Senators turn up pressure on Obama to approve Keystone pipeline

Comments (11)
USAPragmatist wrote:

How about we redesign this pipeline to NOT include a link to CANADA and the dirty tar sands oil production. I do not really like it but the oil coming from the Bakkan region is a much lighter crude and it is USA production. But in order to build it there needs to be a clause that NONE of the oil or products made from it leave the USA. I may be able to get on board with a plan like this, as long as it addressed environmental concerns sufficiently.

Nov 16, 2012 12:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Burns0011 wrote:

It will not give us long term jobs, and the reason they want the pipeline is so they can have it refined and shipped overseas; they want *global access* for this oil, not North American Only access.

Most of that oil will NOT stay here, it’ll be sold and shipped globally.

The Republicans and oil-state senators are lying and have been lying about this issue for years now.

Nov 16, 2012 1:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Raelyn wrote:

Hang in there, Mr. President. We don’t need the pipeline — only the big oil money wants it, and we don’t need to poison the heart of our country with the curst thing!

Nov 16, 2012 2:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Keystone pipeline is a boongoggle. Why would we want to help Canadians export oil to China, via the Gulf of Mexico. That’s what it’s for. Helps us not one bit.

Nov 16, 2012 3:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

If the oil was destined for US markets it would not have to be pumped all the way across the nation to harbor refineries on the southern coast. The gas once refined goes to the highest bidder, and that is why “American” oil companies exported more gas than was imported this year. American gas shipping to South America while Americans are paying record prices. That is just good business.

If i remember correctly there are regulations about exporting oil, but not gas. Pass a law that all gas refined in the US must be sold in the US and oil companies will drop the pipeline. In fact, i am pretty sure just such legislation was voted down by every R in Congress within the last year.

Nov 16, 2012 3:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

wow, went from millions of jobs to thousands of jobs. So, just how many jobs will it create and maintain. And to the constant talking point about this supplying us with Oil. The reason the pipeline is being built is so it can get to the gulf coast and be shipped overseas. If it is for our consumption, build a pipeline to north dakota and build a couple refineries there.

Nov 16, 2012 5:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


I honestly don’t understand why they don’t just put a refinery on the great lakes and ship it from there. I am all for jobs and what not, but this just doesn’t seem to be worth the cost or the risk.

Nov 16, 2012 5:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


The EPA wont let us build new refineries. I suspect that it is the same situation in Canada.

Nov 16, 2012 5:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

USAP – Good points all. The Dems would be all about a pipeline that was intended to transport oil that is drilled in America and for sale in America. Kerstone XL is neither.

Nov 16, 2012 6:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Why would an oil company build a new refinery, newworld? They’ve got a pretty good thing going for themselves, as-is. How many even applied during the Bush years? When clean-air act exemptions were commonplace. Zero. That’s how many. Can you blame them? They make their money on scarcity, not volume.

Nov 16, 2012 7:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
questionmt wrote:

how many miles of sewer lines are there in this sensitive area of nebraska

Nov 17, 2012 11:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.