Comments on: Pipeline in Perspective
By todd tanner on 01-29-12
One of the reasons the Keystone pipeline enjoys support in Montana is because the news media has done such a poor job of reporting on the story. We’ve heard that the pipeline will create more
than 20,000 American jobs, and we’ve heard that our politicians here in Montana are working to
make the pipeline a reality. But here’s what we haven’t heard:
*In truth, the pipeline will only create a few thousand temporary jobs, and almost no permanent
jobs.
*A major Cornell University GLI study on the pipeline shows that it could actually decrease the
number of American jobs over time.
*Oil flowing through the Keystone XL pipeline will likely be loaded on tankers and shipped
overseas. There’s no guarantee it will remain in the U.S.
*Canadian tar sands oil is particularly corrosive and toxic, and Keystone has a poor record with
spills and other problems.
*Mining the tar sands will continue our addiction to oil and hasten climate change.
It would be nice if the media decided not to run so many “He said, she said” stories and op/eds on
the pipeline, and actually did a little hard reporting. It’s truly difficult for the public to make informed
decisions on complex subjects when the press decides it’s easier to act as stenographers than
reporters.
Here’s a thought. If the Beacon is going to focus on the pipeline, why not have an actual reporter
dig up actual facts? Any number of politicians have stated that the pipeline will create more than
20,000 new jobs. Keystone itself says that the pipeline will create 13,000 jobs. The U.S. State
Department puts the number between 5,000 and 6,000. The Cornell study says 2,500 to 4,650.
Why not do some research and tell us who’s right? And while you’re at it, why not let us know if
these jobs are permanent, or if they’re temporary, with an average length 1 to 2 years?
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the public actually had the facts before it was asked to make an
informed decision? Any chance the Beacon can help?
By RussCrowder on 01-29-12
Leave it to our first “Anti-American”, American President, Barack Hussain. Who else could manage to drive our neighbor to the north into the arms of the Communist Chinese. Oh Well…I guess
“Progressives” stick together !
By JB on 01-29-12
It’s too late to do anything more on this issue, thanks to Obama - there is already talk of building a pipeline solely in Canada to the BC coast, to supply tankers bound for China and other countries.
With the US being the most litigious nation on the planet, and with an economy now more than ever
dependent on government spending, you’d think Obama would get the point…I guess that’s giving
him way more credit than he is due.
By Westside2 on 01-30-12
Ouch. Todd posts some tough questions.
Russ plays the blame/poor me card:(
JB throws hands up and quits!
By Gabby Johnson on 01-30-12
A couple years ago conservatives were in an uproar—and rightly so—about the taking ofprivate homes by eminent domain in New London, Conn., to benefit a private shopping mall
development. Keystone’s a giant taking of land to benefit private big oil concerns with no
guarantees of any benefit to Americans.
It just the blind hatred of our President driving Rehberg and his buddies who think it’s a good
election year issue. I’m confident voters who look into it will see it for what it is.
For the record, I’m in favor a safely-built and operated pipeline and if we play our cards right
it can help generate revenue to lower our national debt.
By hotfishmt on 01-30-12
The cost of ther pipeline is pegged at 5 Billion dollars if its built down to Texas. That is one large chunk of money and the jobs it creates will triple that 5 Billion in the trickle down
economics and if its not built count on the Chinese over coming objections to build a
pipeline to the Canadian coast and then kiss the oil goodbye.
Oil and mostly its bye products are indispensable in every day life…..never mind the fuel. I
doubt most of those objecting even have the slightest clue how many every day products
atcually come from oil So….all the radicals out there…..KISS YOUR BOTTLE WATER
GOODBYE, and your toothpaste tube and your 1 gallon of cows milk…..gone gone.
By Passin through on 01-30-12
JB that pipe line was though of shortly after the Keystone one was and let me say if they do as they want with that one there could be more oil in the water, they want to bring in ships too big for
the pass they have to go through, does that sound like a solid idea to you? Let’s have another
ship go around and lose oil in water that is not really healed from the last oil spill from a ship.
It does not matter how many times you complain about the oil going overseas the fact is 3/4 of it
was going/ is going no matter how or where it is refined.Mr Harper wants to do more business
with them so more oil will be going over period.
I do agree with Todd if people got the real facts not played around with to a line with a company’s
idea more people could make better decisions and fewer companies would not have to back
track when a report is found to be false.
Toothpaste in metal tubes were nice at least when you squeezed they stayed squeezed, or go
back to using baking soda. Back to milk in glass works for me as for bottled water a thermos
worked when I was a kid in school, less roadside trash. Good grief our grandparents got along
without plastic water bottles.
My objection is how many lies we were told to have it thought of, how come when asked a direct
question Keystone spokesmen will go around a bush and not give a real answer and why they
think they can tell us how we HAVE to do something in our own country. If a state is worried about
their water shed then let them figure a way around the towns it effects, no one will be able to drink
oil if anything messes up. If it is such a good deal it will still be one when all parties are sure it is
not going to affect the land or people around it.
By Eileen Wright on 02-03-12
Our #1 export is oil, fuels -http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1
By Passin through on 02-05-12
There was a bit on this on a Canadain station today they were talking to a couple *heads* out of China on the oil line, and if what they said is what they meant I do wonder now how much of this oil
line will be owned by China, it would seem they have their fingers in many of the refineries in
Canada already, and they are not worried about the delay *THEY* feel it will be done.
So now a wondering..Is there a way that by possibly helping with this pipeline does it give them
some kind of back door into some day owning/or having any say in the day to day goings on at
the refinery in Texas?? Just wondering.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.