{"id":5975,"date":"2012-04-20T06:10:53","date_gmt":"2012-04-20T11:10:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/oklahoma\/?p=5975"},"modified":"2013-01-24T14:13:44","modified_gmt":"2013-01-24T20:13:44","slug":"meet-the-woman-who-moved-a-pipeline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/oklahoma\/2012\/04\/20\/meet-the-woman-who-moved-a-pipeline\/","title":{"rendered":"Meet the Woman Who Moved a Pipeline"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Joe Wertz \/ StateImpact Oklahoma<\/p>\n

Sue Kelso stands halfway between her property line and her neighbor's, where the location of TransCanada's pipeline was moved. The yellow ribbons seen over her left shoulder mark the pipeline's future path, she says.<\/p>\n<\/div>

This is the final story in a four-part collaborative series by StateImpact Oklahoma and Texas on the economic and environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline. You can read part one here<\/a>, part two here<\/a> and part three here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>

Sue Kelso fought TransCanada and won \u2026 sort of.<\/p>\n

\n
AUDIO BY LOGAN LAYDEN<\/h5>\n

<\/p>

Kelso doesn\u2019t hate pipelines, just Keystone.<\/p>

The Kelso family farm sits on 180 acres in southeastern Oklahoma, near the border with Texas. After school, Kelso moved to Dallas, where she met her husband \u2014 a man who grew up only miles from her, ironically \u2014 had a career and started a family of her own.<\/p>

After their children grew up, got married and started families, the Kelsos returned to retire at her family\u2019s farm in rural Oklahoma.<\/p>

[module align=”right” width=”half” type=”pull-quote”]<\/p>

\u201cI\u2019ll be sitting right over there in that pasture with a gun. It may be my pellet gun, but I\u2019ll be sitting there.\u201d<\/p>\n

-Oklahoma landowner Sue Kelso<\/h5>

[\/module]<\/p>

\u201cThat\u2019s where our heart was,\u201d she says.<\/p>

They marked out a five-acre plot and built a house. Her sister lives next door in their parents\u2019 old home on the remaining acreage.<\/p>

The family has a long, cooperative history with oil and natural gas companies. In fact, three pipelines already cross the Kelso farm, including the Gulf Crossing and Midcontinent Express natural gas pipelines, which move gas out of Oklahoma\u2019s Caney\/Woodford Shale.<\/p>

At one point, Chesapeake Energy contracted drilling rights with the family, Kelso says. The mineral rights expired long ago, she says, and all that remains of Chesapeake\u2019s drilling operation is a large rock used to mark a concrete well pad the company poured in the pasture.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Joe Wertz \/ StateImpact Oklahoma<\/p>\n

Three pipelines already cross the Kelso family farm.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Crude Concerns<\/h3>

Kelso says she and other nearby landowners in the path of the proposed Keystone pipeline were contacted by TransCanada officials, who invited them to an informational meeting in a nearby city.<\/p>

They were told it was going to be a crude oil pipeline, and Kelso was relieved. She worries about explosion risks from natural gas pipelines. And the first pipeline installed on her family\u2019s farm moved crude oil, she says.<\/p>

\u201cI thought, \u2018Well that\u2019s not so bad,\u2019\u201d Kelso says.<\/p>

But Keystone XL would transport a different kind of crude from the oil sands of Canada: diluted bitumen. Critics say this type of crude \u2014 nicknamed dilbit \u2014 is thicker, more acidic and more corrosive than conventional crude, and can hasten weakening of pipelines.<\/p>

Officials with the Canadian pipeline industry say dilbit has been flowing into the United States for years. A representative for Enbridge Energy \u2014 a TransCanada competitor with its own pipeline plan \u2014 told StateImpact Texas that there haven\u2019t been any pipeline accidents involving Canadian crude that have been linked to internal corrosion.<\/p>

[module align=”right” width=”half” type=”pull-quote”]<\/p>

\u201cSometimes landowners, frankly, think they won the lottery.\u201d<\/p>\n

TransCanada Spokesman Jim Prescott<\/h5>

[\/module]<\/p>

But there have<\/em> been spills.<\/p>

A 30-inch Enbridge pipeline that ruptured in July 2010 leaked an estimated 819,000 gallons of Canadian crude into a creek feeding the Kalamazoo River, a Lake Michigan tributary. Heavy rains carried the oil 30 miles downstream on the Kalamazoo, the Environmental Protection Agency reports<\/a>.<\/p>

TransCanada\u2019s had leaks, too. The existing Keystone Pipeline \u2014 Keystone XL is an expansion \u2014 from Alberta to Illinois and Oklahoma has had 14 spills since it started operating in 2012, reports<\/a> StateImpact Texas, citing a report from the U.S. State Department. None of those spills was corrosion-related, the State Department says.<\/p>

“It got me worried about our water source,” Kelso says.<\/p>

The Keystone Gulf portion<\/a> \u2014 the 485-mile Cushing-to-Texas section \u2014 won\u2019t move Canadian crude until it\u2019s connected to Keystone XL.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Bill Pugliano \/ Getty Images<\/p>\n

Workers using suction hoses try to clean up an oil spill of approximately 800,000 gallons of crude oil from the Kalamazoo River on July 2010 in Battle Creek, Michigan.<\/p>\n<\/div>

Kelso heard about the Kalamazoo River spill and started researching dilbit crude, and the family rejected TransCanada\u2019s first offer for a pipeline easement on the farm.<\/p>

\u201cThey still don\u2019t have it cleaned up,\u201d Kelso says. \u201cThey don\u2019t know how to do it.\u201d<\/p>

The first offer was about $1,200, Kelso says. A Keystone XL project spokesman, Jim Prescott, wouldn\u2019t confirm any numbers. The contract amounts aren\u2019t independently verifiable, and landowners who did settle with TransCanada are bound by nondisclosure agreements.<\/p>

TransCanada then offered about $3,000, and, later, about $7,000, which the family rejected, Kelso says. The company and the family negotiated back and forth. At one point, Kelso thought they had a deal, but she says TransCanada balked at the family\u2019s request to change some of the contract\u2019s language.<\/p>

Specifically, the family wanted more money and a provision that guaranteed that the pipeline would only carry what it was originally designated for: crude oil.<\/p>

If TransCanada ever wanted to use Keystone XL to transport anything else, the family wanted the ability to renegotiate the easement.<\/p>

\u201cA demand like that was a non-starter,\u201d and raises legal questions about inhibiting interstate commerce, TransCanada spokesman Prescott says. \u201cNot just for this project, but for any pipeline project.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Joe Wertz \/ StateImpact Oklahoma<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n

Eminent Energy<\/h3>

Next, Kelso says the family received a letter from an attorney for TransCanada, which threatened condemnation if a settlement between the two parties wasn\u2019t reached.<\/p>

\u201cThey never intended to negotiate,\u201d Kelso says. \u201cTheir idea was bully, bully, bully, and people would cave in.\u201d<\/p>

Prescott disputes Kelso\u2019s account. Acquiring easements for pipeline projects is tricky for companies like TransCanada, he says. If the company doesn\u2019t disclose its full intent \u2014 to petition for condemnation, if necessary \u2014 it\u2019s viewed as trying to trick landowners. And explaining its legal position up front is often perceived as threatening, Prescott says.<\/p>

\u201cWe approach each landowner in good faith,\u201d he says. \u201cBasically, show all our cards right up front.\u201d<\/p>

Acquiring easements with eminent domain is necessary, if unfortunate, Prescott says. Oftentimes, land is held by a trust and pipeline companies can\u2019t track down the owner. In some cases, landowners want more money than companies think is fair.<\/p>

\u201cSometimes landowners, frankly, think they won the lottery,\u201d Prescott says.<\/p>\n

\u2018A Better Option\u2019<\/h3>

Negotiations broke down, and in August 2010, TransCanada filed a petition for condemnation to acquire the pipeline easement through eminent domain.<\/p>

A year later, in August 2011, TransCanada withdrew its petition, and the case was dismissed that October.<\/p>\n

\n

Related<\/h4>\n
\n
Posts<\/h5>\n