t float like light sweet crude, will sink into our porous Ogallala Aquifer, contaminate our clean water systems, and cause catastrophic and irreversible damage. If we don’t stop this now, future generations will forever wonder why we allowed this to happen.

I am opposed to TransCanada’s questionable and deceptive tactics. It’s a very serious problem when a foreign corporation can enter our state and dictate what’s going to happen on our private property. Property that has been held by generations of Nebraska family farmers. The US State Department must acknowledge that TransCanada did not have the proper permits to threaten to invoke eminent domain. It’s unethical and it’s against the law. I have a copy of the letter they have sent to landowners threatening land condemnation. The intimidation and deception of our citizens is real.

Furthermore, I am outraged that TransCanada has briefed our legislative staff, partnered with our local unions, sent the Consulate General of Canada to meet with me, sponsored our Nebraska State Fair, and implied University of Nebraska backing on Husker gamedays all while declaring to be our friend.

Friends don’t send hostile letters to innocent landowners. They don’t infiltrate our state with unsubstantiated illusions about increased jobs and decreased oil prices at a time when working families, farmers and cattle ranchers are clinging to their livelihoods and barely making ends meet. Friends don’t turn a deaf ear when a state pleads for them to shelter their drinking water from toxic crude oil and their fragile ecosystems from erosion.

Our two US Senators have said no. One US Representative has said no. Our Governor, Dave Heineman, has asked the President to deny TransCanada’s permit based on location. Our University has told TransCanada to get their advertisements out of Memorial Stadium. 30 Nebraskans peacefully protesting TransCanada’s tactics have been arrested at the White House. Our Legislature is seriously considering – and I support – a costly Special Session to protect our state from TransCanada’s refusal to hear us that our Aquifer is Nebraska’s most precious resource. They’ve threatened our landowners with eminent domain and land condemnation, invaded our airwaves and newspapers with confusing and manipulative advertising and made questionable political contributions to our lawmakers. Today, TransCanada has caused hundreds of Nebraskans to take the day off, drive across the state and show up to again voice their serious concerns.

How many more times can Nebraska tell you?  We do not want our Ogallala Aquifer and Sandhills adversely affected by TransCanada’s dirty tar sand sludge. The Final Environmental Impact Study report indicated that for 65 miles, Keystone XL Pipeline will be less than 10 feet away from the Aquifer. That simply is not acceptable. The Aquifer provides 78% of Nebraska’s clean drinking water and provides 83% of Nebraska’s total irrigation water for livestock and crops. We do not want TransCanada jeopardizing our clean water, irrigation source or the livelihood of Nebraska’s family farmers with vague and unfounded promises. We will not risk a spill on our watch.

I’ve heard the arguments about ending our dependence on foreign oil. About Canada being a friendly nation we can count on. About TransCanada being a neighbor who will invest in our communities. I understand about the need for new jobs in a time of economic instability. And quite frankly, I am not moved. I am simply not convinced that these promises can or will be guaranteed by TransCanada. Are we willing to gamble away Nebraska’s environmental future on uncertainties? On temporary labor jobs and oil that, once refined, is not earmarked for American use? On a company who has a history of deceptive trade practices and faulty equipment installation?

Given that TransCanada refuses to be a friend and acknowledge their corporate responsibility, Nebraskans will continue to be resolute in the stewardship of our environment, our land, our history and heritage for the future of our children. We are unwavering in our support for what our families have spent generations protecting and we will not back down.

There is a solution, and we all know it. Absent a good faith effort from TransCanada to voluntarily propose to Nebraska another Pipeline route, the US State Department must reject this application and TransCanada must move the Keystone XL Pipeline east. Get it off of the majority of the Ogallala Aquifer. Keep it out of our extremely fragile ecosystem. Why is it so hard for TransCanada to move the Pipeline east? To follow its existing Keystone I pipeline route? Is it because they were deceptively acquiring land ahead of their application approval and would now have to obtain new landowner easement rights? Let me remind you: TransCanada’s bottom line is not our problem.

It is incumbent upon the US State Department to reject approval of this permit and require TransCanada to reroute the Keystone XL Pipeline away from the Sandhills and Ogallala Aquifer. Then, and only then, will this project win our confidence and likely acquire broad support in Nebraska. The Keystone XL Pipeline may be in the national interest, but the route is absolutely not in Nebraska’s interest. As Nebraskans, we respectfully request, no, we absolutely demand, the rejection of TransCanada’s permit application.”

#  #  #

OMB declines to discount pipeline easement payment from highway expansion expropriation compensation

On April 11, 1996, the Ontario government (the "Respondent") expropriated 8.391 acres (3.396 ha) out of lands owned by the Estate of Alexander Shypka and Julia Shypka (the "Claimants") to be incorporated into the right-of-way for the 407 highway near Milton. The effect of the expropriation was to divide the Claimants’ lands leaving a 23.392 acre (9.473 ha) parcel on the east side of the highway fronting onto the Ninth Line and a 7.532 acre (3.05 ha) landlocked parcel on the west side of the highway, which is also subject to Consumer Gas and Trans Canada Pipeline easements.  Both before and after the partial taking, the land had been used for agricultural purposes.

In its decision on compensation, the Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB") set out the following general principles of compensation:

The Expropriations Act is a remedial statute enacted for the specific purpose of adequately and fully compensating a land owner whose lands are taken to serve the public interest.
To take all or part of a person’s property constitutes a severe loss, and a significant interference with a citizen’s private property rights, and as such, the power of an expropriating authority should be strictly construed in favour of those whose rights have been affected.

The Expropriations Act, being a remedial statute, must be given a broad and liberal interpretation, and should not be interpreted to deprive one of common law rights unless there is a specific provision in the Act stating so.

This is a presumption that whenever land is expropriated, compensation will be paid, and the Expropriations Act should be read in a broad and purposive way.

Section 13 (2) of the Expropriations Act sets out that the compensation payable shall be based upon one or more of the four heads of damages, three of which for this matter are relevant ; the market value of the land (13(2)(a)), damages for disturbance (13(2)(b)), and damages for injurious affection (13(2)(d)).

The first step in any expropriation is to determine the highest and best use of the expropriated property and the second step is to fix the compensation to be awarded to a Claimant based on such use.

The OMB also discussed the relevance of the TransCanada pipeline easement to the compensation. The Claimants and Transcanada Pipeline Limited had entered into an agreement dated May 29, 1998 in which a total of $53,000.00 was paid to them in 1998. The OMB could find no reason why an adjustment should be made to the amount of the compensation it ordered to be paid to reflect this amount. The pipeline in question is located in the westerly landlocked portion of the Claimants’ lands that the Respondent chose not to take in 1996. The amount paid had no reference to a market value calculation being made then. The Claimants reserved their rights to be paid for the value of that pipeline easement before the National Energy Board. The OMB saw no issue that the Claimants have been doubly compensated by the OMB’s award in this matter. There is a right to arbitration in the agreement, should a party to it wish to pursue the matter.

Read the decision at: Shypka v. Ontario.

Enbridge spill into Kalamazoo River showing added risks of tar sands oil

One year ago on July 26, 2010, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. spilled more than 3.8 million litres of oil in Michigan after one of its pipelines ruptured.  More than 1.5 million litres ended up in Michigan waterways, including the Kalamazoo River.  Enbridge says that 3.48 million litres have been recovered.  News stories in the past couple of days are revealing the difficulties faced by clean up crews in recovering the last few hundred thousand litres.  The problem is the nature of the product spilled - bitumen from the Alberta tar sands mixed with "light hydrocarbons" refined in the U.S.  The heavy bitumen component is proving difficult to collect. 

The spill affected a 65-kilometre stretch of the Kalamazoo River.  The river has been closed off to recreational paddlers, fishermen and any other users since the spill.

Read the Financial Post article "Enbridge cleanup: Aftermath of a spill" by Sheldon Alberts at this link.

Meanwhile, Enbridge's latest newsletter called "eBridge", Volume 70, doesn't mention the Michigan spill (or the Norman Wells spill for that matter), but does celebrate Enbridge's ranking as #10 out of the Best 50 Corporate Citizens in Canada by "Corporation Knights" ("The Magazine for Clean Capitalism").

CBC.ca | The Current | TransCanada Pipeline

Listen to the segment from the CBC radio program The Current from February 22, 2011 discussing TransCanada Pipelines, the Keystone project and the Beardmore, ON explosion at: TransCanada Pipeline.

Another TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. explosion in Northern Ontario

Shortly after 11 p.m. last night, people near the Northern Ontario community of Beardmore, Ontario began calling in reports to the OPP of flames reaching hundreds of feet into the night sky.  A rupture in a TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. natural gas pipeline caused an explosion so large that the fire could be seen by airplanes passing overhead. 

Several hundred nearby residents were forced from their homes, but the fire burnt itself out after a few hours.  TransCanada's crew, which arrived on scene within an hour of the OPP, advised that the danger zone was within 1 km of the pipeline.  Reports say that the National Energy Board (NEB) is sending two inspectors from Calgary to investigate the scene.

In September, 2009, less than 18 months ago, another section of a TransCanada gas pipeline exploded near Englehart, Ontario.  Witnesses to that explosion described the sound of a jumbo jet crash.  The 2009 rupture happened on the 36 inch diameter main line. 

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada appeals Keystone XL approval

CEP Press Release - 04/12/2010

TORONTO -- The National Energy Board has approved a pipeline construction project – Keystone XL – that will result in tens of thousands of current and potential Canadian jobs being exported to Texas along with our oil, says Canada’s energy union, which filed leave to appeal the decision on Friday.

“The oil and gas industry has decided that the enormous economic development associated with upgrading and refining oil sands resources will take place in Texas, not Canada,” says Dave Coles, President of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada.

The Keystone XL pipeline construction project will export 900,000 barrels of oil per day to the US Gulf Coast -- most of which is unprocessed bitumen from the Alberta oil sands.

“This means the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the Canadian oil upgrading and refining sector that either exist now, or that would have been created by projects that are likely to be cancelled as a result of the dramatic expansion of oil export pipeline capacity to upgraders and refineries in the U.S.”

Keystone XL was opposed by CEP, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Sierra Club, and also by Enbridge, Imperial Oil, BP and Nexen.

The companies argued that Keystone XL will create enormous excess export capacity, raise service costs on other pipelines, and increase input costs to Canadian refineries by US$600 million in 2013.

“Not only will this project abandon the enormous opportunity of creating a diversified Canadian oil and gas industry,” says Coles, “but it will seriously undermine the viability of existing refineries.

“Astonishingly, the NEB has signed off on the industry’s plan as being the Canadian public interest.

“The Board has abandoned its mandate to the entirely ill-founded notion that a deregulated export market is in the Canadian public interest.”

The legal argument filed by CEP asserts that the NEB made several fundamental errors of law, and failed to properly exercise its mandate to protect the Canadian public interest.

The National Energy Board approved the Keystone XL pipeline project March 11, 2010, subject to the federal government giving it the final green light. CEP filed its appeal on April 9.

Keystone and its allies now have 20 days to respond to CEP’s application. A decision from the Federal Court of Appeal on whether an appeal will be allowed is expected in May.

The 150,000-member CEP is Canada’s largest union of energy workers, with about 35,000 members who work in the oil, gas and petro-chemical industries.

Pipeline clean up tax in South Dakota being opposed by TransCanada

Noel Griese of the Energy Pipeline News is reporting on a move by South Dakota to charge an environmental clean up tax on pipelines carrying oil.  The tax rate would be 2 cents per barrel for pipelines carrying more than 10,000 barrels per day.  The money collected would go into a fund to cover costs of cleaning up oil releases, but the fund would be capped at $30 million. 

TransCanada Pipelines Limited, which plans to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline through South Dakota, opposes the tax.  TransCanada suggests it will lose an estimated $38 million in tax incentives.  Wayne Ortman of The Oklahoman reports that Dennis Duncan, a lobbyist for TransCanada, says that the company would be paying $20 million in property taxes annually on the pipeline and that the new tax bill could damage South Dakota's pro-business and tax friendly image.

Read the articles at the following links:
Noel Griese Article at Energy Pipeline News
Wayne Ortman article at NewsOK

Too much new pipeline capacity to take oil sands to the US?

Noel Griese at Energy Pipeline News reports that Suncor and Imperial Oil are accusing Enbridge Pipelines Inc. of overbuilding pipeline capacity into the U.S. when it is not needed. Enbridge is in the process of completing the Alberta Clipper pipeline to carry Alberta oil sands oil to refineries in the United States. At the same time, TransCanada is proceeding with the Keystone XL pipeline designed to do the same thing. Now Suncor and Imperial Oil have applied to the U.S. regulator for breaks on tolls payable to Enbridge. Has the expansion in the export of oil to the U.S. moved too quickly?

Read the article: http://energypipelinenews.blogspot.com/2010/02/rhubarb-over-clipper-rates-pits-suncor.html