Approve Keystone pipeline

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • bluecollar Kearns, UT
    Dec. 22, 2011 4:11 p.m.

    once again, if the keystone project is a good idea, then it should be debated on its own merits. let the legislature hear all the arguments pro and con. negotiate environmental issues like mitigation responsibilities and see if it's still economically feasible. whatever other concerns, talk about it. then let the majority decide whether to move forward with enabling legislation. to hold working Americans hostage by making a tax cut extension dependent upon approval of a private enterprise is a wrong-headed approach.
    likewise, if a social security tax cut is worthwhile, that should stand alone. if the majority agrees unemployment benefits should be extended; again, let that issue stand on it own merit.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 22, 2011 11:24 a.m.

    To everyone who is afraid this Canadian oil "will go to China" if the pipeline is not built, it have one question: Are you not aware that a huge portion of the oil drilled in northern Alaska and transported by the Trans-Alaska pipeline (and American enterprise) is then shipped from Valdez, Alaska to China, Japan, and other Asian nations?

    How much of this oil will be sent from U.S. Gulf ports to other countries?

    And did you see the recent report that the U.S. is now exporting more gasoline than ever in our history? Where is it going? Who is profiting?

    Oil -- no matter where it is produced -- is part of a vast world petroleum market.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 22, 2011 8:10 a.m.

    NPR is not unbiased.

    I could, with the same credibility, say I was listening to Mark Levin who said the 20,000 is grossly understated.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 22, 2011 3:11 a.m.

    Mike Richards: "Are you not aware that Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi prince? Their "prince" organized the 9/11 attack on America. Do YOU really consider them to be friends?"

    ??!! No, he was not. His dad was a construction big wig from Yemen who moved north to Saudi Arabia in the 1950's. He had a bunch of wives and about 50 sons. Osama was one of them.

    I would recommend that you don't listen anymore to whoever told you that. They are not reliable.

    It is correct that oil goes into the same pot. I.e. it is fungible. Oil flows (or rather is transported) it will make the most money. It is cheaper for Canada to ship it to the US than to China. Thinking globally (rather than acting locally), the best thing is to ship the oil to the US over the Great Plains rather than over the Canadian Rockies. In addition, it also helps the people with a big commute who have too much month and not enough paycheck. More money in their pockets when they show up to the gas pump.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2011 12:37 a.m.

    MR: "Are you not aware that Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi prince? Their "prince" organized the 9/11 attack on America. Do YOU really consider them to be friends?"

    That was exactly my point. I don't think you understood my post.

    Yes, Bin Laden was a Saudi. Nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. No, I don't consider them our friends, but the Bush Administration sure did. Couldn't get enough of them.

    The pipeline does _zero_ to prevent America's dependence on foreign oil from funneling money to nations whose populations hate us. The global oil market sees to that.

    If you want to restrict the flow of petrodollars into unfriendly nations, the solution is _not_ to run a pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico - that only profits the oil industry. Genuine progress would involve reducing our nation's dependence of foreign oil, regardless of its source.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 10:04 p.m.

    Creating jobs and pollution

  • The Taxman Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 21, 2011 8:12 p.m.

    I was listening to NPR earlier and they said the 20,000 job number was provided by the oil industry and is grossly overstated. According to the commentator, a more realistic estimate is 2,000 short-term construction jobs.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Dec. 21, 2011 7:39 p.m.

    Digging a pipeline down the spine of the country, carrying dirty crude, has zero environmental concerns?

    Sorry, plenty of people have plenty of concerns, namely oil spills around aquifers which provide drinking water for millions.

    Also, there are conflicting projections on job creation numbers.

    Bottom line, more research and investigation is needed, for human safety sake alone.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 21, 2011 5:25 p.m.

    Redshirt - I have no idea where your data. On the transport side, the data is really clear on the number of jobs per metric ton transported. That number continues to decline, and it has done so for over 150 years. Ships and Canals, wagons, horses travel all had supporting industries and jobs as well - and were lost.

    If you don't understand how these relate to supply chain and logistics, cost or production and transportation, I am at a loss. If you don't get how developing home grown energy sources independent of the swings of global energy cost impacts a businesses ability to commit to a region for energy intensive jobs, then I am at a loss.

    My company has a 4.7 acre solar farm that powers our data center. This helps insulate the company from energy cost swings. It is just another way to reduce our dependence on a single source of energy. Relying on a single source for any need is a sure fire way to hike your cost in any supply chain.

    " Highways did not kill any rail jobs becuase you added jobs for maintaing roads and vehicles"

    Wrong - Salt Lake is a perfect example.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 4:45 p.m.

    Re: "Does Magcorp or Rio Tinto pay you to post these boards?"

    Yeah, the same sum Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment -- Docs Against Jobs -- pays you.

    And, I note there was no list of environmental costs appended to your brilliant riposte.

    BTW, asserting that there are no identifiable environmental costs is NOT the same as saying anti-job, anti-capitalist, anti-American greenies haven't imposed tremendous pre-construction environmental "compliance" costs.

    All of which come out of our pockets.

    Those outrageous and unnecessary added costs -- estimated at some $84 million, to date, though not a single shovel of dirt has been turned -- were undertaken in good faith by the pipeline builders. The Obama regime, however, has now demonstrated it continues to act only in politically-motivated bad faith, and that the "compliance" costs were imposed only to delay, discourage, and penalize the project, not to assure its environmental viability.

    Environmental costs -- 0
    Environmental "compliance" costs -- $84M, and climbing


  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 4:02 p.m.

    To "UtahBlueDevil | 3:21 p.m." unfortunately, the study from spain wasn't a projection of jobs lost, it was a post mortum.

    If you look at the canals and railroads, more jobs were createad because you had to maintain them, plus build the vehicles to travel on them. Again, a net increase in jobs. Highways did not kill any rail jobs becuase you added jobs for maintaing roads and vehicles, plus building the vehicles to travel on the roads. Not to mention increasing productivity by reducing travel times.

    The green energy jobs do nothing like what building transportation projects have done.

    What sense does it make to spend money on an industry that ends up costing jobs?

    If it wasn't for subsidies wind or solarwould not be able to compete with coal, gas, or nuclear power.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 21, 2011 3:45 p.m.

    Blue | 11:56 a.m.

    Are you not aware that Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi prince? Their "prince" organized the 9/11 attack on America. Do YOU really consider them to be friends?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 3:23 p.m.

    I got an idea, the republicans talk a good game of states rights, so why don't we let each state decide the amount of annual fees, tariffs and or royalties to charge Canada to move there oil across each individual state.

    Procuradorfiscal said: There are NO environmental costs of the pipeline.
    That is the most ridiculous thing I've seen you post (lately) do you ever get tired of just making things up? You always defend polluters no matter the story. Does Magcorp or Rio Tinto pay you to post these boards?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 21, 2011 3:21 p.m.

    " Lets not forget that when green jobs are created you can end up like Spain, destroying 2.2 jobs for every job created"

    Say what? Lets assume that number is true. I read the study by Luciano Lavecchia and Carlo Stagnaro, and it does have some good points. Much of their costing is based off of subsidies the Spanish government granted wind farm development by fixing the price they would receive for the power generate.

    What the report doesn't discuss is what impact would taking the same no government subsidy approach have been in protecting or growing jobs of those who transport goods by canal or over land when the railroads were developed. Huge subsidies were granted to Southern Pacific and Union Pacific when the rail was laid across the country. The short term impact was that rail was killed thousands of traditional jobs. Long term, those investment grew jobs. So the study is flawed in it looks only the immediate impact, not the long term. Highways did the same to rail eventually.

    That said, I would like to see the pipeline built. If we have to be dependent on anyone, I would rather it be Canada.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 2:16 p.m.

    This Canada oil has a lot of Republican grease. They are betting their parties future and using brinksmanship obstruction to pipe tar sand oil across the US to export. This stuff must be more valuable than gold.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 2:12 p.m.

    To "RanchHand | 1:29 p.m." I don't think you read my previous post. I clearly stated that if you did not tax the company at all, that the benefits from the taxes produced by 20,000 workers is greater than 0.

    Yes, teh 20,000 jobs could be created with Renewable energy, but that would actually cost the treasury money becuase currently there are subsidies being given out to renewable energy programs. Remember Solyndra, and the other solar panel companies that have received money from the government. Lets not forget that when green jobs are created you can end up like Spain, destroying 2.2 jobs for every job created. So the 20,000 green jobs would result in a net loss of 24,000 jobs.

    To summarize things. The Keystone pipeline results in a minimum of 20,000 new jobs with nothing being spent by the government. Green jobs will result in a minimum of 24,000 jobs being lost plus all of the direct government subsidies and grants.

    I don't know about you, but the Keystone pipline makes sense once you realize it ends up creating jobs and not killing them.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 1:29 p.m.


    "Privately funded" does not mean they don't get exhorbitant tax breaks.

    Those 20,000 jobs could just as easily be created in the Renewable Energy industry with the exact same effect you describe.

    Polluting energy, renewable energy, polluting energy, renewable energy... hmmm, which one is better long term?

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Dec. 21, 2011 12:29 p.m.

    A couple years back, DNews ran stories, and boasted that Utah has enough oil in that state, to last the World with oil for the next 200 plus years, Let's then drill for it their and share with American's, sell off the idea to China that it's ok for them to buy the Keystone XL pipeline project because is not in the best interests of our country then. This will open up jobs for cheap labor in Utah for the illegals to.

    I told you I would tell you the truths DN.

    I didn't say you would like them.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 12:26 p.m.

    I know it's not objective of me to say because I stand to benefit from it but the pipeline is a good thing. Canadians aren't going to fund terrorism with oil revenue and the benefits to the US are real. Every time you see a flat deck with four huge tires or a wide load on I15 that takes up both lanes and is only half a dump truck box, think of the US jobs that went into building those items.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 12:00 p.m.

    Re: "You also conveniently leave out the environmental cost of the pipeline; which will inevitably be left up to our "federal treasury" to clean up."

    There are NO environmental costs of the pipeline.

    This decision will be made strictly on cynical political grounds -- who owes what political favor to whom.

    Anyone offering environmental reasons, for or against, is selling something else.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    MR: "It's time to buy oil from our friends, instead of buying it from those nations who support terrorists and funded 9/11."

    Mike, you do know that nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, right? Aren't they our "friends"? They sure were close "friends" of the Bush Administration!

    You do know that the oil market is global, right?

    If Canadian oil can fetch a higher price in Timbuktu than in the US, the Canadian oil will go to Houston and board a tanker bound for Africa. That's the way it works.

    Unless... You want to have government direct the markets?

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 11:45 a.m.

    In the end, you'll all scream for tax breaks for the profiteers. The construction will end. You and I will be left to clean up the mess. Time for some of us to face the real world and remember it is not about oil but profits at our expense. Your congressmen are going to pay it will be you and me and you'll still be making excuses for the oil companies.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 10:45 a.m.

    To "RanchHand | 7:02 a.m." let me expalin how not approving the pipeline will decrease revenues to the Treasury.

    First, the project is privately funded, meaning that no taxpayer money is being used for its construction.

    Lets imagine that the project is given a deal where they pay no sales tax on any equipment or materials and pay no taxes on any profits from the construction. Now, you have 20,000 people working on this pipeline. The construciton companies will still be paying their portion of the payroll taxes. You also have the income taxes of those 20,000 new jobs going into the system. All of this is done at no expense to the treasury department because it costs them nothing to not collect taxes and the project is privately funded.

    Now, if the project is stopped, you will lose at a minimum the income taxes and payroll taxes of 20,000 people.

    In the end, the treasury department will collect less without the Keystone pipeline than if they get taxbreaks to construct it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 21, 2011 10:44 a.m.

    We spend about $2 BILLION a day on the military, whose primary goal has been to see that we can get oil from the OPEC States. In addition, we spend another $1 BILLION per day on the oil itself.

    If we bought oil from Canada, would we still have to protect the OPEC States? I don't think so.

    It's time to buy oil from our friends, instead of buying it from those nations who support terrorists and funded 9/11.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 10:01 a.m.

    KM just makes things up. This is not a campaign letter, is it?

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    We don't need energy (oil) and we certainly don't need jobs. Obama

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    Simple question...

    How does building a pipeline from the gulf to CANADA help make the UNITED STATES of AMERICA more energy independent?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 8:56 a.m.

    Wow, more propaganda from special interests. The threat to send the oil to China is no big deal. The international oil market will adjust accordingly. It really doesn't matter who buys it, it all goes into the same pot. This is about advancing the economic interests of the companies involved, nothing more. And it still begs the question on when the U.S. will finally get serious about a new energy policies that won't lead to our demise as current policies and practices are doing.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 8:54 a.m.

    In a related note, this year, for the first time in decades, the U.S. produced more oil than it imported. All that talk about Obama being being anti-drilling and anti-oil seems to have been sheer rubbish.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 21, 2011 8:43 a.m.

    JCS said, "It is truly distressing to see the left wing hold this pipeline project hostage as a casualty of the leftist quest to turn this Country into a welfare state."

    Then how do you explain the vote of the Republican House members, heavily influenced by the Tea Party Wing, to kill the legislation that would have allowed that to go forward?

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 7:58 a.m.

    If the left wing extremists could have their way, Americans would be totally prohibited from using any kind of fossil fuel. Indeed, they would thrust us into a new Dark Age in which ignorance and fear rule the day.

    America must have the resources it needs to defend itself fro foreign invasion and to promote economic growth. The left's opposition to the pipeline flies in the face of this time honored truth.

    It is truly distressing to see the left wing hold this pipeline project hostage as a casualty of the leftist quest to turn this Country into a welfare state. This is partisan politics at itd absolute worst.

  • bluecollar Kearns, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 7:19 a.m.

    if the keystone pipeline is a worthwhile project, then why is it necessary to tie its enabling legislation to extended tax cuts for working class Americans? each issue should stand alone on its own merits.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 7:02 a.m.

    Sorry Dan, "at no cost to our empty federal treasury".

    How many tax breaks are the companies who'll build the pipeline going to recieve? That is "no cost"?

    You also conveniently leave out the environmental cost of the pipeline; which will inevitably be left up to our "federal treasury" to clean up.

    Companies do this all the time, they come in, pollute, descimate, pillage, plunder and leave the clean up to the taxpayers.

    That Dan, will be a massive cost to our "empty federal treasury".

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 6:13 a.m.

    The economics of tar sands requires continuing escalating oil prices to make this project work.

    Watch OPEC flood the world with cheap crude, drop the price of oil, and make Keystone a pipe dream. Mark my words... we've seen it before in 1985...

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 21, 2011 5:25 a.m.

    "Instead of putting the national interest first, Obama caved into the narrow interests of environmental extremists and liberal celebrities."

    And yet, it was President Obama who fully embraced the bill approved last weekend by the Senate and encouraged the House to follow suit but it was the Republican House members who voted against that legislation and left town leaving the American taxpayer and the jobless holding the bag and, as the writer points out, missed an opportunity to "create over 20,000 new jobs and bring over $7 billion into the U.S. economy."

    Despite his comments to the contrary, the Speaker of the House switched wagons after the radical wing of his party expressed disagreement with the bill that fostered strong bipartisan support in the Senate. The vote was 89-10 in favor of the bill. But only 7 Republican House memebers joined the large group of Republican Senators to pass the bill in the House leaving the vote 221-193 against the bill. The writer tries to blame the president for the current status of the Keystone pipeline but this story illustrates the president's willingness to negotiate and compromise while the House Republicans remain unwilling to budge.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2011 1:11 a.m.

    Importing oil from Canada does not help energy independence since Canada is not America and since oil is a global commodity it's not going to be immune from the global pricing either. Also, why do I have this gut feeling that the writer supports absolutely nothing to help achieve energy independence other than drill baby drill?