Embracing the pipeline

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2011 10:20 a.m.

    Even Karl Rove thinks the ultra conservative should cave. The janitors at the Capital need to shut out the lights and give Cantor some advice.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 16, 2011 10:12 p.m.

    God put all that carbon underground when he was making the earth inhabitable for his children. Are we really dumb enough not to dig it all up for use as God intended?

    Man built cars, houses, tractors, tools, to be used. Like man, God provided carbon to be used. Only a fool would think otherwise.

  • bobosmom small town, Nebraska
    Dec. 16, 2011 8:54 p.m.

    I don't live far from the beginning of the sandhills. I can't believe all the burecracy tied to it. I know their are special interests groups, enviromentalists, etc all have there own agenda regarding the pipeline. I can't believe that the state of Nebraska, the unicameral and the govenor didn't have any input into it this late in the game because of the aquafier etc.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 16, 2011 6:33 p.m.

    God put all that carbon underground when he was making the earth inhabitable for his children. Are we really dumb enough to dig it all up while there is a nuclear fusion furnace buring away at a safe distance from the planet?

    Rooftop to electric car - about 50 feet. Tar sands to port, then to china - 10,000 miles. Nice.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 16, 2011 4:08 p.m.

    Ernest T. Bass,

    Your comment makes me want to throw rocks. Why is this a bad idea?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 16, 2011 3:44 p.m.

    Re: "Regardless of one's opinion of the pipeline, tying something completely unrelated to any bill is simply wrong."

    Simply wrong? On what stone tablet is that engraved?

    Politicos of both parties often use this tool to increase pressure on recalcitrant opponents. Why is it "wrong" when conservatives use this tool, but when the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barney Frank do EXACTLY the same thing, there's no moral dimension?

    Sounds like hypocrisy, to me.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Dec. 16, 2011 8:56 a.m.

    The tar sands are either the first or second largest oil reserves in the world. With the possible exception of shale oil, which is even more expensive than tar sands to produce, the US just doesn't have the reserves.

    What gets some folks all excited is that about 90% of the tar sands are in one province of about 3 million people. That resource belongs to the province not to the national government. The producers lease rights and pay royalites to the government of Alberta.

    This has with conventional oil and now with the tar sands made Alberta very rich. This seems to create a lot of jealousy. Too bad, so sad.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 16, 2011 8:45 a.m.

    The pipeline is a bad idea all the way around.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 16, 2011 7:00 a.m.

    The pipeline will eventually stop flowing when the oil runs out. Then what?

    Given that we have to go to war over oil and spend billions on defense, wasteful use of it ought not be allowed. The federal government has an obligation to involve itself in how we use oil and other sources of energy.

    We need laws to improve fuel economy. We ought to make use of Yellowstone and other geothermal. Either this or count on us going to war every few years as we have for the past many years, putting our young people at risk and our economy at risk because of the high costs.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 16, 2011 6:10 a.m.

    Re: BobP | 5:48 p.m. Dec. 15, 2011
    "The US can get oil from a friendly source or it can rely one those who are not freinds"

    Actually there is a third option: The USA could develop our own vast proven reserves of oil.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 15, 2011 10:53 p.m.

    Obama is trying to protect the environment. There may be some cows or horses upset with the pipeline.

    Besides that, can't let the middle east lose us as costumers.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Dec. 15, 2011 5:48 p.m.

    The US can get oil from a friendly source or it can rely one those who are not freinds.

    procuradorfiscal / the answer if that moving refined oil is much more dangerous than moving unrefined oil

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 5:46 p.m.

    A U of C (university of calgary) study released just today indicates that a west coast pipeline (northern gateway or similar) will add $131 billion to canadas' gdp between 2016 and 2030. Trust me, the folks back home in alberta want to sell the oil the US. In the end, however, if we figure we're better off getting oil from the venezuelans or saudis, that oil will go west.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 1:46 p.m.

    From the same guy who stated that he would create many "shovel ready" jobs. Of course he is trying to convince us that keeping the payroll tax cut (stupid idea) and extending unemployment benefits will create more jobs than the pipeline. In BO's case, fantasy is better than reality. Of course he has MSNBC and CBS to run interferance for him. But then again, MSNBC is a piller of Progressive thought and they are very adept at news creation. They don't report it, they create it, true or not.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 1:12 p.m.

    How can we have an alleged leader who criticizes our country for being "soft" and complaining that we can't build anything anymore? Hello. Here it is Barack: a true shovel ready project that would create jobs and you don't want to build it because like all "Progressives" you don't want progress. Of course we can't build anything in this Country because of the folks at the Sierra Club who would cut off their own nose to spite their face. Hope those are some sturdy tankers hauling that crude to China- good luck with that Pacific marine life

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 12:29 p.m.

    "Note that environmental scientists and engineers generally agree that crude petroleum poses no seriou risk to underground aquifers, since, even in the unlikely event of a spill, and the even more unlikely event that the spill were to somehow migrate through hundreds of feet of soil and overburden down to the level of the aquifer, oil floats on and doesn't mix with water, and is quite amenable to cleanup."

    We heard that after pretty much every single other spill. We're also told fracking is safe but then people are able to light their sink water on fire. Fool me once...

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 12:01 p.m.

    Regardless of one's opinion of the pipeline, tying something completely unrelated to any bill is simply wrong. Yet this sneaky tactic is used frequently mainly by the Republican party when they want to try to shove something down American throats.

    There is very little honesty anywhere in our Congress these days.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 11:57 a.m.

    Isn't this a maneuver that has been a problem with any major piece of legislation? Didn't people object to attaching riders other specific pieces of self-serving, "Bridge to Nowhere" favorites to bills for the very reason that legislators vote on each item separately. If memory serves, Ronald Reagan, that Republican god of conservatism, wanted a line-item veto to get rid of such shenanigans. It's like having a request to construct a new horse-betting parlor in a rural area of Idaho to increase tourism in a depressed community attached to a defense bill! It's all so very slick and hypocritical.

    Neither Party is innocent of this nonsense, but the payroll tax and unemployment extension should be considered separately from the oil pipeline request. Make it simple and sweet. Don't encumber legislation with all manner of extraneous spending. Let the pipeline bill be its own bill even though Republicans use it solely to defeat the other so they can say they were not the cause of defeating the payroll tax and unemployment extensions.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 15, 2011 11:36 a.m.

    Refineries are usually built closer to markets. A Canadian refinery isn't going to produce diesel for a Mid-West US spec. Plus, there are lots and lots of headaches trying to pump low sulfur diesel in the same pipeline that gets jet fuel and gasoline.

    OPEC did not increase production in 1980's because they wanted to prevent synthetics fuels and stuff. A lot of OPEC countries were cheating on their quotas, they wanted everyone else to control prices by limiting production, but each of them thought, "It is OK if I cheat, but not the others." Finally Saudi Arabia, the swing producer decided that enough was enough, they weren't going to keep reducing production to control the cost so that Iran or Indonesia could keep on cheating. They turned on the taps.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 10:44 a.m.

    Re: ". . . I don't trust something dangling above the largest groundwater supply in America."

    I'm sure you don't. But that's not the same as showing that the pipeline poses any appreciable danger to the environment or the aquifer.

    Note that environmental scientists and engineers generally agree that crude petroleum poses no seriou risk to underground aquifers, since, even in the unlikely event of a spill, and the even more unlikely event that the spill were to somehow migrate through hundreds of feet of soil and overburden down to the level of the aquifer, oil floats on and doesn't mix with water, and is quite amenable to cleanup.

    There simply is no appreciable danger to environment or aquifer from the pipeline.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    Obama's halting of the pipeline simply affirms to me that he's not really serious about getting Americans back to work.

    He talks a "good talk", but he refuses to walk the walk.

    The pipeline issue and the fact that he allows illegal immigrants to continue to work here unabated by the justice dept. tells me he's NOT REALLY SERIOUS about jobs.

    But I think everyone already knows that!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 9:31 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "There simply is no appreciable environmental danger from the pipeline."

    Considering all the oil spills the last few years, I don't trust something dangling above the largest groundwater supply in America.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 9:20 a.m.

    Re: "If there's no environmental danger, why don't the Canadians build a refinery in their own country?"

    Shipping refined product, in a pipeline or otherwise, is simply much more expensive and dangerous -- both to humans and the environment -- than shipping crude. Additionally, buying crude preserves flexibility on the receiving end to tweak the refining process and produce the product needed, rather than trusting a distant refiner, with incompatible priorities, to make that decision.

    There simply is no appreciable environmental danger from the pipeline. That's just the cynical red herring liberals and greenies have thrown up to camouflage their real objection -- a visceral, baseless, ultimately deranged fear of carbon-based fuels necessary to maintain, both a vibrant economy, and a viable environmental movement.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    If there's no environmental danger, why don't the Canadians build a refinery in their own country? Why is up to the US to refine their oil? Why do we have to have the pipeline running over 1000 miles through our heartland. Wouldn't a pipeline work just as well crossing and leaking onto Canadian soil?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 7:57 a.m.

    Re: ". . . OPEC is not as stupid as people and politicians presume. It is waiting with baited [sic -- bated?] breath for our moves on the pipeline . . . OPEC will flood the market with oil, dropping world prices . . . ."

    You say that like it's a bad thing.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 15, 2011 7:45 a.m.

    Its either OPEC or this pipeline but your job and mine, the economy and our future is still dependant on oil, like it or not! Green energy is still not viable and electric cars are still a novelty and still require energy from somewhere! Why don't Democrats understand that?

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Dec. 15, 2011 6:08 a.m.

    "...the Keystone XL pipeline is an inevitability that we should embrace sooner than later."

    I can assure you OPEC is not as stupid as people and politicians presume. It is waiting with baited breath for our moves on the pipeline. As soon as we "break ground" on it, OPEC will flood the market with oil, dropping world prices so that all the corporate investments and federal subsidies, along with the government eminent domain land takeaways from private landowners in its path, will result in a giant goose egg! Oil sands will become even less economical than they are today because the OPEC cartel isn't going to allow it to be built and will use good old-fashioned economics to sabotage it.

    Remember, the "hope" is that Canada's oil sands will become economical as oil prices continue to rise.

    We've seen the scenario play out before with the 1985 OPEC release of massive amounts of oil into world markets to thwart America's emerging renewable energy development post-Carter. Cheap oil killed off R&D and markets for alternatives for decades.

    ... and we're paying over $3 a gallon for gasoline as a result. OPEC made sure America would never have substitutes to break our oil addiction.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 15, 2011 4:24 a.m.

    I think that they should keep the Keystone Pipeline separate. But, yeah, I don't think that the Obama administration is doing a good job. In a sense, we are embracing the Pakistani model of conservation: we aren't going to build any infrastructure. If you don't want $4.00 gallon/gas, build a pipeline. Three years ago Chuck Schummer was telling Saudi Arabia to pump 1 million barrels a day more oil. Barbara Boxer has wrung her hands about the high price of gaosline. If they feel that way, then build that pipeline.

  • Corn Dog New York, NY
    Dec. 15, 2011 3:41 a.m.

    The pipeline is needed more than ever. Yesterday,environmentalists filed suit (surprise, surprise)to halt leasing of federal oil and gas reserves in the western Gulf of Mexico. This unconscionable action threatens to deprive Americans of the essential fuels they need to heat their homes and drive to work to support their families. It also threatens to raise energy prices and torpedo the economic recovery. As long as these people have the ability to manipulate the legal system to advance their agendas that threatens the lives of Americans, we must develop every alternative source of fossil fuel as a backup.