The only people who want this pipeline are the Chinese and Europeans and Oil
companies.That oil will be sold on a global market.Americans will have to be willing to pay the Global price.Currently $6 a gallon.
There is no good reason for Obama to delay the pipeline any further, but he
will. Environmentalists have made of this a cause celebre in which the facts
matter not at all. The Quebec disaster reminds us that there are choices to be
made between less-than-perfect alternatives, but Obama does not respond to that
sort of rational thinking.
No nuclear reactors, no fracking, no pipelines, more train disasters, more wind
farms that kill migratory birds and provide occasional energy production, and
more electric cars depending on dirty electricity. Is a hunter-gatherer society,
without guns of course, our ultimate goal?
Sadly, the Deseret News editorial staff has once again come down on the side of
the fossil fuel energy plutocracy instead of calling for real progress in ending
our addiction to this planet-destroying stuff. Tar sands are NOT competitively
priced with respect to other fossil fuels; they are the marginal source that
drives the cost of oil over $100/barrel. The free market does NOT exist for
fossil fuel companies, who cause incalculable damage to our environment and
health for the sake of record profits, yet bear little of the social costs.
They are the poster children for privatized profits, socialized costs. We can
only take advantage of alternatives when they are developed, and that will not
happen as long as fossil fuel companies are coddled and supported with our
health, future, and treasure. We can, and must, end this plutocracy NOW.
Atl123,What would you do TODAY? The pipeline needs to be built
TODAY, not ten years. Canadian oil is available today. Our oil is available
today. That oil would decrease payments to the Arab States that partially funds
terrorism. Which is more important to you: Making a statement that the world
needs to learn how to harness other forms of energy or paying money to nations
that support terrorism? That is TODAY's choice.You and I both
know that nobody but the very rich can afford to own and operate a Tesla
automobile. A "charge" costs $50 to $65. A single replacement battery
costs $5,000. Motor Trend lists the cheapest model at $77,400 and the
Performance Sedan at $105,400. That's hardly something that the average
family in Utah will ever afford.Just in case you've been out of
the loop, Bain Capital did not use income tax revenue to fund anything.Today, I can travel 100% of the way to work in a car using fossil fuels. I
don't have to buy a $5,000 battery nor do I have to pay $50 to $65 for a
"charge" to go to and from work.
@Mike Richards"I don't know about you, but I can't travel
6.2% of the way to work and be counted "present". I can't heat my
home 6.2% of the time. I can't cook meals 6.2% of the time."Pretty sure we get something like 25% of our energy from oil so should we not
use oil because you can't travel 25% of the way to work and be counted
present? We're not stupid, we know solar/wind can't
replace other fuels for now... what we do know though is that if we really
wanted to we should be able to do something similar to that whole "putting a
man on the moon" thing where we can develop the tools by which it can be
affordable enough that the private market can take it and run with it to speed
up the inevitable transition."Obama wasted $535 million dollars
trying to harness energy from the Sun. He failed. You and I are paying for his
failure. Solyndra is bankrupt."Many alternative energy companies
are doing well. Tesla's doing great (Texas needs to stop blocking them from
selling vehicles). You sure didn't care about any Bain Capital failures.
To "Open Minded Mormon" nice rant, but it just detract from the
question.If "Big Oil" is so evil, why do you keep buying
their products? You want us to stop buying the raw material that makes so much
of your life possible.Your car most likely has rubber and plastic
components, those come from the imported oil, are you ready to give those up?How about the plastics that went into the wind turbine, or the plastics
used as part of your solar power system?If you are not a hypocrite,
why do you continue to buy so many fossil oil products?How about the
plastic pipes used in your geothermal system, those are also oil derivatives.Your church building is not 100% green energy. According to the church
press release, on sundays your building produces about 50% of its power needs.
The rest comes from the power company. Plus the heating system is still run on
I am going to make some arguments that some will be amazed I can make with a
straight face given my socialist leanings. America's private freight rail
network is the envy of the world. Freight rail's return to prosperity is
nothing short of miraculous given where it was in the 1970's. Rail freight
is a true common carrier hauling all kinds of stuff with much lower energy
consumption than truck. If you want rail freight to continue to thrive we may
want to let it have some more of the crude oil revenue. BTW, lots of crude is
moving by rail from newly located fracking sites. Most ethanol moves by rail
because ethanol rots pipe. That said, moving crude by pipeline is
overall probably safer. I say probably because a pipeline accident can
permanently destroy an aquifer. We have had several serious pipeline accidents
here in Utah. Remember Red Butte. These are tough calls.
Open Minded Mormon,There's a credibility issue here. If you would
post as several different people, claiming to live in several different
locations... why would you tell the truth in your posts?Do you
really run your car only on vegi-oil? Did you really invent algae-fuel for
jets? How do we know if you would be dishonest about other things?
Sorry, OpenMinded, but you get an "F" for that answer. Men since Adam
knew that all energy originated from the Sun. So, why are we still using fossil
fuels? Obama wasted $535 million dollars trying to harness energy from the Sun.
He failed. You and I are paying for his failure. Solyndra is bankrupt.Until you can show us how EACH of us can afford to harness that energy,
until you can show us you're driving to work, heating your home, cooling
your home, cooking all meals and generating all power that you need at a lower
cost using sunlight or windpower, then we'll still assume that you have no
applicable knowledge on how to solve the energy crisis that is worldwide.
That's too bad. The whole world was hoping that YOU had the answer.Meanwhile, Canada has oil that it needs to get to a refinery. Your
pie-in-the-sky ideas about wind and solar will supply 6.2% of our needs.
Canada, by itself, can easily handle 100% of our needs. WE can easily handle
100% of our needs for 200 years using just the oil in Utah, Wyoming and
MountanmanHayden, IDOpen minded. Lemmings? Ok, you show us how
its done! 9:55 a.m. July 11, 2013[I have super-insulated my
house and use a geothermal heat pump. We have solar, wind, and some PhotoVoltic.
My car is a Mercedes Benz [Diesel] - I run SVO [straight vegetable oil,
waste oil from local restaurants] in it.I grow most of my families
vegetables year-round [pioneer style], I've worked for Boeing for
over 23 years - and developed AlGas [algae based] fuels for all Boeing planes
[commercial and Military] which are now FAA certified for alternative fuels.I attend LDS Church in a 100% Green Energy building right here in Farmington,
Utah.and you have the audacity to call me a Hypocrite? Indeed.]======= @Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahALL
energy on this planet derives from the Sun.[Wind, Hydro, Solar, Fossil,
even nuclear]Something I learned in college physics.
Okay, OpenMinded, show us your spreadsheet. Show us how spending $1,000,000,000
a day on oil for the Middle East is helping solve our economic problems. Show
us how spending another $2,500,000,000 a day on a military to protect those oil
lanes is solving our economic problems. Show us how filling highly toxic
batteries with energy gleaned from the sun and then converting that power from
those batteries is cost effective. The Institute for Energy Research tells us
that 2/10ths of 1% of our energy needs is met by solar. The NRDC tells us that
6% of our energy is met by wind.I don't know about you, but I
can't travel 6.2% of the way to work and be counted "present". I
can't heat my home 6.2% of the time. I can't cook meals 6.2% of the
time.You like to shoot everybody else's ideas down. Stand up
in front of us and give us the solution. Show us something that thousands of
scientists who spend all their time searching for a substitute for fossil fuels
haven't been able to discover.We're waiting . . .
To Mountanman: "from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no
discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.This means that the
‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted
for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to
1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40
years."You have posted this before so here is some data from the
World Meteorological Association for you to ponder:Average global
temperature by decade:2001-10 14.471991-00 14.261981-90
14.121971-80 13.95All figures in Centigrade You have to go
back to the 1950s to find a decade that was cooler than the previous decade.
Interesting, I'm a tech, been one for 46 years.. I spend a lot of time in
the real world, and this article is spot on. It's kind of like gravity,
like it or not, if you step off the porch and miss that top step, bad things are
likely, and this accident was becoming more and more likely. I see trains like
this go through my town every day. My wife goes out to watch them.. If this had
happened here, and she were watching, she would be dead now.. The pipeline is a
huge win for everyone who believes in gravity, and jobs for our children...
Money comes from the earth...
Open Minded Mormon,Of course using less is an option. I think everybody
knows that. I THINK he was talking about the options of TRANSPORTING the fuel
(remember... the topic of the letter)?I for one am doing everything
I can to use as little gas and coal as I can. But no matter what I do... I
still need it (and so do you).Like he said... let's see YOU go
without any coal (that would be impossible IF you live in Utah and use
Electricity). Let's see YOU go without any gas... impossible if you drive
a car or use mass transit. Your car either uses gas, or electricity (which
means you are running your car on gas or coal). All mass transit I know of
still uses gas or electricity (which means they still need gas, or coal).Using less is obviously and option (and a good option). But I think we
are already doing that. So can you get off our back?BTW... are you
really all those other people JSF said yesterday (airnaut, LDS Liberal,
Treehugger, etc, etc)? That would REALLY present a credibility and integrity
problem if it's true.
Has anybody asked why this pipeline needs to be built across 2000 miles of the
United States' heartland when a much shorter route - a few hundred miles -
would be to pipe the oil to Canada's west coast? Why has Transanada chosen
that route rather than the shorter one? Is it because they want to create jobs
in the US? Answer that question honestly and we might have the truth necessary
to make an informaed decision.
@Mountanman"In the meantime, the world stopped getting warmer almost
16 years ago, according to new data released recently."Odd, I
had just noticed yesterday that we've set/tied 32 record highs since I
first moved to Salt Lake City while we've only set/tied 4 record lows. Oh
and stop cherrypicking the strongest El Nino in half a century as your starting
point. "Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining
for about 40 years."Largely due to anthropogenic aerosol use
which has a cooling (and "global dimming") effect. It gave us a
pollution problem that we worked to clean up around the late 1970s. @Mike Richards"Those people can't comprehend that we depend on
oil and that we will continue to depend on oil for at least another generation.
"You people can't comprehend that "drill baby
drill" does nothing but eliminate our own oil supply, making us more
vulnerable when we get to a future generation and have done jack all to shift to
alternative energy because investment gets blocked.
The oil is based on a company in Alberta with the extraction of resources from
Alberta. Just look up the number of spills they've had in Alberta (they
just had a 9.5 million litre... or roughly 2 million gallon, spill a month ago,
along with many other smaller spills) and you can see the risk involved.Oil is a global commodity. The price is set by the global market because
after all, if the US demanded lower rates on what we purchase, our own companies
would just sell it elsewhere (of course you could have the gov't completely
take over the energy sector... but that'd be socialist and heck even I
wouldn't support that). So oil prices are based on global supply, where it
doesn't really matter who drills it or not. So first things first... any
small changes in oil prices because of this drilling would occur regardless of
whether Canada sends it here to refine or sends it to Vancouver and whether
Canada sells it to us, Europe, or China. There's no need to have it here.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWe have three choices. We can
build a pipeline, haul oil by rail or truck it. Spending $1,000,000,000 a day in
Canada is far superior than spending money in Saudi Arabia.Drilling
in America would be the best option.9:29 a.m. July 11, 2013====== Thanks Mike, For once again showing your closed
minded myopic view of the world by not even considering simply using less
or pursing alternatives.Only 3 choices?Hardly...
Open minded. Lemmings? Ok, you show us how its done! Shut off your electricity
because coal might have produced it. Never drive a car again and grow all your
own food, make all your own clothes without any energy from fossil fuels. If
your job depends on fossil fuel, you must give that ups too. Teach "Big
Oil" a lesson! Otherwise, doesn't it make you a hypocrite to bite the
hand that feeds you, employs you, clothes you and keeps you from freezing in the
I got a better idea....Let's NOT pursue an even dirtier, more
expensive, and even less environmentally friendly energy policy chasing the last
few remaining drops of oil from rocks and sand.The ONLY people
interested in this are the Big OIL Companies, and the lemmings who like being
addicted to their products and believe them anyway.[Like Big Tobacco told
us tobacco doesn't cause cancer, and smokers believing them.]
Some very foolish people want us to continue to buy oil at $1,000,000,000 a day
from the Middle East where a good portion of that money is used to buy arms and
munitionsto fight against America and to create unreset throughout the rest of
the world. Those people can't comprehend that we depend on oil and that we
will continue to depend on oil for at least another generation. They can't
comprehend that this whole world depends on oil and that, except for nuclear
power, there is no alternative that is widely available or cost effective. They
continue to think that way even though they drive cars that depend on fossil
fuels for the gasoline or to generate the electricity to charge their batteries.
They depend on fossil fuels to cook their meals and heat their homes. They
need electricity to send their comments to the DN.We have three
choices. We can build a pipeline, haul oil by rail or truck it. Spending
$1,000,000,000 a day in Canada is far superior than spending money in Saudi
Arabia.Drilling in America would be the best option.
IMO...Energy policy should seek to deter the development of
"dirty" sources in favor of clean and renewable energy AFTER the
renewable energy sources are available (not BEFORE they are available).Cutting off the energy supply in hopes of inflicting enough pain to encourage
people to move to alternatives (that are not yet available or affordable to most
Americans)... is NOT good energy policy.Develop the alternatives and
THEN deter the development of "dirty" sources of energy. I'm all
for that!But cutting off the supply NOW (before affordable
alternatives are available to all Americans)... would be as smart as tearing
down an old bridge and telling Americans to drive across a new bridge (that is
not built yet). It's as smart as cutting off the blood supply to a living
organ and just hoping it will develop it's own alternatives, or somebody
will implant an alternative later (when the organ may be dead).We
have energy needs now... every day... we can't just tell people to drive
across the unfinished bridge as our "energy policy"!When
green alternatives are available and affordable... people will have no problem
switching. Till then... give us a break!
Pipelines never leak.Trains always crash.I saw it on
Drudge.Go with the pipeline.
The railroads would LOVE to be the key transport for Canadian oil! Watch them
come out against Keystone, along with environmentalists and foreign oil
interests.Some things to consider: There are only FOUR major
railroads in America, charging high rates on farmers and coal mines to transport
their commodities. The railroads love their oligopoly status in North America
(consider how Warren Buffett even invested into old-fashioned railroads not long
ago, simply because of their powerful and profitable position in the supply
chain). If anything, railroads will further drive up the cost of
Canadian tar sands oil -- as they already do with coal and agricultural goods.
Take off your tin foil hats, put down your kool aid and look at the realities we
face, your job, your food, your clothing your homes, your lives are totally
dependent on fossil fuels! Green energy is not yet and may not be for decades,
if then. In the meantime, the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago,
according to new data released recently.The figures, which have triggered
debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until
August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.This
means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming
has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures
rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for
about 40 years.
So you are saying that we should approve this pipeline, that allows Canada to
ship oil to China easier, because the pipeline is a better deal than having more
train cars carrying the oil through the USA? Where is the benefit? We get to
have pipeline leaks and explosions instead of train leaks and explosions! Seems
to be a no win proposition to me, but I don't make money of the petroleum
industry, so I wouldn't know.
“Pipeline opponents argue the extraction and refining of tar sands comes
with significant environmental risks, particularly in the form of increased
greenhouse gas emissions. These short-sighted concerns are premised
...”The risk of increased greenhouse gases is a short-sighted
concern? Is that in comparison to oil company profits?And why is
Keystone needed. The Eldridge Alberta Clipper line already exists and the
pipeline’s Phase I, which opened in June 2010 runs a zigzag pattern south
to a major pipeline hub in Oklahoma fairly close to Texas refineries. “There is...the macro argument that energy policy should ... deter the
development of "dirty" sources in favor of clean and renewable energy.
But such a transition must come gradually and be propelled mainly by market
forces...”Are you really suggesting that our current situation
is based solely on market forces? The powerful and wealthy oil industry has
managed to limit our choices of energy for years and only now, with
“market forces” demanding more options with fewer environmental
risks, have those companies started to embrace those alternatives.