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

Obama Should Let Pipeline Proceed

February 25, 2013

Perhaps President Barack Obama should worry more about the American people than about radical environmentalists who have bullied him during his first four years, never satisfied with his own......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-25-13 7:28 AM

Huh. Didn't know I was a radical environmentalist just because I question the safety and soundness of the Keystone XL. Thanks for giving me a new label.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 9:20 AM

you think walking a tightrope is easy? BHO has the ecofanatics on one side & the unions on the other. my mother told me to pick the very best one (constituents) & (supposed to say "you are not it") i cannot pick.

lol he's only been in office 4 years & still doesn't understand that you can't please all of the people all of the time. my dog produces more shovel ready jobs.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 9:39 AM

The world market sets he oil price. The pipeline, if completed, will neither have a positive nor negative impact. The end product will be sold here or abroad depending on who wants to buy it and for how much. Some countries protect their people by nationalizing some oil fields. We do not. The oil (and gas for that matter) will be sold to the customer willing to pay market price. I hate to be such a bummer but given the above the pipeline (whether it is finished or not) is really a non issue sans the temporary jobs it will provide. BTW: when you are stamping your feet about gas prices remember: 1.) the gas is worth ONLY as much s people are willing to pay for it and 2.) the real cost of gas is actually a lot lower here due to that dad gum gubment. Just ask anyone in Europe where big oil gets no breaks... hmm

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 9:52 AM

the u.s. car market to the european car market? hardly a fair comparison. what was the price of gas when BHO took office? the pipeline's impact will be neutral? seriously? no jobs whatsoever? hmmm....

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 9:57 AM

Seadog, Google Alaska pipeline spills, last year there were 500 leaks ranging from 200 gallons to 200,000 gallons. I guess the "liberal media" covered those up.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 10:02 AM

"Obviously, that would have a substantial effect on prices Americans pay for gasoline - as well as our national security" really? you seriously believe the price of gas will go down because of this pipeline? I guess theres a sucker born every minute. the oil will be sold to the highest bidder, if it happens to be China then china will get the oil. Doesn't any one wonder why the canadians didn't build the pipeline to their coast which is <20% of the distance it travels over the U.S.? How bout the people that are being strong armed by big oil right now over their right of way? didn't know they were already building the pipeline?? Darn conservative media covering it up again.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 10:19 AM

did the price of gas go down??

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 10:19 AM

Formerly Phil: I really like your posts but honestly you are wrong on this one. The pipeline's importance is indeed over played and the jobs will mostly in fact be temporary. I am not against it. However..everything is now on a world stage.I didn't even mention the environmental risks because I believe those too are overplayed. If the pipeline goes through (which I see no particular reason to oppose) only two things can happen.. and one of them "ain't" good. All I am really saying is that people need to stop looking for a silver bullet as there really is none.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 10:22 AM

BTW: If I could "lock in" gas prices at 5 dollars a gallon i would do it today. That price is still artificially low and a bargain. I know this ticks people off and is hard to comprehend but it is real.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 10:29 AM

"radical environmentalists " I too am not opposed to the pipeline but then its not going through my back yard. I know that a lot of folks in the Midwest are very upset as it goes right through their drinking water. there is a gal in Texas that is stone walling the pipeline going through her property so the oil company is sueing her. Imagine, an american citizen in Texas that is sued because she doesn't want an oil line going through her private property. sounds like something the tea party should be involved in, you know patriots, individual rights and all

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 10:31 AM

duck i'd be inclined to agree almost 100% with your first post. even though most of the jobs will be temporary i don't think they should be minimized. some of them might help to build working records/experience which pipeline employees should find useful in their respective futures. agree there is no silver bullet. but don't think it's fair to nix the project on the premise that the results will be neutral.

i also agree it won't positively or negatively impact domestic fuel costs. but european driving habits/tendencies vs. ours is hardly a fair comparison. we have an unhealthy obsession with all things gas consuming.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 12:02 PM


nat'l avg = $1.56/gallon.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 12:55 PM

I want to say first, I'm not against the pipeline being built. That being said, this whole Keystone argument is just another political tool being used by politicians to make it look they are doing something when they are actually not doing anything. It is a political talking point and nothing more. Much like the current gun law debates where opponents of the gun laws say these laws will have no impact on crime, this Keystone XL pipeline will have no impact on gas prices or the American economy.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 1:09 PM

I have no problem with the idea of the pipeline, but I am going to ask a question that I really want answered, not bashed! 1)How is additional oil coming from our country or Canada going to reduce our oil cost? 2)Isn't oil prices controlled at the commodities markets? 3) If so, isn't it the oil corporations that own the oil fields also playing the game to make more profits? Thank You in advance for your honest answers.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 2:17 PM

the pipeline will have no impact on the american economy. that's an interesting theory. all other signs point in the opposite direction.

pwu the u.s. will probably only see minimal impacts from the pipeline in terms of fuel costs & those impacts won't be felt until the dang thing actually gets built, if it ever does. i know one thing for sure: there's plenty of people currently unemployed or struggling that could certainly use the boost, even if temporary.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 5:14 PM

The main thing this pipeline will do is create jobs. Thousands of people employed for several years at least. For those who say they are temporary. Every construction job is temporary. It is over when the job is finished. people then move on to the next (temporary) construction job. These jobs are desperately needed right now.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 10:17 PM

Good questions Pleasewakeup. I believe that if we supply more or most of our own oil/energy, then we will not be dependent on the Middle East supplier, most of whom hate us. Not sure about prices, but having our own, secures the fact we will have access to energy.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-25-13 10:19 PM

PJ Editor, Obama is an idealogue. He will not do what is best for the country, he will follow his ideology, which may not be good for the country. Windmills, wind-up rubberband propelled cars and the sun. We're doomed.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 7:46 AM

This pipeline will not have a drastic effect on gas in this country. Having said that, I am for this pipeline for many reasons. First, job creation. Second, we need to partner with Canada more often relating to oil. If we do not, it will be China. Third, this will only help in our quest to become energy self sufficient by 2020. With the new reserves this country is producing, this pipeline can only help. NOW, we need to build some additional refineries. I know the environmentalists are against this, but with all the addiitonal barrels we are producing, gas pricies will never come down without additional refineries.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-26-13 2:06 PM

yup. well stated.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 6:48 AM

The number 1 export 2012 was gas to Mexico and South America, The high prices is Obama wanting prices for gas as high as Europe collectively as true Marxist the elite can afford the rest are just peasants in his eyes

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 7:29 AM

Obama's favorite word "collectively"....hmmm...equals peasants?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-13 12:13 PM

Lol! The rhetoric in this editorial is blatant in its attempts to smear people who are concerned about our environment - where we and our descendents live, by the way. "Radical," "extremist," and "butrning desire" are all words and phrases meant to demean and marginalize those who have a real concern about the land they live on and the air they breathe. Lighten up PJ!

I remember the big debates about the Alaskan pipeline. One of the biggest argument put forward for the pipeline was to increase the availability of oil for the USA. Funny how it turned out that most of the oil piped through went to Asia and other points west! This editorial is waaaay off the mark.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 23 of 23 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