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

Keystone XL Pipe-dream

February 4, 2014

To the editor: Recently I read a syndicated column by Charles Krauthammer attempting to draw the public into supporting the Keystone XL Pipeline....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(95)

TigerSupporter

Feb-04-14 8:12 AM

Are you kidding me! I thought Obama was bringing your much needed change 5 years ago. I seem to remember an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that was going to devastate the environment and the fishing industry for years. Where is that oil now? Nature took care of it.

7 Agrees | 23 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blasphemer

Feb-04-14 9:23 AM

Dear TigerSupporter, Had Ronald Reagan not been elected we would be well on our way to carbon fuel independence.

20 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OIIOHH

Feb-04-14 10:45 AM

Had Barack Hussein Obama not flown on Air Force One multiple times to Hawaii for vacations (often on separate flights from other members of his family), we would be well on our way to carbon fuel independence.

Seriously blasphemer, the best you can do is blame something on a president who’s been out of office for 25 years? That’s the BEST you’ve got?! Hilarious!!!

7 Agrees | 23 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-04-14 11:32 AM

I work for TransCanda right here in SW MN. People don't see or hear what this company does for the communities. All people see or hear is Keystone XL and tar sands and see this as a negative. Did no one see the train derailment in North Dakota with North Dakota crude oil? The rail cars ignited upon derailment. Wow that oil isn't volatile by no means!! Come on people a new pipeline is safer than any rail car and tracks. Also whether it's piped to Texas refineries or gets sold to China it's getting harvested out of the tar sands. We the United States do not want this oil to be sold to China.

8 Agrees | 23 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OIIOHH

Feb-04-14 12:41 PM

“It is time to advance safer and cleaner alternatives to carbon-based fuels.”

Mr. Dyce, you forgot “ECONOMICALLY VIABLE” alternatives.

6 Agrees | 24 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blasphemer

Feb-04-14 1:32 PM

The pipeline is only a small part of the problem. As emtioned in the letter, it is the way in which the "oil" is being extracted that is the real problem. It is extremely polluting, and it actually uses as much or more energy than the oil itself will produce.

21 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OIIOHH

Feb-04-14 1:41 PM

So WHAT are you going to do about that “pollution”, blasphemer? Run for Canadian Prime Minister so you can shut the industry down?

3 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Feb-04-14 5:21 PM

"Come on people a new pipeline is safer than any rail car and tracks."

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulates dangerous materials carried in pipelines & on roads, rail, air and sea. Their database revealed 3,000 instances of hazardous spills from pipelines compared to nearly 5,000 spills from rail cars from 2002-09. However, the average spill from a pipeline was 260 barrels compared to an average of 17 barrels from rail systems. For us and the environment, pipelines are no “safer” than railcars.

The route of the XL pipeline traverses the Ogalalla aquifer. A leak could easily contaminate an aquifer that supplies clean water to millions of people and wildlife and livestock in 8 states. Not even all of the billions of dollars in oil company profits could make that water clean again. We don’t want the pipeline and we don’t need the pipeline.

23 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KaptainKrunch

Feb-04-14 8:51 PM

After the last two months and last two utility bills, I am all in favor climate change and especially global warming. To bad it's a hoax. I propose we all start burning old tires soaked in waste oil in an effort to promote climate change and prevent anymore sub-zero temperatures.

6 Agrees | 25 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OIIOHH

Feb-04-14 9:42 PM

You’re citing data through 2009, Hartman?

From MSN News, Jan. 21st, 2014: “More crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail incidents last year than was spilled in the nearly four decades since the federal government began collecting data on such spills …. Canadian authorities estimate that more than 1.5 million gallons of crude oil spilled in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, on July 6, when a runaway train derailed and exploded, killing 47 people. The cargo originated in North Dakota.”

Hundreds of pipelines, thousands of trains, and millions of trucks already transport hazardous substances through the Ogallala aquifer every year. And you want to stop ONE MORE PIPELINE, Hartman? HILARIOUS!!!

5 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-04-14 10:30 PM

Hartman 75 like OIIOHH said hundreds of miles of existing pipelines run through the aquifer. Some 50 years old and you don't want a new pipes to run through there. Get some current statistics before you try to argue. Pipelines have always been the safest method of transporting any liquid or gas. Until an alternative fuel source is found we need to rely on the sources we have. Bringing oil In from Canada is better than oil from Venezuela an enemy of ours. Every year the President denies or choose to ignore Keystone XL is only hurting American citizens. The media don't care to mention that we the American TransCanada employees have our annual budget cut 20% last year and now they are cutting 15% of employes throughout the US assets to help compensate the costs they have into Keystone XL. How would you like to have a friend, family member loose there job not because of their work ethic, but because some environmentalists decided they don't want another pipeline. That's pretty sad.

5 Agrees | 22 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-04-14 10:37 PM

Until we have an alternative fuel source that can meet the demands. We the American people need to embrace the fuel sources we have. If all of us pipelines decided to shut the valves, stop flowing and rely on the alternative fuel resource that people argue about. What do you think might happen? Who would be the first to complain when there was no food in grocery stores? No gas or diesel at stations? No natural gas or fuel oil for heat? No propane for heat? No jet fuel for planes? My guess would be the same people who are against fossil fuels.

5 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Feb-05-14 8:18 AM

All these Keystone protesters are a bunch of clueless, hippie wannabee, followers of the nearest protest, which they typically know nothing about. One thing is for sure, they know about as much as the hippies used to-absolutely nothing! to properly context a favorite hippie song.

5 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NoBleedingHeartHere

Feb-05-14 9:22 AM

You gotta love this line from another favorite hippie song - "another tank of gas and back on the road again." You have to wonder how many of these Keystone protestor folks live by that same creed?

5 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Feb-05-14 12:37 PM

“Pipelines have always been the safest method of transporting any liquid or gas.”

Deion82, I provided statistics supporting my argument that pipelines are no safer than rail. Where are the facts to back up your argument? No one claimed pipelines should shut down or demanded we eliminate the use of all fossil fuels. Resorting to histrionics to make your argument resolves nothing. We were able to reduce our dependency on foreign oil ONLY because we invested in alternative forms of energy. The more energy we create from sustainable sources, the less we rely on monopolies that keep us dependent on their oil. Contamination of water supplies resulting from oil extraction is not a matter of if, but when. Our insatiability for fossil fuels has negative consequences relating to quality of life issues for our generation and those yet to come. Increasing the risk of destroying clean water supplies in lieu of oil profits with yet another pipeline is senseless.

21 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Feb-05-14 1:48 PM

hartman - if so-called green energy was the answer why haven't you started up a company to meet that need - without any government subsidies?

Do you drive a car, live in a house, burn natural gas for heat and use electricity for running your computer? You should be ashamed of yourself for wasting our natural resources.

"Do as I say not as I do" is your mantra - you and Al Gore.

I've asked you in the past what you have done to live without natural resources and you have yet to respond. Maybe you should contact Per and volunteer to write a weekly column on how to live green.

Right now you are just a hypocrite.

5 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-05-14 5:35 PM

Hartman your statistics are from 2009. I rest my case. OIIOHH showed the current statistics. I work for a natural gas pipeline zero leaks since pipe went into operation. After the tree hungers started to complain what did TCPL do? They altered the route which added millions of dollars more to the project. That still want good enough. It's no secret Obama and Buffet are friends. Who's rail cars move oil from North Dakota? Warren Buffets. It's not the environment impact it's politics. Not a one looks out after the people but only themselves.

3 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Feb-05-14 5:37 PM

rangeral - if fossil fuels are the answer why haven't you started up a company to meet that need - without any government subsidies?

rangeral, you support giving millions of dollars in subsidies to oil and gas companies that earn BILLIONS of dollars in profit each year. So why shouldn't "green" energy companies also be subsidized to help them develop?

20 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-05-14 5:44 PM

What are the green energy sources you are referring to?

1 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Feb-05-14 6:29 PM

Statistics from 2002-09 don't count, Deion? Why not? The facts haven't changed. Are you aware the oil from the tar pits are much more corrosive than natural gas or the oil flowing in existing pipelines? Are you inferring those who support the XL pipeline don't have powerful political friends? Thus far you have not provided one bit of evidence to support your argument in favor of the pipeline - except the fact you work for a pipeline. Evidently only environmentalists want clean water.

20 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-05-14 7:27 PM

Rail car incidents, derailments or otherwise we're not governed under phsma guidelines. So there for majority of the issues with rail cars were never reported unless there was an evacuation, explosion or death. Every pipeline is looked after by PHSMA. So whether it's the required 5 gallons on the ground to be reportable or and explosion every incident is investigate. So there is no comparison between the two in later years. Thus making pipelines look bad from earlier data. If would look into data from the last three years. Rail cars have the majority of spills. I am aware of the oil sands specifications, are you aware of the difference of sweet and sour gas?? The one is highly corrosive, and toxic. 50ppm is enough to kill a person if breathed. But this 100% acceptable to flow in a pipeline in the US. Everyone wants clean water. One way to help solve the issue is by a new state of the art pipeline. Not the 50 -100 year old pipelines that currently run through the aquifer.

2 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-05-14 7:31 PM

To put it in simple terms for the non-knowledgable what is more reliable a 1920 car or a new 2014 car? Same goes with pipelines. A new pipeline is a lot more reliable than an old pipeline. Hands down and statistic prove it.

4 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-05-14 7:34 PM

I'm not saying older pipelines are an accident waiting to happen either. If properly maintain and operated they are a fail prove design. Statistic prove that also. Many older pipelines out there that have not and any incidents either

3 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-05-14 7:41 PM

Here's an interesting fact for you Hartman: Train Accident Statistics

Every 90 minutes there is a train collision or derailment. A train carrying hazardous cargo derails approximately every two weeks in the United States. Today rail companies rely on technology that was developed more than 70 years ago, and very little research and improvement has been made to update these dated safety measures.

2 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Deion82

Feb-05-14 7:46 PM

Here's another statistic. I find this interesting spills up dramatically but still safety record quite high.

Industry Segment: Production | Word Count: 327 Words

SUGAR LAND--January 28, 2014--Researched by Industrial Info Resources (Sugar Land, Texas)--In 2013, the U.S. shipped record levels of crude oil, primarily from the Bakken Shale formation, via railroad to refiners on the Gulf Coast and in the Chicago area. It also spilled record levels of crude oil. While the gross amount spilled last year is certainly large, relatively speaking, the safety of rail transport is considered to be quite high.

2 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 95 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