Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Keystone XL pipeline should be built

February 26, 2013

Perhaps President Barack Obama should worry more about the American people than about radical environmentalists who have bullied him during his first four years, never satisfied with his own......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(35)

Colonelbanters

Feb-26-13 3:52 AM

Well, I think the only fact that the author of this letter got correct is that Obama is our current President. Didn't we de-bunk this same editorial last year? The pipeline is to let a Canadian company(with a horrible environmental record) send oil to refineries in Texas to be turned into gasoline and then sold on the world market to the highest bidder. If you can explain to me how that does any good to any American at the gas pump, feel free. On top of that, oil from the Canadian oil shales is among the most expensive to extract on the planet so, do you think the oil companies would take that hit and then kindly give us the final product at a lower cost? The answer is an easy "no." Environmentalists are only "radical" when mentioned in propaganda like this. I contend there is nothing radical about wanting to have water to drink! Our relationship with Canada? Really? What's Canada going to do? Bomb us?

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Feb-26-13 4:01 AM

Is Canada going to refuse to trade with the wealthiest nation on Earth because one of their oil companies didn't get their way? No, no, and no. You don't have to look too far to find that the U.S. now likely has more oil than the rest of the world's nations. Is risking our water supply to profit a foreign firm at absolutely zero real gain to any of us the way to react to this knowledge? No. This lette is so full of B.S. I can't begin to express my anger at it but, I'm sure it's just another one of those editorials sent out from headquarters in W.V. Sad, pathetic, shameful people write this sort of filth!

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DaSharker

Feb-26-13 5:54 AM

When you are trying to bankrupt the U.S., as Obama is trying to do, it makes sense to force the country to buy more oil from the Arabs.

6 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

3dgerin

Feb-26-13 9:36 AM

You should ask yourself why would a company build a 1000 mile long pipeline and not just build a new refinery? Its surely not for cost savings. Just as ColB has said that oil will not be for US consumption. Not one simpleminded republican will be happy until this pipeline is built, our biggest supply of fresh water is contaminated, and the price of gasoline remains the same. Then you will all be on here crying how Obama destroyed the environment. No matter what the president does you will complain, at least he is thinking about the US in the future and not just the present. I just wonder where common sense went in Iowa.

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-26-13 10:34 AM

ColB, how about applying some of that priceless view of pricing to high-cost wind and even higher-cost solar generation in the electricity market? Also, that Canadian OIL SANDS (not shale) crude will go to China for refining if not to Texas to what purpose? Furthermore, 3dogerin, it is cheaper to move crude by pipeline than refined products regardless of method, so refineries are located as near markets or cheap water transport as possible, not to mention that refineries are extremely costly to build - and, in this case, unnecessarily duplicate. All of which is to say that investment decision are better made by those who are in the business than by presidents, politicians or ideologues, regardless of stripe.

5 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bububud

Feb-26-13 10:49 AM

Colonel is absolutely correct...Canada is simply looking for a port and refineries to process and then, as the US is currently doing, export gasoline. It would have little, if any, effect on gasoline prices in the US. The world market and the oil companies will determine the cost of oil and will adjust output accordingly, whether its at drilling or refining. The US takes the greatest risk when it comes to the environment. Also, the Canadians took the gold in the last olympics by beating the US in hockey...I say NO!

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

3dgerin

Feb-26-13 11:24 AM

Anderson I agree that the decisions should be with the businessmen. However this is a corporation asking to build a pipeline through their country. You have to have politician involved at this point. The only people that are going to benefit from the pipeline are the those involved with the company, management, shareholders, ect. US citizens will see no benefit and only loss if there is a spill, how does this even sound like a good thing? I could see it if perhaps the company was going to only sell their gasoline on the US market, however with that not going to happen the risk is far to big for the reward of TEMPORARY jobs in building the pipeline.

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

3dgerin

Feb-26-13 11:34 AM

Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels. There's at least one domestic downside to America's growing role as a fuel exporter. Experts say the trend helps explain why U.S. motorists are paying more for gasoline. The more fuel that's sent overseas, the less of a supply cushion there is at home. Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. "It's a world market," he says. Refining companies won't say how much they make by selling fuel overseas. But analysts say those sales are likely generating higher profits per gallon than they would have generated in the U.S. Otherwise, they wouldn't occur. Source: USA Today

All they are after is money plain and simple.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

3dgerin

Feb-26-13 11:38 AM

Anderson complaining about solar and wind energy is funny. Can I ask you this though, when the oil runs out and it will run out, how do you intend to keep your lights on? Don't you think it is smarter and cheaper to invest now than when the crash actually occurs?

That's like Eisenhower deciding to not build the interstate's because the cost of cement was to much. Funny thing is I would love to buy cement now for the price it was back in the 40's-50's.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrankyGrandma

Feb-26-13 12:06 PM

Yeah, let's listen to the businessmen when it comes down to people's safety vs. more money, they'll do the honorable thing for sure! Right? Right?

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brucee

Feb-26-13 2:27 PM

anderson anderson will you ever disagree with greed, this topic is so lude to even be considered. To pipe shale 1500 miles across the only thing we havent ruined as yet is absolutely insane.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TAXEDENOUGH

Feb-26-13 4:04 PM

Colonelbanters, I agree with your comments. 3dgerin, I also agree with yours except about the buisnessmen making the decision. Most people would be working for almost nothing with no benifits if a lot of these so called buisnessmen had thier way. Most have only one reason for most decisions, it's called greed and how much can I fleece the public. Pretty much what is happening with gas prices right now..

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-26-13 5:05 PM

"Lude"? "Pipe shale"? What are you trying to say, brucee?

It is difficult to discuss supply and demand, product substitution, pricing etc., with those who do not have either a backgrounds in economics or business experience, which is why I recommend Sowell"s "Basic Economics" to compensate somewhat for the former; unfortunately, there is no compensation for lack of business experience. When fossil fuels do run out, or merely become too pricy, pvt innovators entrepreneurs, and investors - not some omniscient politician or bevy of govt bureaucrats - will come up with some competitive substitute at some price that provides funds with which to pay the costs of all the factors of production, labor (i.e. workers) included. Neither talk nor altruism will secure such product OR employment; never has, never will, our peripatetic Agitator-in-Chief notwithstanding. Meanwhile, I suggest (again) shank's mare (or bicycle at most) for all environmental purists -

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-26-13 5:08 PM

- and Grounding AF-One!

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Feb-26-13 7:27 PM

Soundco, the government controls everything the same way the latex glove on the surgeon's hand controls the operation. Most moves by the government these days are done at the command of ruthless corporations who wish to remain faceless while they can get people to blame the government for the outcome.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NOJOKE1

Feb-26-13 9:16 PM

I’m with you Anderson, and if our Agitator-in-Chief would stop taking all of those vacations on AF-one, lead the country’s leaders to collaboration and compromise - we won’t have to worry about burning so much jet fuel and supplying Americans with ample job opportunities. I guess China will resolve these issues as they continue to buy out our AMERICAN energy companies and assume our oil reserves. Doesn’t anyone read the newspaper anymore? They don’t care about pipelines.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Feb-26-13 11:03 PM

NOJOKE1, I know it's not a fun fact for someone set in their ways but, you DO know that George W. Bush took about 10 days vacation for every 1 day Obama has taken thus far-right?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-27-13 11:01 AM

Note that Bob Woodward, Washington Post columnist of Watergate fame, has just called Obama's claims regarding the sequestration a "classic case of distortion and confusion," and Obam's actions in that respect, "madness."

You are absolutely right, ColB, that the govt controls just about everything, economically speaking - TOO BLAME MUCH. So he converts HIS campaign staff into a tax-free lobbying group to agitate for HIS agenda and it is called out even by Common Cause for selling quarterly meetings with Obama for $500,000 a pop. Now that is bribery, a criminal, impeach act under the law!

But how does one weighs Bush's vacation time - most all at his Texas ranch - against Obama's & his incessant campaigning using AF-One almost daily at $180,000+/hour, & that is but the tip on the iceberg of presidential travel expenses, as I know from personal involvement. Slick-talker Obama is leaving Slick Willie in the dust, it seems, with one notable exception that ne

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-27-13 11:02 AM

...that need not be stated.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrankyGrandma

Feb-27-13 12:23 PM

I am so glad I checked this post again. Anderson, you have outdone yourself this time! Tom Sowell? Really? His own bio states that he writes from a "libertarian and conservative" viewpoint. In other words, his own biased opinion. Opinions do not make facts. Much like the Woodward, who has expressed his disdain for this president over and over. Opinions.

Your view is yours, but it doesn't mean it's right. I happen to believe my view is the correct one, and having almost as many years in the government financial sector as you, I would argue that my point may very well be the right one.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-27-13 4:27 PM

Oh, Cranky - better check google on Sowell, an "economist and social theorist" who, I grant, has "opinions," since that's what all economists have; however, for someone of your "brilliance" I would have suggested Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," not Sowell's "Basic Economics," which is just that, the "basics" and a much easier read. Both, however, ARE individualists, not collectivists. Suppose I COULD call you racist, since Sowell is a Harlem-raised black, Cranky?? And how about those other two blacks, Walter Williams and Charles Payne - just dismissible as "libertarian conservatives," too, I suppose?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrankyGrandma

Feb-27-13 4:46 PM

Looks like since you're the only one who mentioned race, so maybe that finger you're trying to point is back at "YOU".

You can stop trying to use your "questionable intelligence" to "deceive" others on this forum with your "selfish" "opinions".

"Individualist" is a synonym for "greedy", as you "well know".

But the "funniest" part of your foolish reply is the fact that your ugly racist true self is showing and you aren't "smart enough" to know it! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

3dgerin

Feb-27-13 6:24 PM

Amazing how it goes from a pipeline, to vacation time, and now racism.

Anderson yes Dubya did spend his vacation time on his ranch, however AF-1 took him to the ranch, Secret service was present, and the same checks for his safety were done as they are for Obama. So there really is no cost difference between the two. I worry about your previous comments how after the oil runs or gets to costly then private industry will develop other sources of energy. I would much rather see the government create the technology than have some greedy corporation holding a patent on a basic need and exploiting the public. Take a look at farmers and what they have to pay for seed now since Monsanto holds most the patents and tell me you would like system like that for perhaps your transportation or home heat. Or look at poorer countries and how clean water is to expensive to drink since the water rights are owned by a corporation, and every home has a meter attached to it.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

3dgerin

Feb-27-13 6:33 PM

Right now the concern is oil, however in the future the biggest issue will be clean drinking water. This is exactly why Bush Sr, Dubya, and his daughter Jenna own 10's of thousands of acres of land in Paraguay, since it sits over the Guarani Aquifer.

I am sorry but I do not believe this is a risk we should take with the water we have, all for a company to make higher profits. There is 100% risk and absolutely zero reward for 99.999% of the citizens of the United States.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Feb-27-13 11:16 PM

Its just that you, Cranky and others of your stripe, raise use the "racism" charge every time anyone disagrees with our Agitator-in-Chief, and - as in the Sowell case - try to dismiss views you are incapable of refuting with some personal attack. So, turn about is not fair play with you, eh?

Having participated in Presidential, VP and Secretary levle trips for 20 years, 3dgerin, I can assure you that logistical and security costs are of a completely different magnitude for repeat and longer-term visits to a single location than they are to multiple locations in a different city every day or two as with Obama's peripatetic campaigning. Also, rural stops incur far fewer logistical and security costs than urban stops; those at restricted military bases, least of all.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments
 
 

 

I am looking for: