Obama welcomes TransCanada plan for new pipeline

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Feb. 29, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    Blue Devil:

    The route is chosen. It will be either to Kitimat or Prince Rupert, probably the former.

    The governments of Alberta, Canada and British Columbia want the project. There a a few Indian Bands complaining, but they are simply holding out for payoffs. Several are already on side.

    Secondly, in my less than humble opinion, Global Warming is a scam. Its sole purpose being to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor countries. The best overall new power production would be nuclear. The storage of the waste is an easily soluable and that seems to be the biggest complaint.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 28, 2012 9:51 p.m.

    BobP.... can you substantiate your claim that a pipeline is currently being built today, actually people working, tractors digging, etc.... today... on an approved pipeline?

    Just like the Keystone project, Northern Gateway isn't approved yet. No one is working on it. It is still in the approvals process. Facts.... they are sticky little things.

    As to your claims solar and wind aren't effective... you just don't understand the objective then. Peak power demand is during the middle of the day in most warm and moderate climates, which happens to be when the sun does shine. And the idea isn't replace oil or coal generated power, but to augment it. No one, not even the most delusional tree hugger thinks we will in anytime in the near future pull the plug on carbon based power generation. What the real world goal is to produce to meet peak need, and curb the demand to add additional carbon based power generation.

    Germany has grown its use of renewable energy to about 20 percent of demand, up from just 6 percent at the turn of the decade. By 2020, that number will be 36 percent. If one of the most powerful manufacturing based economies can do it, surely little old US and Canada can figure it out.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Feb. 28, 2012 11:09 a.m.

    @ pragmatisferlife: The reality is that in a recent pole 30% of employers said that wants "Obamacare" goes into effect they would consider dropping healthcare coverage for their employees. This would do exactly what he wants funnel more people to gov't sponsored healthcare programs and take away competition since the gov't would offer their programs for a lot cheaper and drive the private companies out of business. The other reality according to the non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center is that George W. Bush raised the debt by 4.9 Trillion during his 8 years and Obama has currently raised it by 4.7 Trillion and at the current rate will pass George W. Bush by the end of this fiscal year so that indicates that Obama spent more in 4 years than the previous President did in 8 years. The final reality is that according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, the rich do pay their fair share which is 40% of our taxes so Obama's claim that they need to pay more doesn't look at the real numbers. For more years of Obama would be very bad for this country so when he says he is running for re-election because we still need to do more our response should be you have done enough harm so it is time to go!!

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Feb. 28, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    Baron; Solar pwer doesn't work when the sun doesn't shine. Wind power doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow. Both of these are iffy and unrproven.

    Over half of oil produced is NOT used for energy but for feedstock in the making od plastics, fibers and etc.

    Obama has already blown 250 million into a bankrupt company in the alternate power sector.

    Pragmatist: There is a pipeline being built from the oil sands to The Pacific coast in Canada at the present time. The consrtuction labour is generally hired in the country where the project is being built.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Feb. 28, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    @Baron Ya like Solyndra and others now going down the tube who created jobs at the taxpayers expense and then shut down sending those jobs out the door. So far renewable energy is an unrealiable source and dependent on government help. Now our dear leader wants to pursue pond scum as a source of energy. Give ne a gas engine and fuel to run it and then get out of my way

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 28, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    The Canadian oil industry executives clearly don't read the DN opinion pages. Once keystone was turned down by the President they were suppose to run immediately to China and offer them the oil. You know this is one of the main reasons the President has an excellent chance of being re-elected. The right continues to make up the world the way they want it to be, and are oblivious to reality.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Feb. 28, 2012 6:30 a.m.

    Jobs or oil?

    I get frustrated when politicians pull the "jobs card" to back something -- no matter how uneconomical, dirty, or risky. Here, Keystone supporters claim we need to build Keystone to create jobs. Why wouldn't construction jobs in the clean, price-stable energy sector be any better than construction jobs for an oil pipeline?

    As oil and gas production have become more mechanized over the past decades, it has actually decreased in jobs whereas manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels has actually created jobs -- even if some companies have gone bankrupt. Why invest America's subsidies into an oil pipeline that locks us into ecomonic price shocks and create jobs off-shore (Canadian oil will employ Canadians) when renewable energy is price stable, clean, and domestic (maintaining a wind farm in Milford requires local workers and is pouring millions into rural Utah)?

    Yes, oil spills, pollution clean up, and health ailments from burning fossil fuels create jobs -- but are they any better than regular construction and maintanence jobs of clean energy that don't pose health/environmental risks?