published Saturday, February 8th, 2014

The Pipeline

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
prairie_dog said...

And the stuff we buy from the Saudis at OPEC prices doesn't hurt the climate?

If you were paying for your own fuel and being paid by the mile, you'd be singing a different tune.

February 8, 2014 at 12:10 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

toon boy = broken record

February 8, 2014 at 12:17 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Let's ask the good folks of West Virginia, "What's the worst that could happen?" I'm investing in Pig Mats.

February 8, 2014 at 12:37 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Tar sands oil is being sold for a big discount, sometimes as much as $25 per barrel less than WTI. The Keystone Pipeline will give Canada access to world markets via the Gulf of Mexico, enabling tar sands oil to be sold for a price based on/closer to Brent crude and shipped around the world. So what you say? Removing that oil from the central US where it is now locked-in surplus will immediately raise the price of gas for millions of US consumers. WTI will again begin to track Brent pricing, it's quality equivalent.

In short, the Keystone pipeline is the best possible deal for US oil companies because they will get more than a 10% increase in price for all of their oil. The Keystone Pipeline is a huge win for Canada and tar sands oil companies because they would finally be able to export worldwide and receive a far higher price for their product. The only real loser would be the US consumer who does not understand the dynamics of this very bad deal for him.

Even if you don't give a damn about dirty tar sands oil and carbon build-up in the atmosphere, you may not like paying significantly more for gas because of the new pipeline and Obama will eventually approve it.

Are you ready to pay more sucker?

February 8, 2014 at 1:05 a.m.
blackwater48 said...


I haven't found a good reason for building this thing. The TransCanada energy company wants to build a pipeline to Texas oil refineries. From there most of the oil will be sold to China.

Opponents point out that the pipeline will cross the fragile Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska and an oil spill could have devastating consequences.

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ – go Huskers) report that damage from a 40,000-gallon oil spill would be local, not regional.

Back in the real world, however, stuff happens. A 2011 Montana pipeline dumped 63,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River, and a 2010 Michigan pipeline dumped more than 1,000,000 gallons into the Kalamazoo.

Engineers boast that the new generation of oil pipelines won't leak, but someone once boasted 'Titanic' wouldn't sink.

Also, it's not much of jobs bill. About 40,000 temporary construction workers will be needed for a year or two to build the pipeline but once completed only about 35 employees will stay on full time.

Can anyone explain why it is in the best interest of the United States to build the Keystone Pipeline?

February 8, 2014 at 1:33 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Just as most tree huggers live in wooden houses, you earth nuts turn the keys and flip the switches that use energy that comes mainly from fossil fuels. Hypocrites all.

February 8, 2014 at 2:06 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Blackwater, there would be NO benefit to the American consumer, none. He/she would pay more for gas, not less, with the pipeline. The US would take all of the environmental risks with none of the benefits except for a very few jobs. The benefits go to international oil companies and to Canada.

The US already gets ALL the tar sands oil because Alberta has no other place to ship it or refine it. The pipeline would actually raise the price of US fracked/tight oil, conventional oil, and synthetic oils.

But we in Canada would love to sell our oil for more money so please approve the pipeline just for us. Have you noticed that Prime Minister Harper has backed the US government in every way possible over the past few years. Want to guess why? The Canadian government wants that pipeline and the revenue from the tar sands no matter how dirty or how environmentally damaging. It's all about boosting Canadian GDP, whatever damage may result.

February 8, 2014 at 2:22 a.m.
nucanuck said...

So tell us Toes, how would the pipeline benefit America? Bet you won't because there is no benefit.

Canada does and will continue to supply the US with all the oil it can sell, all through existing pipelines. The Keystone pipeline is about exporting oil outside of North America.

Get a clue, pay attention.

February 8, 2014 at 2:30 a.m.
fairmon said...

nucanuck said...

are you ready to pay more sucker?


February 8, 2014 at 5:26 a.m.
fairmon said...

Opposition to the this and other badly needed oil and gas pipelines is similar to those against the railroads, interstates and other more efficient means of moving people and materials. Where would we be without them? Is the pipeline more risky to the environment than transporting a portion of it by rail and tanker truck?

Would it be better to have the U.S. and Canada filling the needs in China and other countries instead of the middle east cartels? Would it be beneficial to reduce or eliminate the wealth transfer of billions of dollars annually to OPEC? Some restrictions on exporting U.S. oil should be lifted.

The jobs refining and operating shipping terminals plus other related jobs would be good tax paying jobs. Buy stock in the pipeline owner operator company and get the 6-7% annual dividend paid by an MLP to off set any unlikely increase in gas prices.

How many jobs are created? Those opposing estimate in the low single digits and those supporting estimate up to 7 digits. The fact is no one knows for sure but also a fact is there would be more good paying jobs for people willing to work. What is wrong with thousands of construction jobs for 2-3 years? That is the nature of construction work, always an end point and moving on to another.

February 8, 2014 at 6:32 a.m.
soakya said...

how many of you progressives have parked your vehicles and turned off your electricity? for someone so concerned about climate change it looks like the only thing you're willing to do about it is to drive up the cost of energy even more, but you're in good company because that was your presidents agenda all along. what was he said, something like under his plan energy cost would necessary skyrocket. so if you want some creditability park your cars and turn off your electricity.

February 8, 2014 at 6:48 a.m.
conservative said...

Hey nucanuck, I will ask you once again, what are you doing to cause global warming/climate change?

You still have not explained how you are consuming 2.3 earths. That is mind boggling. Even Al Gore could not be burning that much carbon.

February 8, 2014 at 7:15 a.m.

Same old crap by this stooge. Oil, gun rights, GOP, right to life, secure borders, keeping more of what we earn, self-sufficiency, bad Abortion, sodomy, pot, more taxes, illegal aliens and government control in our lives good.

If it's hot, it's our fault. If it's cold it's our fault. If there's a lot of rain, it's our fault. If there's no rain, it's our fault. If we heat our homes, we're selfish. If we cool our homes, we're selfish. If we drive to work, we're wasteful. If we drive on a vacation trip, we're wasteful. Now, lately, it's better that we're not working/locked in a job. We can do nothing right in the liberal mind. Why don't you liberal just commit mass suicide to save the planet.

We drill or extract oil in this country and it's bad, we import oil from a neighbor and it's bad too.

ooooo that dirty, dirty oil that helps us stay warm, be free, and provide jobs.

February 8, 2014 at 7:37 a.m.

You liberals should be happy if it's builtm then BO can take credit for it, just like he takes credit for the increase in oil production in this country on private lands, even though he has nothing to do with it.

February 8, 2014 at 7:40 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

Here, this sums it all up and also makes the issue clear as mud:

February 8, 2014 at 8:18 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Withholding my opinion until I hear from Roo on what to believe.

February 8, 2014 at 8:43 a.m.
dude_abides said...

So much bitterness from the right! Personal attacks seem to be the order of the day. Can't we all just get along and be better stewards of our Big Blue Marble? Where, in conservatism, does anger belong? It's pretty clear who has made the best arguments here, and who has lashed out in vitriolic rage. This land was made for you and me.

February 8, 2014 at 8:48 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

The Koch brothers stand to make a ton of dough on the pipeline. Look at what party they and their PAC donate the vast majority of money towards. Look at what party is trumpeting the great benefits of the pipeline for Americans to their constituents. We know what party PrairieDog, Toes, Fairmon, Soakya, Fister, ConMan, and PT back. The brainwashing by the Koch brothers will end up paying huge dividends. Yet, all of the names I just mentioned will accuse us that are opposed to the pipeline of being liberals, progressive, tree huggers, etc. They will also liberals of being sheep that mindlessly listen to what the leaders tell them. Well, pot meet kettle.

I'll say it again, Obama approving the pipeline will be the 3rd worst decision of his presidency and ultimately could end up being the very worst.

February 8, 2014 at 8:53 a.m.
librul said...

Speakin' of the Koch Brothers, I see that Hugh Maclellan was at their secretive Palm Springs confab ... Somebody left behind an attendance list in violation of the 'rules'. So glad we have an ambassador to the Plutocracy.

February 8, 2014 at 8:57 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

prariedog we don't by oil at prices set by OPEC, that was a big deal in the 70's. If we did we'd be paying far more. We buy oil at the price set by the world-wide market speculators (futures).

The Saudi's are in a bind. (So to some others in the ME) Their break-even point given their level of internal spending is often above market price these days.

February 8, 2014 at 9:05 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Hey makes sense to me. Build a pipeline across the length of our country from Canada which will have scant benefit to Americans so that Canadians can export their product. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

February 8, 2014 at 9:31 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Zab's 7:37 is spot on.

February 8, 2014 at 9:36 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

^Of course it is. Birds of a feather, flock together.

February 8, 2014 at 9:39 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Energy Policy: Killing the Keystone XL pipeline may help one of the world’s richest men get richer. North Dakota’s booming oil fields will now grow more dependent on a railroad the president’s economic guru just bought."

"Stop us if you see a pattern here. About the time George Soros — Hungarian billionaire and key donor to leftist groups and the Democratic Party — invested heavily in the stock of the state-run Brazilian oil company Petrobras, President Obama was curbing U.S. offshore oil production and the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced a $2 billion loan to Petrobras to finance deep-water drilling off the pristine beaches of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro."

"As he was imposing curbs and moratoria on U.S. offshore drillers, President Obama wished the Brazilians well in the hope we would someday be Brazil’s best oil customer."

Get a clue nancypants, pay attention.

February 8, 2014 at 9:42 a.m.
Maximus said...

Dude....anger from the left is a traditional family value. Criticism of Barry The Welfare Pimp brings tons and tons of anger from Da Pimp himself. Did you tune in to the Bill O'Reilly interview of Barry The Welfare Genie prior to the Super Bowl? Obama was lying and squirming his way through every question and he was obviously very angry.

As for the total scam of global climate change that Prius driving Whole Foods, granola idiot girl boys like Clay Bennett have bought into.....from Forbes Magazine...(a publication that hard working Republican winners read $$$$$$$$$$) ...America's Second Rail Boom....The relic of the 19th century will become the most important logistics system of the 21st century-- and it's making billions for Warren Buffet (a huge Obama supporter) and others. Buffet't's railroad, bought at the beginning of the Obama administration, around five years ago, is a HUGE beneficiary of the oil fracking boom in North Dakota. Like I have always said on this forum people, IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY.

Clay Bennett, like most liberals is out of touch with reality. Global climate change is nothing more than a guvment power grab and a way Hollyweird and lucky sperm club generational wealth types can assuage their guilt by redistributing other peoples income. You do have to admire Buffett. Like me, he makes money and grows his wealth and empire no matter who happens to be POTUS. Individual initiative and SELF RELIANCE, a great way to live and create wealth!

Oh and what happened to Alprova? Has he assumed room temperature?

February 8, 2014 at 10:04 a.m.
Maximus said...

Buffet's railroad by the way is.....BNSF(Subsidiary of BRK.A). Stock has grown from $122,425 a share on 1/31/11 to $172,773 a share on 1/16/14. Warren Buffett, like ALGore.....a real limo liberal laughing all the way to the bank! Lol!

February 8, 2014 at 10:34 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Maxipad, get real. Bill O'Reilly believes in human-caused climate change. I guess you just tune out to that part of the show.

Toes, posting stuff about Buffet and Soros does nothing but show that both sides have money at stake on this deal. The pipeline will benefit many of the big cats and may create a few jobs in the Midwest, but how does that help you or I? Part of me wishes Obama would start supporting this thing. Maybe then the GOP would shift their opinion and do everything to make sure it never happens. Again, Google Kalamazoo River and tell me this thing is going to be worry-free.

February 8, 2014 at 10:36 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Ho hum. Amazed at the boring predictability of the Left.

February 8, 2014 at 11:13 a.m.
Maximus said...

Gaus....uuuu....did I say anything about O'Reilly and climate change/global warming junk science hoax? One thing for sure, ole Irish Billy does not like Barry's class warfare crap.

Watch the O'Reilly video. Obama is a squirmy, angry, little Marxist thug liar.

If today's wacky, out there among the pot heads, tree hugging elitist Democrat party were around during the 50's the interstate highways would have never been built! Lol! To much destruction of the spotted owl and cricket habitat! How about Man Caused Global Climate Change lie! Liberals will buy into any wacky idea that I guess makes them feel better whether it makes sense or not....I.e. Obamacare! You idiots.

February 8, 2014 at 11:18 a.m.
Maximus said...

Oh and rest assured, Obama will surpass Bill Clinton as one of our richest X presidents. It's about the MONEY. Obama could care less about the little people that he convinces to vote for him. A very graphic example, black unemployment is higher than it has ever been during the Obama years. Black average annual income during the Obama years.....$6,000. And you people think Obama gives a rats ass about anything but his power and money? Come on man!

February 8, 2014 at 11:23 a.m.

dude, you're ridiculous. Passion about pointing out the left's hypocrisy is always met by responses like yours.

February 8, 2014 at 11:27 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Eastern Canada does not use tar sands oil, they pay much more for imported oil than what Alberta can get for tar sands oil. Why wouldn't they build a pipeline to the east to supply Canadians and for export? Good question.

Why wouldn't Canadians build a refinery near the point of supply that would provide jobs and greatly reduce the problems of transporting bitumen, oil in it's most toxic state? Another good question.

Why is there so much opposition within Canada to building a pipeline to Kitimat to ship oil to Asia? Hmmm, another good question.

Why is there no proposal to build a pipeline from North Dakota to refineries? Good question. ( Hint: check out the short life expectancy for the Bakken).

Canadian tar sands oil is the bottom of the world's oil barrel. It is dirty, toxic and expensive to extract. It takes the equivalent of one barrel to produce five where conventional oil would produce twenty or more.

One hundred and fifty years ago humans lived without petroleum. Before the end of this century humans will be living with just traces of petroleum. How we get from here to there will tell a lot about human viability going forward. We are clearly at the end of an era and no amount of knuckle dragging will change that.

February 8, 2014 at 11:52 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Maximouth is our forum's party noise maker…lots of loud volume without sound quality. MM is beginning to rival con man for thoughtless drivel.

February 8, 2014 at 11:57 a.m.
Maximus said...

Stay classy Obama.....Kiev, Ukraine....America's top diplomat to Europe, appointed by President Obama, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, lashed out at Russia's alleged leak of a tapped conversation between her and another U.S. State Department Official where she was heard saying......"furck the E.U.". Wow, very nice! Obama's foreign and domestic policies a complete cluster furck.

If Ms. Nuland worked in the private sector/corporate America she would have been fired the next day. Especially with Obama.....the wheels are coming off the mediocrity wagon! It will be a slam dunk for the Republicans come the mid terms! :)

February 8, 2014 at 12:12 p.m.
Maximus said...

Numchuck....typical liberal messaging .......Democrats are simple minded, weak, lemmings with a strong desire to be led around by others while they live a "fair" average life with a comfort zone determined by guvment. A great example...look north to irrelevant and very average Canada. The Maple Leaf....a symbol of wacky weakness.

February 8, 2014 at 12:16 p.m.
dude_abides said...

zableedofisterix said... "dude, you're ridiculous. Passion about pointing out the left's hypocrisy is always met by responses like yours."

I apologize for taking a less confrontational posture than you zabledofix, but it just doesn't seem constructive to point out that you're a bunch of cretins that run and grab an opinion (with talking points) and come back here posting as if they are original thoughts. Reminding dull witted big mouths of their inconsequentiality doesn't help anyone. Have you ever noticed how the less intelligent the people you come across are, the quicker they are to anger?

February 8, 2014 at 12:35 p.m.
librul said...
February 8, 2014 at 12:36 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

TOES and soakya... To claim that we "earth nuts" are hypocrites for not abandoning our cars and permanently flipping the off-switch to electricity is about as childish and senseless an argument as you can make. Driving and having access to electricity in 21st century America are not luxuries, they are necessities, at least for the vast majority of us. Other than the religious folks like the Amish and Mennonites who live in their self-supporting communities, it takes a good deal of money and land to get off the grid and be fully self-supporting. I would love nothing better than to be able to get rid of my car. After houses, cars are the biggest money pits that we can own. But I need my car in order to make a living. And I need heat in the winter to survive. I need light and access to the internet and television to stay informed. Yes, I could certainly do away with some of those things and still survive, but few people, me included, wish to isolate themselves to such an extent.

There was a time when everyone thought the discovery and production and use of fossil fuels was a blessing, one of earth's natural riches that we were meant to make use of. But now that we know how finite they are and how toxic they have become and how increasingly dangerous and expensive it is going to be to produce and develop them going forward, it is up to us to change course and tap into energy sources that we know to be cleaner and more abundant (infinite, in fact). We will have to continue to make use of fossil fuels for a number of years yet, but the sooner we decide to make the transition to renewable energy -and it is inevitable that we will - the better prepared we will be and the easier that transition will be.

Just because we "earth nuts" are in favor of going full steam ahead with the development of renewable energy in all its forms, while at the same time depending on the fossil fuels that are still our way of life, doesn't make us hypocrites. But then, I know you know that. You just can't seem to help yourselves when it comes to spouting nonsense.

February 8, 2014 at 12:53 p.m.
Maximus said...

Dude, have you ever noticed that the weaker, less motivated people are, the quicker they are willing to settle for average? No, standing up for self reliance, less government, and fewer victims created by the left means that you are not only very, very intelligent but also a responsible citizen.

Has anyone checked the obits for Alprova? Could mean a huge savings in tax payer dollars! Lol!

February 8, 2014 at 1 p.m.
Maximus said...

Rickaroo....fossil fuels are a very, natural, GREEN, renewable energy source that my 57 Chevy and 65 GTO really really like!

February 8, 2014 at 1:03 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Maxie, you are just like con-man. You don't quote from the Bible like he does but you're just as full of bullsh!t. I equate everything that he says with someone farting in a room and stinking it up. You are the same way. The things you say are so asinine you have to be a troll or just outrageously stupid. Either way, you're only stinking the place up with your farts.

February 8, 2014 at 1:20 p.m.
nucanuck said...

By investing in heavy insulation (R-40 walls, R-60 overhead) we have been able to reduce our old home heating costs to almost nothing. My wife and I share a Smart car which takes some planning, but we mostly walk to our destinations. We grow more of our own food each year as we learn more. We focus on controlling needs and suppressing wants. We have begun to shun air travel. We know that we need to do more and we will.

Are we miserable? Hardly. We have rich full lives with lots of interests, both cerebral and physical. We live in a beautiful environment that makes one marvel every day to be alive.

Do we do what we do because we are poor? No. We can afford to consume far more, should we choose to.

We would like to think that all humans would want to leave a healthy planet for those who come after us. Apparently that thinking is not yet widely shared, at least on this comment board.

Now who made that comment about hypocrites?

February 8, 2014 at 1:36 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Gassy says: "............ but how does that help you or I?"

Liberalism isn't supposed to be about the individual there gassy.

Who cares if helps someone else. right? Doesn't benefit you so the hell with it.

February 8, 2014 at 2:01 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

You leftists just carp and carp, blah blah blah. But it's all just left-suck.

February 8, 2014 at 2:01 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Thanks for all of your substantive posts PT. There is always so much wisdom in just the few words you use. Bravo sir, my day is made.

Toes, who ever said I was a liberal? Oh that's right, if you don't walk in step with the GOP, you must be a liberal. That's what cracks me up about you guys. If Rush, Levin, Savage, Paul, or the other GOP leaders said everyone needs to inhale farts, you, fisthim, Maxipad, PlainBrilliance, etc. would walk around attempting to stick your nose in the clientele exiting Taco Bell.

February 8, 2014 at 2:22 p.m.
nucanuck said...


I would say that a conversation about humanity and our earthly home transcends political labels, political parties, and political personalities.

We all know our oceans have been over-fished; we know our fresh water supplies are becoming a problem; we know we are pushing the carrying capacity of the earth's resources. Why does a conversation about finding balance have to be political. I, for one, don't give a damn about political ideology, even though I am regularly lampooned as a leftist.

February 8, 2014 at 2:27 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Just an opinion, nuke. This is an opinion page, no? And surely you don't believe that points of view on conservation are not political.

February 8, 2014 at 2:43 p.m.
nucanuck said...


I see the constructs of humans such as economics, religion, and governance as fair game for politics, but I would think that our stewardship of our planet would be on a higher plain. OK, sure, I am an idealist about many things, but that is the way I see it.

Calling environmental concerns leftist assumes part of the world doesn't care about the physical condition of the earth we inhabit. Surely that is not true.

February 8, 2014 at 3:06 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Not getting the distinction. Politics abound, Sadly.

February 8, 2014 at 3:12 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Points of view on conservation are not political in themselves and shouldn't be. But they have been made so by today's conservatives because they bristle in knee-jerk fashion at virtually everything the left stands for. Conservation really ought to be a tenet of conservatism because the very root of the word is contained within it. I am an admitted, unabashed liberal but I have tried my best to look at the issue of global warming with open eyes and open mind, without any ideological bias clouding my opinion. Personally I would much prefer to think that climate change is out of our hands and it is strictly a cyclical, natural phenomenon that is going to happen whether we do anything about it or not. But the overwhelming scientific evidence, as proclaimed by the scientists who are the most experienced in their field and the most capable of telling us about it, points to the fact that AGW is real and collectively we can do something about it, if only we will. Anything that relates to our very survival and the welfare of not only our nation but the entire planet ought not to be an issue that comes down to a tug-of-war between ideologies but one where we work together as if our lives depended on it, because our lives and especially the lives of our kids and grandkids do depend on it.

February 8, 2014 at 3:25 p.m.
nucanuck said...

I agree that politicizing the earth's stewardship is happening, but I believe that it should be transcendent. Some few things are (or should be) common to us all.

And back on topic, the Keystone Pipeline helps neither America nor the planet.

February 8, 2014 at 3:31 p.m.
Maximus said...

Nanunchuck...."A conversation about humanity and our earthly home"..... So very sensitive and caring but like so many things that liberals say a lot of symbolism over substance. What it tells me is that Nucanuck is unemployed, smokes a lot of weed and spends a lot of time at the coffee shop talking how we can all pull together as one classless very intellectual society, form a circle, hold hands and all our problems will go poof. Very similar to Barry The Welfare Pimps follow me to utopia, income inequality speeches. Wow man!

A shooting occurs in the projects of Chatt....liberals handle the issue by giving very sensitive, intellectual speeches about how "we" society is failing the underclass. Meanwhile, another shooting occurs the next day. Finally, a conservative takes action and arrests the shooter.

And Rickaroo, fart jokes about par for the course for an illiterate redneck like you. Lol!

February 8, 2014 at 3:31 p.m.
dude_abides said...

PlainTruth said... "And surely you don't believe that points of view on conservation are not political."


February 8, 2014 at 3:55 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Maximouth, I am retired, only seen weed once in my life, and I don't drink coffee. I take personal responsibility for my actions and attempt to lead by example. I don't assume that anyone else is watching or cares, but I have the satisfaction of trying.

I started and ran my own businesses for forty years. I look and dress like a right-wing Tea Partier, but I am an open thinker. I don't believe in big government, but I do believe in good government. Libertarian thinking has a certain appeal up to a point, then falls badly short.

IMO, the US has become too big to govern well and should be broken into several pieces, just like AT&T several decades back. The US is, after all, just an amalgam of parts that have grown too big. The Soviet Union was better after the break-up. Certainly China is far too big.

I believe that small is beautiful.

February 8, 2014 at 5 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Nuke: how does a tea partier look and dress?

February 8, 2014 at 5:16 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

The pipeline debate is nothing but raw politics, especially for the Fleabaggers, and it has little if anything to do with economics or the environment. It’s one side trying to gain political advantage over the other. The left wants a Corporatist state where assets are privately owned but in the solid control of the state. The right wants a Free-market state where there is minimal if any government interference. This is just the latest in this long struggle and the winners will only improve their political advantage and have marginal effect on our’s or the world’s economy or environment in the short term.

The Canadian tar sands oil is and will be extracted and taken to market and there is no doubt about that. The use of fossil fuels will be absolutely necessary to maintain the advanced economies of the world until other sources of energy can be developed. I think any reasonable person would say that what is on deck at present is not going to get it done. People that are really concerned about the survival of the poorer populations of the world and the environment will recognize that and try to make the best of what we have available to us.

Rail transport of this oil has grown from near zero at the beginning of 2011 to about 200,000 barrels a day now. If the pipeline is not built this will grow to between 800,000 and 1,000,000 barrels a day. Even if the oil was prohibited from coming into this country it will still be exported from the Canadian West coast and used anyway. Better it be transported and utilized under U.S. regulations than those of less concerned countries.

This pipeline has been studied almost to no end and appears that it will continue for some time yet. Every study has indicated that the pipeline is preferable to all others in safety, economic costs, and environmental harm. Those trying to delay or cancel the pipeline are only causing more harm than good to the economy and the environment.

The bottom line is this ... What means of transport, to market, is going to be the least harmful .... trucks, railroad trains, pipelines, or ships.

You’re not going to stop it’s extraction and use ... deal with it!

February 8, 2014 at 6:33 p.m.
Maximus said... our Marxist POTUS you obviously do not believe in the U. S. Constitution. I guess you think the Constitution is a dated document that needs to be ignored as well as the rule of law. Now if you are talking about the South, meaning the Red States I am all for leaving the narly unionized North and the wacky stoner west behind.

As far as dressing like a Tea Party member I'm not sure what you are talking about. Your environmental, just give love a chance and "earths stewardship" views make you a member of Obama's idiot green voting block. Republican in the upcoming mid terms If you truly care about the good ole USA. Obama wants to force guvment into every aspect of our lives whether we want it or not. Sound familiar....Obamacares forced health insurance for all or else policy.

February 8, 2014 at 6:37 p.m.
nucanuck said...


Old and conservative in appearance.

February 8, 2014 at 6:38 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Environmental End-Timers = Watermelons (Green on the outside - Red on the inside) .... Still fits after all these years.

February 8, 2014 at 7:11 p.m.
nucanuck said...


You have part of it right. The 1.5 billion people in the advanced countries do need lots of fossil fuels to maintain their economies. What they don't need are 3.5 billion people in emerging markets who also want their share of those same fossil fuels. Increasing oil depletion rates and massive debt build-up are converging to make oil consumption growth impossible for the advanced economies. They are going on a fossil fuel diet, like it or not. EM will take an ever increasing share of all fossil fuels which will likely peak out before 2020.

The advanced economies cannot grow without energy growth…from somewhere. That seems highly improbable at this point. The world of finance is becoming less enchanted with fossil fuel investment by the day. The margins are becoming to thin. Major oil companies are pulling out of exploration projects, one after another…too much money and risk for the possible benefits. The world is headed into a financial crisis that will make investment dollars harder yet to come by.

Yes, pipelines are the best way to transport oil and the Keystone Pipeline would be a bonanza for Canada, but it doesn't help the US in any significant way. The US doesn't need or want more tar sands oil at this point. If the US needs more it can still be piped into Cushing Oklahoma using the existing pipeline, no problem. Canada is trying to bully the First Nations people to be able to build a pipeline across their lands. So far, no deal. It's not about money, it's about their core beliefs.

What seems most likely in the near future is a weakening global economy will chill energy demand in the medium term which will put pressure on the high cost producers such as tight oil and tar sands. Many will shut down production and we will all go on an energy diet that most people do not now foresee.

February 8, 2014 at 7:30 p.m.
fairmon said...

inquiringmind said...

prariedog we don't by oil at prices set by OPEC, that was a big deal in the 70's. If we did we'd be paying far more. We buy oil at the price set by the world-wide market speculators (futures).

Where in the hell did you get that? Obama found out after saying it one time that speculators have no control over the cost of oil. If one speculator is buying or selling a contract on "X" barrels of oil then another is making a commitment to sell or buy at that price. One will lose the other will gain as both are predicting the future price of oil.

One thing is certain you are not a futures trader and have not a clue how the futures market operates. And, you may want to check on your information sources.

February 8, 2014 at 7:33 p.m.
nucanuck said...


Do you assume that you will still be eating wild seafood in ten more years?

Do you assume that desalinization can solve fresh water shortfalls?

Just wondering.

February 8, 2014 at 7:38 p.m.
degage said...

Off Topic! A classic, NAACP is holding a rally to protest photo ID for voting. You must have a photo ID to attend the rally. Only in America!

February 8, 2014 at 10:12 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

fairmon, don't you read the financial news and newspapers? We produce more oil that we sell and the commodities market drives the price of oil. That is why we cannot set a price for oil in the US unless we outlaw all imports and only use our own.

What Obama said or did not say is irrelevant. The commodity market "controls" the price of oil by its bidding. Watch the price of oil when various political events happen in Iran and the ME.

Or is the council on Foreign Affairs in control? There has to be a conspiracy in there somewhere, does it have something to do with BenGhazi or the IRS?

Are you familiar with what happened to the price of aluminum as an example, once it began trading as a commodity? It is often cheaper to buy on the market than to make it yourself.

I should add I'm having too much fun playing the stock markets right now to mess around with commodity futures.

But, nevertheless, OPEC has very little control. It can drive prices down a bit by opening the valves but there is far too much oil around to drive the price up very much and far too much political motivation not to do it anyway. We'd just let Iran open the valve again.

February 8, 2014 at 10:13 p.m.
limric said...

The fact that the Canadian tar sands oil is a present and future environmental disaster is irrelevant. I predicted it as a done deal long ago and Jt6gR3hM is absolutely right when she said, ”the Canadian tar sands oil is and will be extracted and taken to market and there is no doubt about that.”

It's a shame, but it is -- a done deal.

February 9, 2014 at 8:17 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.