OUR OPINION: China-Canada deal should be Keystone wake-up call
July 25, 2012 at 4:45 pm in Grand Forks Herald
The president should rethink his Keystone call, given that it has complicated American and Canadian energy and foreign policies, driven a wedge between the U.S. and our closest ally and failed to deliver the environmental benefits it had assured. Continue Reading
And where did Hoeven think the oil transporting through the Keystone Pipeline was going in the first place?
Like or Dislike:
17 
12
He actually wasn’t thinking at all; he was reading Republican talking points.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
Let the Chinese build a pipeline to the west coast through Canada straight thru the Rockies. If they are exporting the oil they came clean up the leaks.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
15
china doesn’t care about leaks at all. I would rather see Canadian oil stay within North America, then we all know it would be safer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
3
Let Canada worry about it. Why should we be the oil highway to China? It’s not right. I don’t want our land polluted for China’s gain. We are all aware that the Alberta Tar Sands is where the dirtiest oil in the world is found. It is an environmental disaster but few care. They want the oil and that is all that matters.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
16
That’s the whole point: it’s never going to stay in North America. It’s going to be sold on the world market, if not to China, then to someone else. Oil is a world market and all this stuff about the Keystone pipeline ensuring our energy future is a bunck of bunkum. China’s going to get it’s oil one way or another, and I, for one, do not appreciate paving the road for them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
15
We should explore the possibility of assisting China (the most reprehensible country on Earth) with nuclear power.
Dropped from airplanes; or sent via missile.
Like or Dislike:
10 
17
Schurkey, you are one sick man.
Like or Dislike:
14 
14
Sorry Shurkey, that’s already been done. Bill Clinton sold the technology to the Chinese, to accurately strike the U. S. , during his presidency. Previous to that they didn’t have that capability.
Like or Dislike:
13 
13
As NASA’s James Hanson says “if the tar sands are developed it’s all over for Human civilization” as we know it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
And few people care Spearfish. What does this say about the people that live in this world? The health of the planet should be our number one concern but it is treated like yesterday’s trash.
Like or Dislike:
13 
9
What does NASA know about tar sands? They using it as heat-shielding on the Space Shuttle?
How is someone at NASA an expert on this subject? Doesn’t seem like “Rocket Science” to me.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
NASA doesn’t study weather Schurk? What is space exploration about if not finding out about weather on the Moon, Mars, Venus et al.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
The CBC reported last night that the premier of BC won’t allow the pipeline unless the province gets its share of cash.
Like or Dislike:
14 
2
This editorial is based on a lot of false information. The Keystone XL will not benefit the US much. It will take Chinese owned oil from Canada to Texas to be refined and then shipped to China. The pipeline will go through the heart of America, ripping up farmland with little regard to the farmers and ranchers who work hard to make a living.
It is a stretch to say the President’s requiring the pipeline to not destroy water in Nebraska is what is pushing the Chinese and Canadians together. The Chinese and Canadians were already in this together long before the President’s decision.
The fact is this pipeline – according to the Canadians – will increase the price of gas in the US. There is no agreement to take North Dakota Bakken oil. When we know what is going on, the intense push to build the pipeline seems out of balance.
Like or Dislike:
20 
7
No jobs for North Dakotans either despite what we have been told by our politicians paid for by the oil industry.
Like or Dislike:
19 
5
I read some time aog that one of the reasons for going all te way down to the gulf was because of a strong NIMBY feeling throughout Canada. Eventually it will be piped someplace, but many down here don’t want the risk and many up there don’t….If they’re going to make all the profit, then they should be taking all the chance…
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
Would you want the path to your neighbor’s front door to go through your yard? The oil will go to China so let Canada and China work out their own route.
Like or Dislike:
14 
7
it just doesn’t make sense but little does when you start involving government officials. The united states is so concerned about an oil shortage so let’s put a pipeline down the heart of america and ship it to china? If the canadians want to ship their share of the oil to china they have the right to do so but I don’t think we should aid the canadians in this one sided deal. I wish and hope bakken oil stays in the united states but that is not how these companies operate.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
I agree Ron, but I would bet US oil companies are involved in the tar sands & it is the sale by them to China that this is all about.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
FACT: Gasoline prices at the gas pump are not high enough to satisfy Big Oil, which is why they are EXPORTING REFINED GASOLINE out of the country.
Big Oil needs five times the regulation they currently have.
(American citizens need five times the freedom they currently have.)
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
I doubt if I’m the only person who notices oil’s price shoot up every summer, then slither down a bit after, and then climb up in the middle of the winter when the heating bills waft in, and old and poor people who can’t afford the hikes begin to freeze and die in their homes.
Someone is shilling for the American petro-brokers, because peak oil is a wonderful concept to use to go out and war for the control of oil resources. So that a barrel of crude can suddenly jump from $20 to $70 to $100 a barrel, or to two, three or four hundred dollars a barrel, therefore providing exponentially expanding profits for oil companies and oil suppliers who relish the idea of having an inelastic demand for their gasoline. Peak oil will even drive oil companies like Shell to attempt to shut down an incredibly profitable facility, like the one it owns in Bakersfield, CA.
The Bakersfield facility, like others in California, runs along the San Andreas fault, which abounds along its route through the state with rich crude oil and natural gas fields, products of seepage from the earth’s mantle, from the tetonic plates, passing gas and rumbling as they move. In fact, oil and the family of hydrocarbons are often found at volcanoes and fault lines, as they are in deserts, watery gulfs, and sea basins.
The real reason a company like Shell would close a facility like Bakersfield, to bulldoze it, stop it, is to halt the production, refining, and supply to drive up the price of oil. It’s that simple and ugly. And we did the same thing in Iraq. We bulldozed a country to control and reduce its oil supply.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
Did you ever take a geology course after HS?
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
Scram Spearfish.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Since you didn’t what do you know about the origin of oil?
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
Spearfish I believe the abiogenic theory is real. It isn’t our only source of oil but it plays a part. Now please, I don’t want to get into a long drawn out discussion. It is not my style.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
The problem is you don’t believe in peak oil because you believe in abiogenic oil. What % of our oil do you think is abiogenic?
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
So 5 people here don’t understand where oil comes from?
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
I am glad that President Obama didn’t just stamp this project as approved, but let it simmer a bit so the truth about it had a chance to come out. I appreciate that about him. His administration doesn’t just do a kneejerk approval on these things.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
Especially in light of all the pressure from big oils puppets in the senate
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
The Keystone pipeline should be considered a must to US economic long term stability! It would smart that it follow the existing right of way easements of existing pipelines versus new turf though.
This is why I think obama pushed Keystone out, BNSF makes a mountain of money hauling oil out of ND. W. Buffet owns the BNSF and is a major contributor to the obama campaigns. Is it the country or obama? Reflect on it for a minute or two, the real “Buffet Rule”. ND tie into the Keystone moves a lot of ND oil south and does not use the BNSF.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Isn’t keystone for the “tar sands” & not ND oil?
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Bingo! No onramp in ND as far as I know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is the longest series of looser posts I have seen. Thanks mostly to Spearman but not one poster has done well. 2 thumbs up to 5 thumbs down is about average. We are sending Canadian oil to China, and shipping ND to China and this “enlightened” group is happy. NOT! NOT ENLIGHTENED! China doubled its coal imports this last year. Laments Spearfish the proclaimed Marxist, justice is served! Why do Democrats, like our president, love the demise of America??
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Insert “shipping ND coal to china” Democrats and environmentalists are destroying good jobs in the US and sending them to China! Reality even for Realist!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
So johnb, I comment about the falsity of peak oil & about US companies shipping oil to China & that makes them Marxist comments? Do you believe in Peak oil?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Spearman, last week you were preaching Marxism! Do you remember? You wanted everyone to read Karl Marx. I have saved the site can and will remind you of what you wrote! So Spearfish what is your problem being labeled as a Marxist?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Are you able to comprehend what you read? Did I say I had a problem with Marxism,no. The point is my comments about “Peak oil” aren’t about Marxism or my points about NASA? Make sense please.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Spearman, please accept my apology for the Marxist remarks. It is not relevant to our discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your leap of logic leaves you without a leg to stand on. Nobody wants this bad things for this country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Spearman, the falsified data of your UN scientists cast considerable doubt about their and your conclusions. I have worked with statistics in a scientific environment and believe any falsified data makes any conclusions, especially those of “scientists” look rediculous and not credible! The facts show considerable corruption of data! Defend your beliefs and the UN hypothesis based on bad data. Since I refer to it, this science religion, as a hypothesis, I am being overly kind! I want to light up this discussion!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I have similiar posts waiting moderation, so please excuse me if they appear!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty
By Christopher Booker
6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009
1451 Comments
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
It is a shame this hypothesis has been so damaged by false data collection. If we can rehabilitate the fradulent data and fire or retire the perpetrators of the UN deception we can test this hypothesis. What are the motives of the UN?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/07/31/new-beginning-for-the-climate-change-discussion/
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
johnb, You’re giving us a 3 yr. old article. Everything has changed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Three years ago is when the UN scientists were caught. I respectfully disagree that this scandal has changed. How do you correct falsified data? How much more data was slanted so they could make their best case fo man global warming. I will quote from an artcle 8 years old, you supplied, that I believe is still pertinent.
Spearman’s Science Daily post “The first results confirm that over the last 740,000 years the Earth experienced eight ice ages, when Earth’s climate was much colder than today, and eight warmer periods (interglacials). In the last 400,000 years the warm periods have had a temperature similar to that of today. Before that time they were less warm, but lasted longer.” Your post seems to imply that ice ages and global warming happen independently from man. I agree!
http://topics.areavoices.com/2012/07/21/climate-scientists-bigger-harder-rainfalls-the-new-norm/
The wake up call should be denial to Americans the cheap energy that China is giving its citizens and it business. We will continue our economic decline as long as these failed Obama policies continue!
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Have you reports about what further analysis of the supposed fudged data showed? There was no faked data.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
You don’t need much except a window to see the effects of climate change these days. Johnb, you really do need to keep up with what’s going on. Even the Koch Brothers researcher said that global climate change was caused by humans.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1