Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Pipeline Going Through Indian Burial Grounds
-
Pipeline Going Through Indian Burial Grounds
lanceboyle93101 replied 7 years, 10 months ago 19 Members · 101 Replies
-
Robert Hill, post: 398079, member: 378 wrote: I will
Respectfully disagree. Big Bend is a special place. Probably one of the best float trips in NA also. Folks that I know and knew from many places in the US take annual
Trips in the winter monthsYes, you can quantify the economic value of keeping Big Bend unspoiled and that is what is effectively being donated to a couple of billionaires for their pipeline project.
-
BTW, for anyone who wants to view the route of the pipeline across Brewster and Presidio Counties, I’ve attached the route as digitized from the route map on the pipeline company’s website. The file has a “txt” extension that needs to be removed to view in Google Earth.
-
paden cash, post: 397951, member: 20 wrote: Ruh-roh…somebody is disagreeing with the noted internet debater extraordinaire Kent “The Fencepost” McMillan. This post could turn into another long winded affair like Handling inaccuracy and the positions of existing monuments …only time will tell. 😉
I was a lot disappointed that he didn’t jump in on that one. I would have loved to see him trade barbs with the “dippy idiot”. I’m sure the moderators wouldn’t agree, though.
-
Andy Nold, post: 398127, member: 7 wrote: I was a lot disappointed that he didn’t jump in on that one. I would have loved to see him trade barbs with the “dippy idiot”. I’m sure the moderators wouldn’t agree, though.
I don’t think Kent and that fella from Singapore even speak anywhere near the same language. As with any worthy warrior, I’m sure Kent picks opponents that present a challenge. It’s no wonder Kent didn’t chime in… the proceedings probably bored him to tears.
-
Mike Marks, post: 398062, member: 1108 wrote: this project is a boondoggle meant to benefit an already fabulously rich Mexican tycoon.
The people of Presidio, Ojinaga and the general area will be able to tap into natural gas where average lows in December through February are below 40å¡. I’d think Kent would know that elevated, dry climates cool off at night. It’s my understanding that a new plant for processing produce is being built near the gas line to take advantage of the new fuel. Not many jobs there, but I’m sure some of the locals would appreciate a change of pace. Some of the families I have worked with in that area the past were primarily goatherds and might like the opportunity for a better job. What’s the phrase I’m looking for, economic biggotry?
I am not working on this pipeline but I have done some work on gathering lines that lead to the WAHA compressor station where this line begins.
-
Andy Nold, post: 398130, member: 7 wrote: The people of Presidio, Ojinaga and the general area will be able to tap into natural gas where average lows in December through February are below 40å¡. I’d think Kent would know that elevated, dry climates cool off at night.
I’m pretty sure that anyone who has spent any time in Presidio, Texas knows that the problem there isn’t the Heating season, but the Cooling season. Here’s a link to climate data for various cities in West Texas.
Average Annual
Heating Degree Days
Base temp = 65å¡FFort Davis TX 2779
El Paso TX 2565
Alpine TX 2464
Candelaria TX 1814Del Rio TX 1551
Presidio TX 1517Installing the hundred-plus miles of gas lines necessary to service a town of 4,000, few of whom probably have gas appliances to begin with, makes no sense at all. It’s obviously a fantasy being bandied about to obscure the real purpose of the pipeline to Mexico.
-
I know you have to stick arrows in it, but natural gas access to the area is a legitimate benefit. I realize it is not driving the train, but it does exit.
-
Andy Nold, post: 398130, member: 7 wrote: Not many jobs there, but I’m sure some of the locals would appreciate a change of pace. Some of the families I have worked with in that area the past were primarily goatherds and might like the opportunity for a better job.
The myth that the gypsy work force that builds pipelines will be a major economic boost to an area is obviously false. Pipelines typically require specific skills, such as certified welders and even then only for the duration of construction. In the Presidio area, anyone who told you that the main source of their income was raising goats was probably lying to put you off the scent.
What Presidio has going for it includes the warm Winter, the fact that Ojinaga is across the river, and the fact that Fort Leaton and a few other things make it a stop on the tour of the Big Bend. Turning it into another ole bidness armpit like Odessa would destroy what it has already and replace it with nothing. What would follow? Low-Level Radioactive Waste Dumps?
-
Andy Nold, post: 398146, member: 7 wrote: I know you have to stick arrows in it, but natural gas access to the area is a legitimate benefit.
It’s silly to mention it, though, considering how little demand there would be for natural gas and how much it would cost once the costs of serving Presidio were factored into the slender customer base. All you have to do is look at the pipe line route that veers away from Presidio to see what a minor priority the 4,000 people who live in Presidio (and more than 24,000 in Ojinaga) are for the Mexican billionaire.
Since air conditioning is the main consumer of energy in Presidio, electricity makes quite a bit more sense than natural gas, with electric heating already in use. Add in the fact that West Texas has tremendous capacity for production of electricity from renewable sources and it’s bizarre to be piping natural gas to Presidio. As best I can recall, the public water supply already comes preheated for most of the year.
-
When the Shell natural gas plant went in at Bryan’s Mill, Texas and with the immediate need for easement to pipelines crisscrossing the territory from well to processing plant, Shell promised to connect everyone in the original lease and expanded communities to natural gas at no expense for life.
They held to that promise until Shell sold the plant and invoices from the new owners started appearing in people’s mailbox.
Near every one of them turned off the gas at the meter and some already had electricity and the others changed over to butane/propane.
Most all of the meters are long gone to the junk yard and a few keep them painted up as decor of what was and the distribution pipes are still in place and many upright connectors stand as they always have to never be hooked to a meter again.The entire plant exploded twice under Shell’s watch and once since it was sold making the plant to be built 4 times so far.
They have hit two new wells in the last few years, so it may keep going a while longer or connect to some of the other newer lines.I saw in the paper a notice for permit to add a new pumping station near the Texas-Arkansas state line east of Cass, Texas.
The line that exploded in Alabama may be a part of that same pipeline.Many years ago they found that the COE would not allow another pipeline across Lake Wright Patman.
The COE controlled most of the land all the way to Talco, Texas so the pipeline companies combined with a design and inserted half a dozen smaller pipelines inside the large one that was laid before the lake filled with water.The temp around here has not been cold long enough for me to need to build a fire in the ol Homesteader stove for a couple of years.
I still remember the rage that the electric blanket started when I was a kid.
😎
-
Kent McMillan, post: 398002, member: 3 wrote: I don’t object to pipelines per se. I object to giving any corporation rights of eminent domain when the taking of the property isn’t for a public purpose and I particularly object to letting a Mexican pipeline company trash the Big Bend landscape without any real thought or sensible restraint.
Maybe so Kent, but the SCOTUS, has kinda already said other wise..I.e Kelo Vs New London
-
A Harris, post: 398152, member: 81 wrote: When the Shell natural gas plant went in at Bryan’s Mill, Texas and with the immediate need for easement to pipelines crisscrossing the territory from well to processing plant, Shell promised to connect everyone in the original lease and expanded communities to natural gas at no expense for life.
Yes, the Mexican billionaire’s 42-inch pipeline to Mexico has been sold as providing natural gas for fuel to replace coal-fired plants known as Carbon I and Carbon II in Coahuila. The only problem that prevents that from being true is that the coal-fired plants are about 20 miles southwest of Eagle Pass and the 42-inch pipeline is heading in the opposite direction.
In other words, it’s an obvious lie that either the Mexican billionaire or the Dallas billionaire working for him gave a moment’s thought to converting the coal-fired plants to natural gas. I’d bet that the real objective is ship gas to a terminal on the Pacific coast of Mexico so that the Mexican billionaire can sell it overseas as CNG.
-
Joe the Surveyor, post: 398158, member: 118 wrote: Maybe so Kent, but the SCOTUS, has kinda already said other wise..I.e Kelo Vs New London
As I recall, in Kelo v. City of New London the US Supreme Court basically held that a public purpose was equivalent to a public use as a justification of the exercise of powers of eminent domain. What was at issue was a taking of land in connection with a redevelopment scheme and the redevelopment scheme was held to serve a general public purpose.
In the case of a large high-pressure natural gas pipeline to Mexico, there would be absolutely no element of public use or public purpose. It transparently is a scheme for the benefit of some Mexican billionaire and his Dallas underling, to enrich them both with costs transferred to the public generally.
-
Kent McMillan, post: 398164, member: 3 wrote: As I recall, in Kelo v. City of New London the US Supreme Court basically held that a public purpose was equivalent to a public use as a justification of the exercise of powers of eminent domain. What was at issue was a taking of land in connection with a redevelopment scheme and the redevelopment scheme was held to serve a general public purpose.
In the case of a large high-pressure natural gas pipeline to Mexico, there would be absolutely no element of public use or public purpose. It transparently is a scheme for the benefit of some Mexican billionaire and his Dallas underling, to enrich them both with costs transferred to the public generally.
yeah…just like the case Kelo case, that scheme had the same public use as the pipeline…none…oh sure, it was a thinly veiled scheme “for the public”, but in the end it was just to line the pockets of the developers.
Think of the tax dollars and jobs created by the pipeline for said “public”
-
Too bad I can’t find a link. Paper today had a comic by Ace Reid known as Cowpokes. The two old cowboys in the panel are driving their ancient pickup along a desert road with nothing in sight but the little path they are following. Quite probably somewhere in the Big Bend area. Apparently, the one cowboy has tossed out a couple of beer cans. The other one says, “Don’t toss those beer cans out here. You’ll destroy the scenic view.”
-
Joe the Surveyor, post: 398172, member: 118 wrote: yeah…just like the case Kelo case, that scheme had the same public use as the pipeline…none…oh sure, it was a thinly veiled scheme “for the public”, but in the end it was just to line the pockets of the developers.
Think of the tax dollars and jobs created by the pipeline for said “public”
Well, it does shift the terms of the question to one of making the entity seeking to condemn private property under eminent domain justify that it actually serves some public purpose. In the 19th-century, the taking of land for roads was widely understood as being for public use and purpose. Railroads qualified as well since the benefit they provided was generally well recognized by a citizenry who valued the ability to ship goods to market by rail and to receive cheaper goods shipped in.
In the case of utility providers, where the provider’s rate structure is regulated by a public entity, the balancing of benefit against private enrichment could once have been assumed. However, in a situation where a couple of billionaires basically just take private lands for no public purpose or benefit and for the purpose of transporting natural gas to be sold in a foreign country for whatever the market will bear, the reason for exercise of eminent domain vanishes. What one is left with are the lame excuses similar to “but some ditch hands will make a few paychecks before they get laid off after completion” or “but we’re billionaires and plan to hire lots of yard men and pool boys because we’re just charitable that way.”
-
Kent McMillan, post: 398164, member: 3 wrote: As I recall, in Kelo v. City of New London the US Supreme Court basically held that a public purpose was equivalent to a public use as a justification of the exercise of powers of eminent domain. What was at issue was a taking of land in connection with a redevelopment scheme and the redevelopment scheme was held to serve a general public purpose.
In the case of a large high-pressure natural gas pipeline to Mexico, there would be absolutely no element of public use or public purpose. It transparently is a scheme for the benefit of some Mexican billionaire and his Dallas underling, to enrich them both with costs transferred to the public generally.
Yah, the TPPP people are touting local benefits, construction employment (ephemeral), 7.1 million per annum to the three Counties (sweet, but kinda paltry), taps for local communities (silly except for direct lines to commercial operations). Weak sauce if you ask me.
One eyebrow raiser is TPPP paid big bucks to reactivate a dormant rail line for equipment and materials transport, with commercial benefits post construction being goods and services transport (read agricultural & heavy oil exploration equipment). You heard anything about that?
-
-
Mike Marks, post: 398176, member: 1108 wrote: One eyebrow raiser is TPPP paid big bucks to reactivate a dormant rail line for equipment and materials transport, with commercial benefits post construction being goods and services transport (read agricultural & heavy oil exploration equipment). You heard anything about that?
No, but there is a narrow-gauge line that runs from Fort Stockton to Presidio that the State of Texas bought and which seemed a gigantic boondogle at the time considering how much it would cost to upgrade the line for commercial freight service. It would made sense that it was acquired to give a right-of-way to some ole bidness project and it does make sense that there will be extensive development of natural gas resources in Mexico. Of course it’s worth mentioning that 42-inch pipelines run both ways.
Edit: here’s a link that describes the shipments of pipe to Fort Stockton by rail:
-
Kent McMillan, post: 398178, member: 3 wrote: No, but there is a narrow-gauge line that runs from Fort Stockton to Presidio that the State of Texas bought and which seemed a gigantic boondogle at the time considering how much it would cost to upgrade the line for commercial freight service.
Correction: That line runs from San Angelo to Presidio and the track is reportedly standard gauge, not narrow gauge. The operating speeds reported are in the range of 10mph to 25mph, so the condition of the track is not tremendously good. The railroad is operated under a 40-year lease by a Mexican company, Texas Pacifico Transportation. It presently stops at the Rio Grande after the railroad bridge to Mexico burned about eight years ago.
Log in to reply.