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

Politics behind delay on pipeline

April 23, 2014

It has become clear politics is the only thing preventing President Barack Obama from deciding whether to approve the proposed Keystone XL pipeline....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Apr-26-14 8:55 PM

Thanks for asking, Avoice. It is about supply and demand. Currently, there isn't a ton of demand for Canadian oil because they can not get it to the greater world markets. Therefore, the price is currently lower (because the supply is relatively high). If the refineries in Minnesota are no longer able to buy this "cheap" oil, the price of the gasoline that they produce will go up.

Read the study by Cornell University regarding this pipeline. It has many interesting facts.

Have a great day!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-14 4:40 PM

MCW, in your first post you stated the oil(crude or refined?) would be going to China and South America. How would that have an effect on the price of gasoline here in the Midwest?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-14 10:19 AM

Wow. That got butchered up by auto correct.

"Are you ready for prices at the pump to go up..."

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-26-14 10:17 AM

Are you ready fire the process at the pump to go up if this goes through? I've seen estimates of 10 to 15 cents per gallon in the Midwest. I've heard higher, but have not seen the source of that information.

Let Canada build it across its own lands to get to the ocean.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 9:41 PM

This proposed ecologically disastrous pipeline is an outrage and must be stopped at all costs.

Will no one speak for the unborn nuthatches, wagtails, silky fly catchers and fringeline finches?

Do the Koch bros have no shame? Does the loss of countless species mean nothing to our responsibility to future generations?

Finally, what would the Founding Fathers (bless 'em) think of our naturalistic stewardship?

Blatant capitalistic bunkum, if you ask me.

"Sven, what do you think of the Keystone XL pipeline?"

Glad you asked.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-25-14 5:32 PM

Read up on more statistics on the pipeline versus rail. According to a US Dept of Transportation study, the risk of a train spill is six times greater than a pipeline incident over the period between 2004 and 2012. While rail transportation costs vary from $15 to $20 a barrel(transporting crude from Canada to the Midwest and the Gulf Coast), pipeline costs vary at a rate of $7 to $11 a barrel. BNSF is a prime mover with the many lines they have who, incidentally, is owned by Berkshire Hathaway whose chairman is Warren Buffett. Whether politics have any influence, one can make up their own logical deduction and conclusion.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 7:52 PM

mcw, be specific in your posts. The pipeline will not provide any crude to any refineries owned by the Kochs. You are attaching a long string in using the term "vested interest" to make it appear the Kochs are investing in the pipeline. Yes, the Koch's do have interests in Canada along with a bunch of others but have not invested in the pipeline as randiscott stated(note rs stated the "figure being thrown around"). Will they benefit from selling the crude to companies who will use the pipeline to move the crude - certainly as well other investors. Don't fall into the trap our senators have who have accepted campaign funds and are now calling them "evil men" as you have done.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 5:04 PM

Some thoughts on prior posts. Why is when we have a chance to have high paying jobs be created there is a liberal or a democrat that finds some excuse not to go forward? Unless of course it is a government job, then it is ok. If it means more jobs who cares if it is shipped overseas? Would it be better if George Soros made money from this pipeline? What difference does it make who gains from the pipeline? What purpose does it serve to call a political agenda evil? How is that type ofn ame calling any help towards any sort of civil discourse helpful.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 2:00 PM

Agreed, Randiscott. They do have a vested interest in this thing being approved.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-24-14 7:19 AM

I don't believe the Koch Bros actually own the pipeline. They own over a million Canadian acres where all this oil sits. They are pumping oil now but with the Keystone Pipeline, the oil will transport faster thus cutting down the time they make their profit--hence the $100,000,000 figure being thrown around.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-14 7:34 PM

Avoice, The Huffington Post cited a report that states that the Koch boys stand to make $100 million if the pipeline goes through.

My guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-14 7:07 PM

mcw: I agree on the accident waiting to happen. They claim the pipeline is safer to transport oil than the railroad. my question to anyone is: if the oil is intended for other countries, why does it need to go through the US? Can't Canada just pipe it to one of their coasts and ship it? Or are they planning to refine it in the US before shipping?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-14 9:42 AM

MCW - the Koch Brothers involvement in the pipeline in zero, zippo, nada. Check your facts before you post erroneous information. You are living in the past when you go back to 1980.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-14 9:17 AM

I think the most underlying point of this issue isn't the pipeline itself, it's the inability of our nation's LEADER to make a decision for fear of political fallout. My point is that this is just one more example of the current "leader" not leading. You're the president, stick up for your opinions and beliefs, instead of kicking them down the road for someone else to make the controversial decision.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-23-14 6:23 AM

As someone that works in construction, I disagree with you. While this project had the potential to create many good paying oil spill clean up jobs, I don't think that is worth the environmental risk.

Tar sand is abrasive. Like sandpaper, it wears away the steel on the pipeline. It is not a matter of if it leaks, it is a matter of when and where. The pipeline passes over aquifers that provide drinking water to many people.

It would be different it this oil was even intended for American consumption, but this oil is intended to be used by China and South America. All you have to look at is who stands to benefit from this pipeline. Among the list of investors is the infamous Charles and David Koch, some of the most evil men around. (Look up David Koch's 1980 political platform. His agenda had not changed much).

I'm glad this project will not proceed during the president's term. Hopefully, it dies under its own weight.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 15 of 15 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web