Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | School Lunch Menus | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Time to OK?pipeline

February 4, 2014

Enough is enough — unless, apparently, you are President Barack Obama, determined to please your radical environmentalist supporters....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(35)

middleclassworker

Feb-04-14 12:58 AM

What proof does the writer of this editorial have that this will benefit the American consumer? Canada is planning on exporting this oil to China and South America. This will raise the prices of midwest gasoline by at least 15 cents per gallon since we currently get our oil from Canada in the northern refineries. By opening up the world markets to Canada, the price will go up as the demand increases.

What needs to be asked, as with ALL legislation, is "What will this do to benefit the average American?" The answer is NOTHING.

I'm starting to wonder who owns the Journal and its editorial department.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tbonenu

Feb-04-14 6:35 AM

overseas markets, which is where the majority of this processed oil will end up. This dirty energy project is all risk and no reward for the American people

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Feb-04-14 8:51 AM

Tar sands oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf across United States land to be refined on the Gulf Coast and sold on the world oil markets, not in the United States, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can’t ship some of that oil to world markets. Drivers in the Midwest,could pay 20 to 40 cents more at the pump if the pipeline is built, as the current discount of up to $30 a barrel for Canadian oil disappears. Last time I checked Minnesota and New Ulm are part of the Midwest so why is the Journal so gung-ho on getting this project approved? Maybe we should check and see if the own some stock in Koch Industries.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tbonenu

Feb-04-14 9:51 AM

why is the Journal so gung-ho on getting this project approved?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-04-14 11:00 AM

The real issue here is that we should be building refineries along the pipeline and creating the finished product ourselves. We have not built any refineries due to EPA holding them back. This is where I don't understand the environmentalists argument, does it make more sense to send it abroad for refining and then bring back finished products. Would it not make more sense to do it here (create jobs )have tighter regulations than abroad ( help clean environment)and bring down the price (help the consumer at the pump)? We could control the process tighter here than just about any other country, creating less of a carbon footprint in the end , less shipping and exposure to the sea . Just because the refining doesn't happen here doesn't make our atmosphere cleaner , it is a global environment , if we could control the refining process here we can control the pollutants going out instead of leaving it up to countries that care less than we do and we create American jobs.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-04-14 1:13 PM

You wildlife cowboys. You insensitive brutes. You pipeline huggers!

What about the rights of the unborn Piping Plovers, or the Eskimo Curlews, or the Salt Creek Tiger Beetles?

Huh? Huh!

Before you captains of industry wipe out future generations of wildlife forever, maybe you should take a few years to study the matter more thoroughly.

Bless the Black-footed Ferret.

And bless President Obama for his prudence and sensitivity.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lunkerwalleye

Feb-04-14 2:24 PM

I agree with middleclassworker. We will not benefit from this at all! The only people who will benefit are the Koch Brothers and their evil cronies. They put the pipe through here and then lay everyone off afterwards. Where is the job base going after, nowhere! Look at all the pollution problems in Canada from the tar sands and the Ogallala aquifer that would be jeopardized here, this needs to be stopped! We already have enough water pollution from Fracking!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-04-14 3:20 PM

I thought this POTUS was for building infrastructure in the U.S. and creating jobs. Pipelines are part of that infrastructure. The reason propane is so high is because of a pipeline that was shutdown going to Chicago and they will be reversing it this spring to ship light crude to Canada. I was up north last weekend and they are paying $6.50 /gallon, that would be $2600 to fill a 500 gallon tank at 80%. That is because there is not enough infrastructure in place to support the consumption. This squeezes the lower to middle class the hardest ( least amount of disposable income). instead we are more concerned about driving 70 miles an hour to Mankato and taking 5 minutes off our trip. This is the infrastructure we need , energy related. Petroleum , propane, electrical and natural gas are things that affect the lower income people the hardest, not how fast they can drive somewhere. Wind and solar are still in their infancy yet and need subsidies to be cost efficient.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-04-14 3:25 PM

We need these fuels until we can get to the next generation of power. Look at your electrical bill and see the surcharges for green energy. they make up a large portion of the bill. If we don't change soon our infrastructure will not be able to support our energy needs. They were already areas where they were rationing propane , no more than 200 gallons to a household. We need to build the bridge that will get us thru to the green energy years which are a ways off yet. If not the lower and middle class will suffer the most, your energy bills will be higher than your house payment.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Feb-04-14 3:51 PM

Deer - The reason propane is so high is because shortages are caused by increased demand - due in large part to increased exports. Even back in November there were headlines like this one “US propane spot prices reach 18-month high as exports strip supply”. Exports increased due to a propane export facility opening last spring at Houston. Plans are in the works already to expand it, and additional export facilities are in the works in Texas for the next couple years. In the same manner, Keystone is an export pipeline that will drive up gasoline prices in the Midwest.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-04-14 4:08 PM

Aunty , I did talk to two propane companies and they said it was due to the farmers drying more corn this year and the pipeline being shut down. They said this pipeline is the one that served the upper Midwest and that in spring it will be reversed . Then they started going to Kansas for propane , eventually they were limited on what they could receive there. Now they have to go to Texas to get propane. The increased cost of transportation is fueling the increase according to them . I looked up the spot price for propane a few weeks ago in Texas and it was at $1.50 /gallon. Pipelines are so much more cost effective in moving this product versus trucking. They said they expect propane to remain high next year due to the pipeline shutdown. My point is that we need more infrastructure such as pipelines, maybe not necessarily the Keystone if it is for export only. I would guess the weak dollar also factors into the amount of exporting. I would also guess the cold weather is to blame.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-04-14 4:13 PM

18 month highs I could live with , limited delivery and $6.50 /gallon propane crushes the average guy . If you burned 800 gallons a year your bill would go from $1200 /year ($1.50 propane) to $5200/year . That is a big difference, plus the fact that you are on limited supply ,possibility of running out. They said that one propane company up north did quit delivering because they were unable to get any. I cannot verify that ,just local talk. That is a scary situation .

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Feb-04-14 6:32 PM

The bottom line is that this pipeline is not at all about helping the states that it crosses. It is about getting crude oil from Canada to other countries. Yes, some of it will be refined in southern refineries, but what is in it for us? I'm glad that so many of you realize this. It is good to see that the truth is getting out about this debacle.

Much of the reason why propane is so high is because so much corn needed to be dried this fall. There is a solution to that: Convince the farmers to burn ethanol in their corn dryers. We should also convince the ethanol plants to burn ethanol in their boilers. It makes absolutely no sense to burn exorbitant amounts of fossil fuels so that we can manufacture a "green" energy source out of food, at the expense of the environment and the water table.

If there is a need for more refineries in northern states, I would be open to that. I have not heard of a shortage of refining capacity at Flint Hills Resources.

continued...

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Feb-04-14 6:37 PM

I am all for investing in infrastructure that serves the public good. We need to invest in improved roads and bridges. We need good rail systems. We need reliable infrastructure that transports water, sewer, electrical, communications, natural gas and fuels for the use of our citizens. The KeystoneXL project is not about serving the needs of Americans, it is about serving the wants of Canadian oil ty***** in their quest to make more money at the expense of the environment. Why should we risk all the pipeline spills and environmental damage that will inevitably come from this project? There really are very few jobs that will be created from this, and most of them won't be permanent.

Keep up the good fight, friends! When the American Citizens become informed, projects like this do not happen!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Feb-04-14 6:38 PM

I guess you can't say "Tyc00n". I bet you can't say C00n Rapids, either.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lunkerwalleye

Feb-04-14 8:10 PM

Deerhunt: Pipelines are not part of our infrastructure and creating jobs. All it is is creating more revenue for the idiot oil barons that want to sell it to foreign countries and cause more pollution! Lookup all the problems they have created in Canada with the tar sands and the spills they already have done, then look at your water supply that you would condone destroying due to these pipelines that will eventually have leaking problems plus the fact it would be running right through the only untainted water aquifer in the US which is the Ogallala! Fracking has destroyed the rest of them.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-05-14 8:43 AM

Walleye , how are pipelines not part of our infrastructure? Where do you think a majority of natural gas and propane are transported. Would you feel safer having all fuels trucked around the country ? Pipelines are a cost effective ,"green" way of transporting fuels. Maybe you would feel better if Canada uses our rail system or semi's to move it across our country? Our current green energy is no where near capable of supporting our needs. A $240,00 solar panel generates $6,000 worth of electricity per year, and the output fades over time. A 40 year payback is hardly feasible. Unless you are living by candlelight, we all depend on energy to survive .We could survive with out 4 lane highways ,try surviving without heat or electricity for just one day. This infrastructure is more important than a lot of other things. You have to choose between trucking/rail or pipelines. I would think pipelines are safer .

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-05-14 8:49 AM

Look at the rail incident they had by Courtland a few years ago when it derailed right on the bridge by HWY 68. Wasn't there just a large derailment in North Dakota? You have to choose between the lesser of two evils sometimes. Until we find alternative energy we will rely on these fuels just to live and the infrastructure needed to bring it to our front doorstep. I'm not saying it is the perfect answer , but sometimes we have to step back and look at the big picture. And yes, people will make money off of it , look in your retirement plan , you may be one of them.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TURBO75

Feb-05-14 9:03 AM

One week The Journal is complaining that Obama has the nerve to make decisions without full support of everyone, the next week they complain that he should be making decisions despite the opposition by certain groups. The Journals opinion page has become a space filler, take it away, along with the dog and cat ads and you have nothing left.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lunkerwalleye

Feb-05-14 11:07 AM

Deerhunt I don't think you understand, we are not going to make money from this or gain any jobs from this so tell the Canadians to pipe their own oil out to their own shorelines, not here!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lunkerwalleye

Feb-05-14 11:11 AM

Deerhunt Another thing, they already have come up with alternative energy which was Howard Johnson's perpetual motion magnetic motor back in the 70's and the oil companies sued him to shut him down. They have had this alternative energy around since Tesla. These oil companies are the worst thing this country has had around since the automobile came out. They do not care about you or me when it comes to pollution, they only care about the almighty dollar!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-05-14 12:35 PM

Walleye , jobs would be created , inspection and maintenance of the pipe , people running the export facility and we would also have a means of pulling the oil off the line for US consumption instead of buying it from overseas. Maybe you prefer to get oil from people that just plain hate us , I would rather negotiate with the Canadians and keep the oil in the states. As far as you perpetual motion machine ,how many magnets would it take to power a car , it would have to overcome the added weight of the magnets also. You would be talking thousands of pounds of magnets to come up with enough power to just get the car to move , much less accelerate and run accessories. This sounds too good to be true or maybe conspiracy theory.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TURBO75

Feb-05-14 1:49 PM

Seriously, the perpetual motion machine? Do you still believe in Santa and the Easter bunny?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lunkerwalleye

Feb-05-14 3:21 PM

Deerhunt You must be delusional if you think it will create jobs. Theonly jobs it will creat are the ones to build it and then they will get layed off. The other problem is the route they are proposing through the Ogallala water aquifer spot which is not going to happen when everyone in the Dakotas and Nebraska rise up against it. It is the only aquifer that is untainted. Another thing, we will not be getting anything from the line as it is going directly overseas. You must work for the evil Koch Brothers? As far as magnetic perpetual motion goes, go and read up on it before making statements about something you know nothing about. Look up Howard Johnson's three patents which I have done and it is viable.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lunkerwalleye

Feb-05-14 3:25 PM

Turbo, You must sit around in the house all day thinking of ways to gain benefits from the new marijuana laws that are going to get passed here in Minnesota. You weren't related to the guy that just got busted in the paper today, were you? Go read up on free electricity and Howard Johnson before making stupid statements like that!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web