Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Rail, pipelines safe ways to move oil

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 18, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    I like where Roland was going. There is a cost to our energy use. It costs the environment, it costs people, and it costs the resources themselves. We've always had to weigh these costs to the benefits, and try to mitigate any risks involved. And then, when we chanted 'drill, baby', we committed collectively to writing a cheque for anything to get cheap energy.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    July 18, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    If the purpose of the Keystone pipeline is to ease gas and oil prices in the US, then let's make it a condition of allowing it that every drop of the oil that passes through it must remain in the US. Also, any companies involved with the pipeline or the oil passing through it may not compensate by exporting oil from other domestic sources they may own or control, even if they only own or control a tiny fraction. All of it has to stay here, no exceptions, none.

    I suspect, however, that the purpose of the pipeline is not to ease gas and oil prices in the US, but to make some companies the fattest profit possible on the world market, and that the pipeline will not do much if anything to alleviate the pain at the pump.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 18, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Tell that to those people who were killed in that recent rail accident.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 18, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    There is no source of energy that is totally safe and problem free. If we continue to use energy, and we will, we need to deal the with problems it creates.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 18, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    Let's be honest here, unlike most of the Keystone pipeline opponents. Its the oil they oppose of course, not the pipeline itself. Oil that keeps our economy running, creates jobs and creates products and essential services for everyone. Meanwhile we waste and squander billion of taxpayer dollars on "green energy" development that has provided almost no jobs, no significant substitution for fossil fuels (electric cars aren't selling folks) while poor people and the middle class are being hammered at the gas pumps. Millions of jobs are being lost and our economy is still sinking all because a few people think the temperature of the earth is effected by C02. In the meantime we send our money to OPEC, inadvertently fund terrorism and pay through our noses when the solution in part is right under our noses, just to the North of us!

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    July 18, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    I don't believe that the citizens of Quebec Canada would agree with the headline. just saying.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    July 18, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    Keep in mind that Keystone's purpose is to get Canadian tar sand oil to refineries along the Mexican Gulf -- NOT divert oil to places in the U.S. along the way. Given that gasoline and oil prices fetch significantly higher margins outside the U.S., oil companies are likely to export that refined oil abroad by ship, which ABC News reported yesterday is significantly cheaper to distribute than by rail domestically.

    Rail delivery of oil and gasoline is more likely to bring that tar sand oil to American stops, but it will cost more.

    Bottom line, our oil addiction doesn't give us many choices, and even Canadian tar sands will likely drive up the cost of oil for us in the long run due to transportation.

    Price of wind at Spanish Fork or Milford today? Oh, no change... boring, boring, boring.... all those electric vehicles I saw in L.A. this past month are taking advantage of Milford's stable pricing (no Congressional hearings on wind's prices either)... Electric vehicles and renewable energy = near future for California, and probably for most of the U.S.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2013 6:08 a.m.

    What a PR piece! Here's gussing that Patricia Reilly is employed by the railroad industry.