Gingrich: Nebraskan Opposition To Keystone XL Is 'Utterly Irrational'

12/15/11: At an Iowa debate, Republican presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich bashed the decision to extend review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Newt Gingrich
• Keystone XL
• nokxl
• tar sands
• oil sands
• Nebraska
• Stand With Randy
• news
• politics

[TheWumpshire]

So before we move to alternative fuels, lets dig right through the largest aquifer on the planet, threatening US farmers, wildlife and the drinking water for middle America, just to appease some Canadian oil tycoons. Or lets create more than 20,000 jobs by leading the world in alternative fuels, before Europe or Asia corners that market and create a sustainable future.

[orealcookie1989]

I know he's not getting elected.......... moron.

[MrFilabrasil]

Gotta give it to you Ron Paul guys. You know he wont win. But you keep fighting.

[Stiletos]

Honestly, we Canadians should be building refineries and creating the jobs in our own country to convert the heavy oil to light crude and then selling it to the USA as a finished product for 3-4 times the price per unit. The USA has a goldmine opportunity here to profit off of idiotic Canadian policy that impedes us from doing the refinery ourselves and making the added profit that the refining process creates. We should move towards selling gasoline, not heavy oil.

[eddiespiked]

what a moron

[philthy627]

The only reason they want to move it through the US is because their government won't approve two pipeline projects because of their poor environmental record. This is going to take oil Canada sends to the Midwest and ship it overseas. Along with thousands of American jobs.

[philthy627]

Motive?

When Canadian regulators at the NEB considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity. TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion.

[bunnyzero0]

5) Jobs numbers have been highly inflated, and many are temporary. 6) When refined, the oil will be SHIPPED OVERSEAS. The high cost of refining it will make oil, overall, more expensive. 7) In other words, we get all the risk, and nearly none of the benefits. Sound good?

[bunnyzero0]

We don't need it in the U.S., really. Here's why: 1) The similar Keystone 1 had 11 leaks and spills in 2011. 2) The Kalamazoo River is fouled and unusable from a leak. 3) This "oil" is toxic, caustic abrasive, sludge, very expensive to refine. 4) It's headed for a "free trade zone" to be refined, so U.S. won't benefit from taxes on it.

[LikableDesi]

Here's a thought if Nebraska is against it why not avoid the state and build it through Iowa or Wyoming. Not sure if its piratical sounds logical to me.