Building a new oil refinery near the oil sands in Canada is a safer more secure option than the long Keystone XL pipeline. Piping the new crude oil to Texas is not a good option.
Let Texas refine oil coming into the country at our southern coast line. We do not need to have all of our oil refineries on the Texas Coast where they may all be subjected to a common man-made or natural disaster.
A new oil refinery on the U.S. northern boarder will be strategically more secure. If a new refinery on our northern boarder is independently owned, it will be a competitor to the Texas refineries and help to hold down the price of gasoline.
A new pipeline on our northern boarder will be able to supply fuel directly to consumers in the upper Midwest. Let’s say no to the Keystone XL pipeline and yes to a new Northern Plains oil refinery.
Doyle E. Yeater
Raymore
« Bad idea for Kansas | Main | War with Iran unlikely »
Where is gringoloco? He said XL is majority owned by the Koch brothers. I want him to show where he got that information.
Posted by: kem | January 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Again...are, not ate. Stupid thumbs...
Posted by: Uncommon sense | January 28, 2012 at 04:04 PM
So, we have MR and I can't believe it's not butter on here to show is actual thinking individuals just what we're up against. God help us all! You two are perfect examples, to me, of the mainstream social conservative ignorant ideologues that ate plaguing this nation. Sorry, but it's true.
Posted by: Uncommon sense | January 28, 2012 at 04:03 PM
We need jobs, economical fuel, and industrial expansion. We can no longer allow the frivolous objections of tree-huggers to stand in our way, nor can we allow the Mombasa Marxist to stay in office.
Posted by: parkay5050 | January 28, 2012 at 01:25 PM
Right, the Koch brothers, who else? One of the worst domestic policy decisions a U.S. President has ever made.
It is good news that a refinery is being built in South Dakota. Unemployment is low in the Dakotas. The reason is obvious. The leaders there welcome the oil industry. Thank you.
Mark Robertson
Independence
Posted by: Mark Robertson | January 27, 2012 at 01:48 PM
gringoloco.....why do you say the Koch brothers are majority owners of XL, when that is not true? XL is wholly owned by TransCanada, a publicly traded company, of which the Koch brothers have little, if any, ownership.
I know Henry Waxman and some other liberals have their panties in a wad because the Koch brothers have interests in energy companies in Alberta, and therefore would benefit from more crude passing through. So, what? But, the Koch brothers do not own a majority interest in XL, as you said.
Let's keep with the facts.
Posted by: kem | January 27, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Getting the enviromental permits to build an oil refinery in the States is almost as difficult as one to build a nuke plant. We're talking years and that's only if you don't get sued by the Greens. If that happens (and you know it would) you could be talking over a decade.
Want to see a big reason for the death of blue-collar jobs in America today? Take a look at the modern environmental movement.
Posted by: Navyvet | January 27, 2012 at 11:49 AM
If you learn to spell border people may take your geopolitical opinions more seriously.
Posted by: Robin | January 27, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Robine, who must work for GG at the speeling police department, wins the coveted "most insignificant" award. Nice job, roben keeep up the gud wurk.
Posted by: zeno | January 27, 2012 at 11:17 AM
They can always use railroad tankers to move the product now that the pipeline's been delayed. I wonder if any Presidential donor benefits from that?
Posted by: Smarter Than You | January 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM
"Could it be that the Republicans, who depend on money from the Koch Brothers (majority owners of XL), know that it could never pass on it's own merits?"- Gringoloco
I find this style of debate particularly spineless. Offering up an opinion that is clearly unsubstantiated in the form of a questions gives it that aura of truth without having to force the author to take ownership of it. Let me give you an example--
"Could it be that Obama blocked the Keystone Pipeline so that Canada would then pursue option B. They would run the pipeline across Canada to Vancouver and make their oil more accessible to China. Could it be that Obama is all nice an cozy with China and that this is a pay back to them so that they will continue to purchase U.S. Debt and finance his ever-growing government?"
See what I mean, Vern?
Posted by: Big Daddy | January 27, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Thank you Mike for your sensible post...most on this thread do not understand that pipelines exist under the area today...and although the Governor of Nebraska was leery at first...he now feels the President should agree to the deal with Canada quickly and before the November elections.....
Posted by: LL | January 27, 2012 at 08:20 AM
There are pipelines right now running all over Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and other states that site on the aquifer.
This pipeline will also branch off to a refinery in Illinois. There's a new refinery in the preconstruction phases in South Dakota that will get some of this oil. That's why the refinery is being built, and it will process 400K barrels per day. There are other refineries along the way, just not in Texas, that will get oil from the pipeline.
Posted by: Mike | January 27, 2012 at 06:24 AM
The reason the new pipeline can't follow the route of the current pipeline (and protect the Ogalla Aquifer) is?
The reason that legislation supporting this pipeline only shows up attached to something else is?
Could it be that the Republicans, who depend on money from the Koch Brothers (majority owners of XL), know that it could never pass on it's own merits?
If not, why isn't this legislation brought up on it's own merits?
Posted by: gringoloco | January 27, 2012 at 12:22 AM
If you learn to spell border people may take your geopolitical opinions more seriously.
Posted by: Robin | January 27, 2012 at 12:21 AM