Quantcast

Keystone XL Pipeline: Good Idea or Bad Idea?

JMCC 2012/08/29 21:33:35
It is a good idea because...
It is a bad idea because...
Undecided
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Despite protests concerning seizure of land under eminent domain and the environmental risks posed by running the pipeline through geologically active regions of natural beauty, its construction is one of Mitt Romney's top priorities.

Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea?


Mitt Romney insists completing the Keystone XL pipeline will be one of his first priorities if he becomes president – even “if I have to build it myself.”

Big Oil is not taking any chances.

The American Petroleum Institute is an official “host committee sponsor” at the Republican convention and the lobby group is actively talking up Keystone and other oil industry projects in seminars and private receptions. It is holding a closing night party here on Thursday, following Mr. Romney’s speech, for a thousand invited guests. The Zac Brown Band will provide the entertainment.

Read more below:

Read More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-elect...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Ali 2012/11/16 21:15:45
    It is a bad idea because...
    Ali
    +1
    this pipeline would majorly destroy the environment. we are just BEGGING for an oil spill in the soil. and that would cause famine, even more environmental destruction, and not to mention, MORE MONEY. Plus, the pipeline destroys thousands of forests and destroys a lot of nature. isnt it sad that there is no place on earth completely untouched by humans? even the arctic is rapidly declining because of us. we need to stop polluting the environment and start thinking about the LONG-TERM EFFECTS.
  • Jeff King 2012/10/06 04:01:03
  • Nameless 2012/08/31 07:39:52
    It is a bad idea because...
    Nameless
    +1
    We are a selfish lot and instead of being innovative - like we can be and create jobs and secure our environment a lot more responsibly, we allow companies/gov't to take land via imminent domain. It's awful.
  • burningsnowman 2012/08/30 18:58:40
    It is a bad idea because...
    burningsnowman
    +1
    Government seizing people's land is generally not a good idea.
  • Pedro Doller ~Inc. 2012/08/30 17:33:35 (edited)
  • none 2012/08/30 17:31:02
    It is a good idea because...
    none
    +2
    More jobs, better supply of oil.
  • Bronar 2012/08/30 15:28:46
    It is a good idea because...
    Bronar
    +2
    Energy has to be as inexpensive as possible to get our economy moving again. Job too. Win win.
  • Fredrick House 2012/08/30 15:24:33
    It is a good idea because...
    Fredrick House
    From what I know it seems to be a good idea. As usual Obama and his Mullahs want to cripple this economy so they can impose Sharia law and socialism. Don't give him a second chance!!!
  • David Hussey 2012/08/30 05:54:45
    None of the above
    David Hussey
    +1
    It all depends on your perspective. For the refiners on the Gulf Coast, for those who will be employed (temporarily) in its construction, and of course for the producers in Alberta its a great idea. For pretty much everyone else, its a horrible idea.
  • JP David H... 2012/08/30 14:15:42
    JP
    Let's forgo energy from our friendly neighbor to the north, continue our reliance on hostile oil and pass more stimulus so we can close down another Solyndra.
  • David H... JP 2012/08/30 14:30:16
    David Hussey
    I don't have any neighbors to the north. You are aware that the oil from keystone is intended primarily to be refined and exported aren't you? Keystone will not reduce your dependence on "hostile oil' at all.
  • JP David H... 2012/08/30 14:39:25
    JP
    I am well aware that the knuckle dragging of Obama has allowed China to sink their hands in this.

    You do realize that Solyndra can't even export their fake market products anywhere, correct?
  • David H... JP 2012/08/30 14:42:16
  • JP David H... 2012/08/30 18:49:05
    JP
    I am well traveled and do business throughout the Williston Basin, and they have a key interest in that pipeline as well.

    Seems that Mr. Buffett's trains and close ties to the White House are a major reason why we are having problems getting oil from our own soil and our friendly neighbors to the north.

    Keystone was another source for Canadian oil sources that would lessen, not increase our demand for hostile oil. Don't you understand even the basic premise of supply and demand? Or are you just a puppet on the government green energy scam?
  • David H... JP 2012/08/31 00:30:29 (edited)
    David Hussey
    You are not having problems getting oil from your" friendly neighbors to the north", half of your non-Opec imports are coming from Canada, and Canadian oil exports to the US is over twice what Saudi Arabia's is.

    How does your partisan take on things account for the fact that domestic production in the US is pretty much what it was during the Bush era. One would have thought that with the 'close ties' that Darth Cheney had to the White House domestic production would have expanded greatly during those years. It did not, so don't try to spin that issue into an 'its Obama's fault'. As a matter of fact, current US crude production is at its highest level since 1998. Perhaps you should be thanking Obama for facilitating an increase over what the Bush admin offered, instead of posting partisan fallacies.

    I notice that you failed to explain what Solyndra has to do with the topic, which is the keystone pipeline. You also neglected to explain where you got the notion that somehow you have a right to Canadian resources that trumps China's rights. They, unlike you, are pouring billions into development here. If the choice were up to me, I'd be building the Northern Gateway pipeline before even considering Keystone.
  • JP David H... 2012/08/31 15:07:25
    JP
    My broad based domestic energy concerns are partisan? Funny, I happen to think more affordable energy would benefit all Americans!

    Speaking of partisanship, I remember well the crisis a few years back...instead of voting to empower us and slow the free fall in the economy we watched on c-span the democrat congress neuter domestic drilling while Arabs danced on the streets. Those of us in the professional automotive wholesale business wanted results and we got none.

    What Solyndra has to do with the topic is everything wrong with Obama. We don't run on windmills, unicorns or any other failed fake energy market scams that promote tax payer waste and political favors.

    Thank goodness private landowners have more than filled the void left by illegal drilling moratoriums imposed by this regime. That isn't a partisan fallacy, it's a tough truth to swallow for any leftist.

    A strong America is more important for a strong Canada than China ever will be.

    canadian mounty
  • David H... JP 2012/08/31 18:33:36
  • JP David H... 2012/08/31 21:01:20
    JP
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


    According to this you are way off. Just think, if we have the right results this election that provide us with a pro business administration we will separate ourselves from the pack once again.

    If we have the welfare crowd winning again, you are probably correct.
  • David H... JP 2012/08/31 21:16:11 (edited)
    David Hussey
    +1
    Take a look at this, economic growth of the major economies over the past two decades....



    Yes, the US is still the largest economy in the world, but it wont be forever. As growth in the Asian countries continues, their demand for resources, the resources upon which the Canadian economy is built, will soon outstrip American demand. A good example of this can be seen in lumber exports from British Columbia, who now exports more timber and timber products to China than to the US.

    The markets of China and India represent a consumer base 7 or 8 times larger than America. Short of stopping economic development in the Asia, the writing is on the wall.... Canada's future interests lay to the West, not to the South.

    As to selecting a pro-business administration, that is not going to solve your economic problems. American business interests are, like the Canadian resource industry, licking their chops over the growing consumer markets of Asia. And they will sell out the American consumer to have a share of that pie. You don't need a pro-business administration, you need a pro-people administration.

    "The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no
    passion or principle but that of gain."
    ~ Thomas Jefferson
  • JP David H... 2012/09/04 14:26:32
    JP
    Right now we have a pro neither administration.
  • David H... JP 2012/09/05 00:44:58
    David Hussey
    Seems like right now you've got pretty much a rubber stamp of the previous administration and this election between Obamney and Rombama doesn't really seem to offer much likelihood that anything is about to change in that regard.
  • JP David H... 2012/09/05 00:47:22
    JP
    +1
    Obrombush? 350,000,000 people and this is what we get.
  • David H... JP 2012/09/05 02:32:41
    David Hussey
    It is rather staggering to consider that from such a large pool of people it seems impossible to get something better eh?
  • JP David H... 2012/09/05 14:36:44
    JP
    I haven't talked to anybody that is happy with our choices. In fact, everyone seems to be downright angry about it.
  • David H... JP 2012/09/06 00:24:04
    David Hussey
    I don't think we have enough people involved in the democratic process at its roots. most folks seem to only get involved in the politics after candidates have been chosen, and by that time it is simply too late for an individual to have much of an impact.

    I do hear from several people who seem quite pleased with their candidates, but these seem to all be of the die hard partisan crowd, folks who would vote the devil himself as long as the correct letter followed his name on the ballot..... Lucifer (D) or Satan (R) could get elected in today's divisive, partisan environment.
  • JP David H... 2012/09/06 19:43:14
    JP
    +1
    Certainly could. I am in favor of removing the labels and making people learn about their candidates. I don't many people who approve of Obama, yet these same people don't want Romney either.

    We are truly taxed without representation in this country.
  • David H... JP 2012/09/07 03:48:57
    David Hussey
    +1
    Exactly!
  • Pedro D... David H... 2012/08/30 17:46:26
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +2
    You may not be aware that North Dakota oil would be using this pipeline. Now that oil is being hauled via rail cars and tanker trucks, It is a significant amount (more than the oil produced in Alaska and Louisiana) The rail cars are being hauled all over the aquifer and are far more risky than a pipeline.
  • David H... Pedro D... 2012/08/31 00:40:32
    David Hussey
    +1
    Thanks Pedro, I was not aware of how much N.D. has upped its production of late. I'm not inherently opposed to the construction of Keystone, what I am opposed to is the unrestrained export of Canadian resources as opposed to exporting value added products. Gasoline instead of crude oil, lumber instead of raw logs... etc. I'm sure you can understand I have a vested interest in creating jobs here more than I've interest in creating American jobs.
  • Pedro D... David H... 2012/08/31 04:51:28
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +1
    I have to agree with you 100% for wanting the benefits of your resources. The problem in the US is it is having a problem making rational decisions in regards to a comprehensive energy plan. It's pure politics. Keystone was shut down for environmental reasons but hauling crude via semi trucks and railroads over the most sensitive aquifer areas is environmentally OK. The reasoning don't add up. The real reason is, Keystone is owned by the Koch Brothers and Santa Fe - BN railroad is owned by Warren Buffet. All political favors. The US has a major problem with lack of pipelines and refining capacity. Many refineries are old and being decommissioned. Pipelines are old too. Not that much a shortage of crude. The pipeline / refining problem is that they are not located where they are most needed.
  • David H... Pedro D... 2012/08/31 06:02:56
    David Hussey
    +1
    Yes, everything these days is done with the interests of their political backers and the next election in mind. And sadly, the voters have become so wrapped up in their partisanship, neither party ends up being held to account. The Dems know they can screw their constituents badly yet still count on their votes simply because of the 'lesser of evils' nonsense. And the Republicans, they can screw their supporters without fear of losing votes to the 'Marxist\Socialists'.

    Its insane that ANY of the Current crop in Congress have gotten reelected, let alone the ones who have been in Washington for decades sticking it to the voters.

    Those 'environmental' reasons are a smokescreen, just as they have been used as an excuse not to expand refining capacity. The industry will cry 'environmental roadblocks' when they have no desire to increase refining capacity as that would ease the supply side of the equation and drive consumer prices down. Same way that utility companies will take generators offline to create a false shortfall in supply to keep the retail prices high.
  • Pedro D... David H... 2012/08/31 06:50:25
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +1
    In the US most oil producers are different companies than Refiners or transporters. Here's a little info about oil production in US.

    http://www.downstreamtoday.co...

    http://www.downstreamtoday.co...

    http://www.downstreamtoday.co...
  • David H... Pedro D... 2012/08/31 07:28:53
    David Hussey
    +1
    Thanks for the links Pedro, I just took a quick peek at them but will go over them in depth tomorrow.

    The headline on the first link had me laughing, it seems that for my entire life I've been hearing to doom sayers telling me "we will be out of oil in about 20yrs". What makes these predictions from the 'experts' all the more laughable is that even their most extravagant predictions of growth in consumption have turned out to be gross underestimates.... and yet, I'm still hearing much of the same 'we're going to run out of oil in 20yrs' fear mongering today, 40 yrs after I first heard this prediction.
  • JMCC Pedro D... 2012/08/31 09:35:44
    JMCC
    Thanks for the information, but in the interest of fairness I would need to point out that company ownership is a different matter.

    Often apparently unconnected companies have some of the same directors, board members and shareholders...
  • Pedro D... JMCC 2012/08/31 10:27:42
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +1
    Refining is a fickle business, especially when equipment is old and a lot of work is required, plus the narrow margins. A fair amount of refineries in the US have been sold off in the last few years to third party players or decommissioned. Some refineries are still operated by major producers, some are by retailers, some are independent and some all of the above. The perception is that they are ALL operated by the major producers like Exxon, BP, Shell, Texaco, Chevron, Connoco Phillips etc. The majors are trying to get out of refining and retailing. In many areas the majors will pay a refinery to process their product to their specs and then sell the product through a chain of privately owned franchisees. As far as share holders go, they might be commingled to some degree.
  • JMCC Pedro D... 2012/08/31 10:41:52
    JMCC
    I agree with all that you have said, and it has been a personal observation that more often than not when a parent company sells a division, it is often lead from inside the parent.

    ie A consortia and subset of high level players within the parent that want to carve out a piece to run exclusively without giving up the interests that they have in the parent company... ;)
  • Pedro D... JMCC 2012/08/31 10:49:26
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +1
    That's most likely the case in most companies. All the Joint Ventures are a scam too. China has been stirring around a lot in buying refineries everywhere too.
  • TuringsChild 2012/08/30 05:22:58
    It is a bad idea because...
    TuringsChild
    +1
    It's a pipeline that bypasses the United States entirely. Why bother? We get all the risk of a spill with none of the benefits of the actual oil.
  • roboto-pwcm-jla 2012/08/30 03:26:05
    It is a good idea because...
    roboto-pwcm-jla
    +1
    It's a good idea, because the oil in Canada is going to be used whether we like it or not.

    If it's unsafe to put a pipeline within the area above the Ogalla aquifer, does this mean we need to dig up the pipelines that are already in place in this area? What about the underground fuel tanks, pipelines, and large above ground storage tanks that are in this area--do those have to go as well?
  • aguster 2012/08/30 03:14:49
    It is a good idea because...
    aguster
    +1
    Jobs, economic growth, jobs, North American oil, jobs!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/23 04:30:20

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals