Comments about ‘What others say: Build the pipeline’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

If this is such a wonderful idea.... refining oil for export.... why doesn't Canada expand its capacity westward and do the refining in British Columbia? Yes, there is a large mountain range to cross... but that is not the reason Canada doesn't want this oil refined on their own land. Heck, they could build a refinery right there Alberta if all those economic benefits were so wonderful.

think about it. If this is such a good deal, why is Canada so willing to have the US take a slice of the pie? Are you really thinking that they are just so good hearted up North they don't want to grab all the profits for themselves? I can assure you, they are wonderfully nice people, I will be up in Edmonton next week doing some work with a Canadian pipeline company. But that isn't the reason they are not investing in refining themselves...

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Take look at where this type of oil has leaked from pipeline failures. There are plenty of examples. Google "tar sands leak" and pay attention. Now imagine that happening all across the nation.

No.

redshirt007
tranquility base, 00

Quote from article:"The pipeline would deliver oil to the U.S. that is likelier to be shipped abroad after being refined into fuel and other products than it is to be consumed here."

Ya, not a priority for me then. So why are rank and file conservatives in such a huff about this?

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Rather than buy oil from our neighbor, lets ship our oil from OPEC (and fund terrorism) across the ocean in tankers! Brilliant, Democrats, just brilliant!

Makid
Kearns, UT

The pipeline has always been proposed as a way to ship the oil from Canada to Asia and Europe. The Canadian company has said repeatedly that none of the oil will be used in North America and is for export only.

Why should the US risk the environmental impacts of the pipeline when there is no benefit for the country?

The pipeline would employ approximately 15,000 people during construction, afterwards, it is projected by the company to employ less than 100 people to monitor the line.

100 employees people. That is all that this line will produce for the US economy, no oil, no gas and basically no employees once complete, yet there are people that are screaming we need to do this line.

I want to know why?

If there is no benefit at all, why do we want it? If the answer is because Obama is against it, then your answer is wrong.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

This is Canadian oil. Let them bear the burden of getting it to market. The pipeline will not make fuel any cheaper in the US, if anything it will increase the price to US buyers.
The pipeline is a sham.

KDave
Moab, UT

Perhaps Putin could step in and solve this problem.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

All the jobs and benefits aside, and trust me the oil sands operations are absolutely massive benefits to the US, I can't see why people don't see this pipeline as a must have simply on the basis of supply stability. If things go sideways in the middle east, and who could deny that possibility, wouldn't it be great to have a large capacity in place with a ready supply of energy at the other end?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Why should the US risk the environmental impacts of the pipeline when there is no benefit for the country?"

There are no significant environmental impacts.

The only impacts are on the Obama regime's relations with its radical green wing, that foolishly believes they can browbeat Canada into leaving their oil in the ground.

This dispute is not about the environment, at all. It's strictly Democrat "big-tent," vote-buying politics. And they won't be swayed in the slightest by what's clearly best for America.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Love it.... per mountainman, we have two options, and two options only. Build a pipeline across our country, or, buy our from terrorist nations. If we don't build this pipeline, they will just shut down production in Canada. That reserve will just sit there, doing nothing.

Does anyone really believe this problem is really that black and white? Really?

airnaut
Everett, 00

Canada has access to both the Atlantic AND the Pacific Oceans.
Let them build their own pipeline.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

UtahBlue. Canada has already told us that if we don't buy their oil, they will sell their oil to China that is willing to pay top dollar so they can use it to increase their economy. In the meantime, the US will lose out on millions of primary and secondary jobs that all require fossil fuel energy, like it or not. "Made in China" will be seen even more on goods we buy! Brilliant Democrats, just brilliant!

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@procuradorfiscal

"There are no significant environmental impacts."

I think what you meant to say was "Other than the 123 pipe accidents spilling thousands of barrels of crude oil, there are no significant environment impacts." The info isn't hard to find if you would like to look it up yourself.

"And they won't be swayed in the slightest by what's clearly best for America."

Any why is bringing Canadian oil to Texas clearly the "best for America?" Are they going to cut the US a deal and let us buy their oil for less than market value, or is it just closer to the Panama Canal so the tankers don't have as far to go? How does that benefit the US?

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

In my previous comment, it is 123 pipeline accidents since 2010.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Mountainman.... that oil will be sold on the open markets regardless. The threat is just stating what will happen regardless if it come to market in Houston, or Vancouver. The report on the pipeline already acknowledges that most of that oil will end up for overseas export. That threat on states what most knowledgable people know is going to happen anyway.

So if that makes democrats brilliant.... that they actually are aware we operate in a free market for oil... I guess they are brilliant. One would hope those who don't get it... would figure it out.... soon.

silo
Sandy, UT

@mountanman

You seem just fine with a private Canadian company being allowed to use eminent domain to seize the property of Americans. Why is that? When even the Texas Tea Party opposes the actions by TransCanada, there's more to the story that you seem willing to acknowledge.

Do the 800+ private landowners in Texas that will be affected by Keystone XL phase 3 have rights as American citizens? What about those private landowners in the other states? Do they not have rights?

Something has gone wrong when the options faced by these citizens is:
a. grant easement, knowing it means indemnifying TransCanada from any liability in the event of a leak/accident, or...
b. be forced to turn over their land due to eminent domain granted to a foreign, private company

The fact that you blindly support these actions while blustering constantly about the rights of US citizens simply illustrates the level of hypocrisy you'll embrace.

Brilliant 'Conservatives', just brilliant!

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Silo. There are already millions of miles of pipeline transporting billions of gallons of oil and natural gas all over the US! What's your problem with another one that will actually improve our country's economy, provide jobs and be much more safe than oil tankers crossing the oceans purchased from our enemies? How do you think high tension power line grids bring your electricity to you across thousands of miles of private property? Go turn on your light switch or your gas furnace and ask yourself, "how did that gas and electricity get to me"?

gmlewis
Houston, TX

The statement about only 100 employees watching the pipeline was quite a surprise. There would also be many thousands of American employees operating those refineries on the Gulf coast that will refine the oil into usable products. My grandfather worked all his life in one of those Texas refineries, and we were proud of his work.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . 123 pipeline accidents since 2010."

None of which had a significant environmental impact.

Face it -- oil is simply not a serious pollutant on land. It doesn't percolate through the ground. It's lighter than the water in any aquifer it may touch, and thus, floats on top. It's easily and economically cleaned up. It's just not a big deal.

The real issue for radical "greenies" is that they believe they can somehow control Canada's use of its oil, forcing Canada to leave its oil in the ground. They can't, of course, but they don't seem to understand that.

Though the rest of world, including the UN, is moving on from global warming alarmism, flat-earth "greenies" appear incapable of doing so.

silo
Sandy, UT

@mountanman

No response to the question. Not surprising. Since the story of TransCanada's use of eminent domain didn't get covered by the vain-stream media (aka am radio), I didn't honestly expect any reasoned response.

So by means of deduction, we can assume you're fine with Americans losing property rights to a private, foreign entity when the potential benefit is jobs, fewer tankers and a economic improvement. Good to know where you stand on private property rights. Never mind that the Keystone XL has no guarantee of any of those things.

Canada has no obligation to sell to the US if another country will pay more...welcome to the global market. Permanent Job gains, if any, provided by the XL pipeline will be offset by job losses on competing pipelines elsewhere, not to mention shipping job losses from those pesky oil tankers, dock workers, etc.

By all means though, continue to paint complex issues surrounding Keystone as Democrat/Republican, even though the facts don't support that at all.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments