Build the pipeline

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    Has Nebraska approved the path for the pipeline yet? As of the last showing up on Google from August 2013, they have not and there is a lawsuit by landowners contesting one proposal -- if the landowners win, the whole siting procedure will have to be re-done. If not, and until Nebraska approves a path, this is a moot issue. This is not something that should be considered until, at the very least, its exact proposed location has been determined.

  • Mickey Kovars Tampa, FL
    Sept. 20, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    The real issue is whether the pipeline company should be prevented from building it -- this is, supposedly, a free-market economy in which the govt steps in only when necessary to protect the public interest. Supposedly. There is no good reason, environmental or otherwise, for the govt. to block this pipeline.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 20, 2013 4:53 a.m.

    About 15 years ago, BP pushed for reductions in the sulfur content of diesel fuel in Australia. It meant that they would have to build more processing units in their refineries in Australia. It would cost them. It seemed strange that they would support this.

    But what they were thinking (and I have had conversations with people from BP who confirmed this), BP's management knew that they could build the extra processing capacity faster than the competition. So they supported and pushed for the tighter restrictions because they could make a tidy profit selling diesel at monopoly prices when the law came into effect.

    I wonder, if somewhere down the Gulf Coast, if there is some oil company, (maybe BP?) who is hoping that Canadian bitumen doesn't show up so that they can keep their prices higher? The Obama administration is keeping the competition out for them.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 20, 2013 4:47 a.m.

    The people who are opposing the Keystone Pipeline is the Natural Resources Defense Council. 15 years ago they had another initiative called "Dump Diesel". They wanted to ban diesel fuel despite the fact that diesel fuel produces 20-40% less carbon dioxide than gasoline when used in combustion engines.

    Their website says that oil sands will be transportedi in the pipeline, (no, bitumen will be transported, not sand). Their website also says bitumen is toxic. It is less toxic than the asphalt being put on roads. Lots of emotion and no sense.

    What is to be gained by blockading Canada other than turning a friend into an enemy.

    The US environmental movement has missed the boat. They are promoting supply side environmentalism rather than demand side environmentalism, i.e. if they restrict the supply the prices go up and then it forces people to cut back. With demand side environmentalism convince people to cut back so the prices go down.

    Bitumen produces more diesel than the light oils that we are producing. More diesel means cheaper diesel and more efficient engines.

    Stupidity and emotion are a bigger threat to the environment than any toxic waste incinerator.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 19, 2013 8:30 p.m.

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

    "None of which had a significant environmental impact."

    @procuradorfiscal - I guess you need to define "significant". Next week I will be up in Edmonton discussing this very issue with a pipeline company. They seem to be far more concerned about it then you, based on the amount of money they spend to prevent such insignificant events.

    Just to give you an idea of what we are talking about, read the following quote from EnergyWire

    EnergyWire spent four months collecting data, and found more than 6,000 spills in 2012, Mike Soraghan reports:

    … together they add up to at least 15.6 million gallons of oil, fracking fluid, wastewater and other liquids reported spilled at production sites last year.

    That number is “almost certianly an undercount,” Soraghan reports, because states like Oklahoma often exclude the spill amounts.:

    End quote. - bottom line, there are still numerous spills.... but the industry is getting better at it. But is is safe to say you are one of the few who feels this is an insignificant problem. Companies pay millions for us to use analytics to help them resolve what they see very much as a signifiant issue.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 7:44 p.m.

    The only oil America will receive from the pipeline will be the oil that spills, which it inevitably will if the thing is built. That's what pipelines do. Most, if not all, of the refined oil would be exported, which would do nothing to lower gas prices here, and any jobs created would be temporary at best. Canada has nothing to lose from this venture, and we have everything to lose. This thing is a turkey and will never fly.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon

    I won't respond to any so called Mormon who believes he is open minded and therefore is accusing all other Mormons of being close minded. Change your handle and maybe we will talk. P.S. I drive a Toyota.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    "Canada is telling the U.S administration it will see a sharp increase in cross-border crude-oil shipments by rail if President Barack Obama fails to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline."

    So Canada now dictates our trade and border? I think not, Canada is not a threat or in a position to threaten anyone.
    This comment is nothing but a bluff and hot air from an "Oil Puppet" that only the gullibly would waste time worrying about.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 19, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    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?

    Well it bears repeating. The Koch brothers. They control the heavy oil refineries in Texas and they also control ALL of the republican congress by threatening to primary incumbent republicans and back a challenger. Does the trick.

    They just want to export it. Texas already has better cheaper oil. It doesn't take a genius.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2013 1:29 a.m.

    Is the Gulf Coast the only possible destination for this oil? If it is, then build the pipeline, but if not then rail looks better because the railed oil could go anywhere the relatively dense rail network goes.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 8:32 p.m.

    Nice! Silo is taking MM to task!

    To all those others in support of this pipeline:

    #1 Who is going to fill the jobs to construct and maintain this pipeline? Illegals? I doubt the greedy oil company will offer good salaries plus benefits to these workers.
    #2 What is happening to our own oil? If we truly want to be energy independent, wouldn't it make sense to use our own? Oh wait, it's our #1 export.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Sept. 18, 2013 8:09 p.m.

    clearfield, UT

    Anything that can help the U.S. rid itself of any dependence on the Mid-East and its oil I'm for.


    Do you drive cars that get 40+ mpg instead of gas guzzling SUVs and trucks?
    Most Utahans don't.

    The Germans and Japanese [who pay $5-$8 a gallon] have always made cars that get better gas mileage than American cars do.
    Because they have to.

    They also don't have to start wars and invade other countries either.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    Anything that can help the U.S. rid itself of any dependence on the Mid-East and its oil I'm for. If this pipline can do that, then I'm for it. By the way, it has to be much easier to clean up oil spilled on ground than it is to clean it out of the ocean. And, pipelines have been running pretty safe up to now. Plus, if there is a leak, then simply shut down the line. Much easier than closing a hole deep down in the ocean or stopping a leaking tanker ship.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 3:04 p.m.


    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    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.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Sept. 18, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 18, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    @ 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"?

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:25 p.m.


    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!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    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.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:12 p.m.

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

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:00 p.m.


    "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?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 18, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    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!

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Sept. 18, 2013 11:15 a.m.

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

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 18, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    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?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    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?

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Perhaps Putin could step in and solve this problem.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 18, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    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!

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 18, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    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?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    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.


  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 18, 2013 4:49 a.m.

    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...