Quantcast
U.S. & World

Obama opposes GOP bill on Keystone XL oil pipeline

Comments

Return To Article
  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 21, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    The bill "seeks to circumvent longstanding and proven processes" by removing a requirement for a presidential permit. The legislation also says no new environmental studies are needed.

    circumvent  - Overcome (a difficulty), typically in a clever and surreptitious way.
    Synonyms - deceive - cheat

    surreptitious  - Kept secret, esp. because it would not be approved of.
    Synonyms - secret - furtive - stealthy - clandestine - underhand

    Republicans, working hard for the oil companies.
    Working for America ...not so much.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 21, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    Either we buy this oil from Canada and create millions of jobs and a sound economy or the Canadians will sell it to China for their economy and jobs. Simple as that folks!

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    Way to go BO. Nice to have a President in the WH who is looking out for the average person of today and tomorrow. Another example of the difference between the leader who won the election and the man who wanted to represent corporate America and the wealthy.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 21, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    Mountanman guessed that...
    "Either we buy this oil from Canada and create millions of jobs and a sound economy"

    The State Department, in its study, came up with a more modest figure of 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs.

    The discrepancy comes from how the TransCanada study calculated the jobs. That study used a "one person, one year model." So if it takes 6,500 workers two years to build the pipeline, that's 13,000 jobs, with the other 7,000 coming from supply manufacturers.

    So even exaggerating to 20,000 seems a little closer than millions?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 21, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    part 2

    The oil that reaches Gulf refineries could ultimately be consumed in the United States, but the finished products could just as easily be exported to China, Japan, or any other oil-hungry nation.

    Energy companies will look to sell their oil to the highest bidder.

    In fact, the United States is currently a net exporter of gasoline. In September, the U.S. exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline than it imported. The country is now on track to become a net exporter of refined oil products for the first time in 62 years.

    Meanwhile, domestic prices at the gas pump are poised to rise to record levels.

    Because of the nature of the global oil market and domestic supply, the Keystone pipeline would contribute very little, if anything, to U.S. energy independence.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    May 21, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    Drill baby drill or should I say build baby build the pipe line. Create what ever jobs that they can and the people who will have to maintain it. Just look to Alaska and see the benefits that Alaska and its citizens enjoy. Who cares how much the oil companies make as long as it employees people with good paying jobs and drops the price I have to pay at the pump even by just a few cents I will benefit from it. build baby build.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 21, 2013 7:13 p.m.

    Too critics of the Keystone proposed pipeline. Do you know of any business or job that does not rely on energy, specifically oil? Is $4.00/gal gasoline high enough for you? What will happen to your job if energy prices double, again? There is your answer as to why we need this pipeline.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2013 11:10 p.m.

    @Mountanman
    Two massive problems with your statement.
    1. It would not create millions of jobs, maybe a couple thousand at the most.
    2. Oil is a global commodity where the price per barrel is set by that global financial market. Canada would not be giving us a cheaper deal than any other nation. It makes no difference in price we pay at the pump regardless of who Canada sells this oil to.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    May 21, 2013 11:36 p.m.

    Really, M-man? I thought we were trying to keep China from taking over the world. Anyway, somebody said that. Butsure. Tar sands oil in a pipeline crossing the middle of the country. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 22, 2013 5:37 a.m.

    Does anyone know if Nebraska has decided yet where it wants to put the pipeline? Or whether it is even willing to have the pipeline run through Nebraska? The last I heard, there is considerable concern about how the pipeline would affecct Nebraska's aquifer and there is a lot of opposition to it. Until questions like that are answered, consideration of the pipeline is very premature, and approval for it should wait.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 23, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    Mountanman:

    Canadian oil is already being sold to China. It's being trucked here to Texas, then shipped.

    According to some good sources here,--had Romney won the election, gas would now be two dollars a gallon.