Comments on: What Comes Next for the Keystone XL Pipeline?

By: Romney Supports Keystone XL Pipeline in First Presidential Debate

Romney Supports Keystone XL Pipeline in First Presidential Debate — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:55:16 +0000

[…] Pipeline” October 4, 2012 By Tina Casey Leave a Comment Fans of the Keystone XL pipeline got some support during last night’s presidential debate, when Mitt Romney stated “I […]

By: USDA Provides $7.4 Million for 450 Job-Creating Rural Energy Projects

USDA Provides $7.4 Million for 450 Job-Creating Rural Energy Projects — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:19:44 +0000

[…] are in all that much of a hurry to create new jobs, they could hopscotch over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and lend some more support to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency has just announced a […]

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:11:00 +0000

this pipeline could cos the U.S. jobs in the long run, a Cornell study found.

as far as this pipeline goes, this pipeline inspector says it all: “Tar Sands Pipeline Whistleblower: “I am not telling you we shouldn’t build pipelines. We just should not build this one.”” http://planetsave.com/2012/01/06/tar-sands-pipeline-whistleblower-i-am-not-telling-you-we-shouldn%e2%80%99t-build-pipelines-we-just-should-not-build-this-one/
Well, doesn’t say it all, tar sands are a full-on climate disaster: http://planetsave.com/2011/08/30/tar-sands-oil-pipeline-backwards-thinking-humongous-climate-change-impact/

By: Jeremygerardi

Jeremygerardi — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:58:00 +0000

I love the blog and all, but I think this move will help strengthen north american economy. For One, the as you posted earlier articles about how renewable fuels are having trouble cutting parity costs. I’m just saying that no matter what over the next 20 years we will need oil and gas. Even though the Albertans have x amount of tar sands it will be shipped. If not to USA it will be to Asian countries. Personally I would like for Canada to get carbon tax, but for the mean time it is not going to happen. If this pipeline going over the aquafier and is over engineered in saftey percussions. How many pipes are shipping petroleum across USA and Canada? Let alone across state lines. I’m a big Obama sopporter and all, but how can he say he wants more construction jobs, but when pipeline is near clearance it seems he does not want to approve it.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:54:00 +0000

as mentioned elsewhere in these comments, the oil wouldn’t be for the U.S.
also, just as a note, the LARGE majority of the oil we use is for transportation

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:54:00 +0000

In the long run, that Cornell study found that it might actually COST the U.S. jobs.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:53:00 +0000

Cornell study found that it might actually COST the U.S. jobs.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:49:00 +0000

Let’s see….

Over a ten year period we could build a pipeline and start bringing tar oil from Canada to the US for refining.

Or over a ten year period we could build a bunch of wind farms and install a bunch of solar arrays as well as manufacture a lot of EVs and PHEVs.
It takes less than two years to build a wind farm. Some large ones are built in less than one year.

It takes less than a year to build a large solar farm. Just a few weeks to cover the roof of a very large commercial building.

We replace most of our car fleet in a twelve year span. We can build EVs and PHEVs just as easily as building ICEVs.

Build the pipeline and ten years from now we will still be buying a lot of oil from other countries.

Build electric cars and the infrastructure to charge them and we will not be buying as much oil from other countries.

Is this a hard choice to understand?

By: Solate4work

Solate4work — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:47:00 +0000

Do not makeup your minds without knowing all the fact’s.here is a link to the Cornell study if anyone would like to read it. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:18:00 +0000

I am amazed, apalled and chagrined. We are going to import oil from somewhere until solar, wind and bio fuels become a factor. That will be 10 years or more. I am all for more of these things and the sooner the better but it wil not happen overnight. The US is basically reducing gas and diesel usage by 1% a year and that has been happening over the last 5 years and there is every reason to believe that will continue as we get more vehicles that use substantially less fuel. But we still need oil for right now. The less we import from the far east and Venezula, the better it is for everyone. Actually, the refinerys in the US have excess capacity so that means exports that again help our economy for the short and the long run. The Pipeline is good for America, especially if there is ever a disruption of oil from the middle east. Actually, I predict it will happen within the next two years. You think it is hard to get a job now, It will be much worse and our country needs to do everything it can to be prepared.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:39:00 +0000

To Hell with the pipeline. We don’t need oil from anywhere.

Increase the federal subsidy for EVs and PHEVs so that more people buy cars run on electricity.

The Volt is made in America.

The Nissan Leaf is made in America.

Toyota makes some of its cars in America. We’ll likely see a Prius PHEV plant opened here.

Tesla makes their EVs here and they will be releasing an EV ‘for the rest of us’.

We will make many/most of the EV batteries in America.

We make wind turbines in America.

We make solar panels in America.

We will install our wind turbines and solar panels with American labor.

By moving to EVs and PHEVs we cut the flow of American money to foreign countries, including Canada, and keep more of our money here at home where it can help our economy.

Let’s think of ourselves first. Don’t build the damn pipeline.

Let’s do the smart thing and turn to 21st Century technology.

By: muchos huevos

muchos huevos — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:37:00 +0000

Hope he would approve it, I rather buy my gas from Canada than the America Haters, besides it will create more jobs for us here, and not there.

By: ty coon

ty coon — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:13:00 +0000

What you are all missing is that this oil is all contracted to refineries in Port Arthur. This is important because it is a duty free trade zone. What does that mean? It means that the tar sands oil from Canada will be refined here in America then shipped to Europe and Latin America-tax free. The US will never see a drop of gasoline or diesel or jet fuel from this. Nor will we get any tax revenue. But the refineries will make billions. What does the US get? Pollution from the refining process for sure, and possible contamination from spills in the future. Oh, and we get the bill for any cleanup cost.
National security? This oil hurts not helps that, Seeing as how it will be buildt by undocumented workers from Canada.

By: Kencarolw

Kencarolw — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:46:00 +0000

I for one is in favor of alternative energy-but this country is not ready to be 100% off of foreign oil-as of now if we must use oil lets keep it local- If it is installed it needs to be at least 3 times stronger (pipes) in place over water-there also needs to be some way to keep terrorists from damaging it -big questionDO WE HAVE THE REFINERIES ? as far as I know we dont have any new refineries- as for oil a lot more items beside fuel come from oil-

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 05:11:00 +0000

One source states that it could take ten years to complete the pipeline and put it in service.

In ten years we could move 5% or more of our personal transportation to EVs and PHEVs and eliminate the need for that oil.

Perhaps it’s time to slow investments in old tech and spend the money on new tech….

By: Fredv

Fredv — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 03:49:00 +0000

The pipeline is supposed to account for 5% of current domestic energy consumption estimates (which are growing every year) and only reduce our dependency on foreign oil by 9%. However, the pipeline is expected to not run at full capacity. They claim there are 52 regulations to make it safe, and are asking permission for the use of thinner, cheaper steel and higher pressure pumping rates, but analysis of these regulations show all but a handful are just rehashes of the current weak regulations in place. It crosses the largest fresh water aquifer in the country, and a spill like those the oil companies keep having would be devastating to drinking water, and irrigation we need for domestic farming. How would you like an increase in oil prices AND food prices AND water prices if a problem happens? An ILR study from Cornell university puts the number of jobs created only at around 2500, mostly for construction, its not benefiting the economy by creating jobs – that’s a scam argument. It does get us off foreign oil dependence (a little) in the middle east, but puts us on oil dependence from Canada – at the taxpayer’s expense, this sounds like a huge subsidy to OIL companies, and NOT a “DEAL for the US”- it is not clean domestic energy production like solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc, it is still an import, just not from as far away.

By: Markkhicks

Markkhicks — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:40:00 +0000

Is all of America drinking the koolaid? You are missing the gig picture completely. This pipeline will reduce our dependency on unfriendly nations for energy. The government has spent trillions defending parts of the world for oil supply and the Canadians have an almost unlimited supply available to the USA

Why Canada would technically ship the raw product to the USA ( sort of like farmers shipping their topsoil ) for refining is beyond me but somebody should clue in on what a deal this is for the USA

By: Bob Higgins

Bob Higgins — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:31:00 +0000

The State Department estimates that this enormous boondoggle will only create a couple thousand temporary construction jobs.

The facts that we don’t need the oil domestically and that this project constitutes another enormous threat to the environment aren’t being considered.

That this will further boost energy industry profits is the only consideration.