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
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.
Taxman,NPR is not unbiased. I could, with the same
credibility, say I was listening to Mark Levin who said the 20,000 is grossly
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.
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
Creating jobs and pollution
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.
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.
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.
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 -- 0Environmental
"compliance" costs -- $84M, and climbingHmmmmm.
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.
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?
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?
" 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
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.
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
@RedShirt;"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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
KM just makes things up. This is not a campaign letter, is it?
We don't need energy (oil) and we certainly don't need jobs. Obama
Simple question...How does building a pipeline from the gulf to
CANADA help make the UNITED STATES of AMERICA more energy independent?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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...
"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.
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