Crossfire | Weeknights @ 6:30 pm ET on CNN

Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

February 3rd, 2014
09:31 PM ET

Should we build the Keystone Pipeline?

Crossfire hosts Van Jones and S.E. Cupp weigh the pros and cons to the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline with Maria Cardona and Ralph Reed.

What do you think about the Keystone Pipeline?

Also, during the Outrage of the Day, Van Jones tells people who were offended by the Coca-Cola ad to "get over it."

Posted by
Filed under: 2014 Elections • Debates • Keystone • Maria Cardona • Ralph Reed • S.E. Cupp • Van Jones
soundoff (65 Responses)
  1. Keith Guillory

    There is a trans-mountain pipeline from Edmonton to Vancouver at Port Mann. I believe that Canada is now using this pipeline at its refineries primarily for home consumption. The present pipeline has a capacity of 300,000 barrels per day. However Kinder Morgan Canada is now proposing to build a new pipeline system between Edmonton, Alberta and Burnaby, British Columbia. The $5.4-billion dollar project would increase capacity of the system to at least 890,000 barrels per day. But this expanded pipeline is meeting with increasing resistance in Canada because of spill problems with the existing pipeline. That's why Kinder Morgan is looking to build the pipeline across the Midwest to the Gulf coast.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:48 pm | Reply
  2. Benita

    Where are the closed captions? Is this accessible for deaf people?

    February 11, 2014 at 10:16 am | Reply
  3. VotingBLKAmerican (yes were alive)

    America really should ask what benefit it will be to this country if we did build it? From everything I have read the U.S. will not benefit from this project the oil is NOT for the U.S. use. So why go there and waste time and money on something we don't benefit from? Creat jobs (Congress) from re-building our infrestructure.

    February 11, 2014 at 9:58 am | Reply
  4. Mike

    I am against the pipeline.

    This is a dog and pony show. The pipeline will be approved, it is already a done deal. Obama will sign it because he "has to". Because it will create jobs. Listen and complain all you want the point is that Obama has been paid to push this through and it is going to be approved.

    Same problem with the TPP total BS. The TPP will be approved and that will be the final nail in the coffin of the USA. After the TPP is approved we will be the new Bangkok. Chinese buisnes men will be coming to the USA to have sex with 14 year old american girls.

    February 10, 2014 at 8:05 pm | Reply
  5. Canadian Insight

    The American left has no tenable position in this fight. The tar sands are expanding regardless of American involvement and there are ancillary factors that are moving the expansion in place of Keystone.

    As it stands right now, the tar sands development is the single largest Canadian economic driver. When Keystone looked blocked, the Conservative Government of Canada moved into talks with the Pan-Pacific Trade Agreement, removing protections on NAFTA traded goods to push bitumen overseas to be refined in China. When we got blocked on Keystone, we stopped importing American products, started buying Chinese products, and began shipping our bitumen across the Pacific.

    When oil tankers fail off the Pacific Coast, when Canadian American trade grinds to a halt, and when you realize that the tar sands aren't slowing their expansion....then you'll understand. The Keystone isn't about pulling oil out of the ground for American refining jobs. It's about protecting yourself against oil spills, securing imports that are going elsewhere, and having an involvement in Canadian affairs.

    February 7, 2014 at 11:43 am | Reply
    • martin macvicar

      canada has no right to take our land for their filthy sludge. Whatever happened to our soverignity.

      February 7, 2014 at 12:55 pm | Reply
    • Rob Dekker

      "When we got blocked on Keystone, we stopped importing American products, started buying Chinese products, and began shipping our bitumen across the Pacific."

      In your tar sand dreams maybe.
      Here in the real world people care about other things than profits for multinational corporations.

      February 8, 2014 at 3:00 am | Reply
    • wonderYrednow

      Let Canada pollute Canada, America does a fine job polluting America without your tar sand sludge.

      February 8, 2014 at 7:51 pm | Reply
  6. John F. Borowski

    The boreal forests of Canada hold 11% of the world's carbon. Are home/migration sites for over 30% all birds in North America.........it has rich, fresh water supplies.

    You must dig up 2 TONS OF SOIL..........for one barrel of oil. The oil is laden with carbon. It will add to the carbon load in our climate. It will be shipped to China and create very few jobs. Show pictures of the pillaged forests in Canada.

    No to the Keystone..........

    February 6, 2014 at 3:33 pm | Reply
    • wonderYrednow

      That is 2 tons to produce a net of 40 gallons of Gasoline and 15 gallons of more valuable oil based products like paint and plastics...still a low value proposition without Gubmint subsidies.

      February 8, 2014 at 7:53 pm | Reply
  7. Rob Dekker

    I'm really surprised by the Democratic senators that support this pipeline.

    For example, the Keystone XL does not even run through either Alaska (Mark Begich) nor through Louisiana (Mary Landrieu) nor through Arkansas (Mark Pryor) and certainly is of no benefit to North Carolina (Kay Hagan).

    Second, any and all of the hand waving by fossil fuel lobbyists in favor of this project have been debunked by reality. The Keystone XL won't create "10's of thousands of jobs" as the Republicans claim, nor the 100's of thousands of jobs that the Chamber of commerce asserted, let alone the 1 million jobs that Governor Rick Perry was hand waving about.

    Instead it may create 2000 construction jobs for two years, according to the State Department SEIS, but then again that report was written by an industry contractor (ERM) which is currently under investigation by the Inspector General for failure to disclose conflict of interest.

    Meanwhile AFL-CIO has stated under oath that the Southern section of the Keystone XL took only 500 man-years to get to 80 % completion, last May.

    How many man-years does it take to lay a pipe, and how much have we been deceived about the FACTS about this pipeline ?

    February 6, 2014 at 2:57 am | Reply
  8. Keane

    Anyone can google "Keystone Pipeline Whistleblowers" to find out how shoddily-built these TransCanada Pipelines are.
    The Keystone Pipeline 1 was predicted to spill once every 7 years - it spilled 12 times in its first year and it has spilled more than 30 times over its lifetime.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Reply
  9. JC Copeland

    As one who lived in Alaska for 40 years and saw the impact of the Trans Alaskan Pipeline (Exxon Valdez) and now in Texas I truly believe Canada needs to move its product West to an off loading port for China and leave the United States alone. This venture offering jobs to Americans is loved by the Unions (think about Detroit) and $$ to the States through which it would flow (who cannot manage their $$ now) is a farce and a slap in the face to our economy. If we are truly serious about making our nation strong, we need to expand our $$ into alternative energy. The XL pipeline is much like Adolph Hitler asking for larger ovens. Are we America or are we a subsidiary of Canada? This is a very serious move. You have American farmers who say no and you override them? You have environmentalists, who are the only ones who really have our country in concern and you take a leak on them? Do not think about the jobs as this is the "candy" offered the general public for political reasons. When a truck driver in Texas can make 8 times his salary and pay $1000 a week for a room just by hauling product for the pipeline, will he become the 1%? Answer me this Batman. Why is not our country pursuing alternative energy? Answer: Oil companies have invested too much in oil exploration and their stockholders would not like a different bottom line.

    February 5, 2014 at 9:51 am | Reply
    • Vicki

      I agree with your wonderful comment. Thanks for your experience and wisdom on a matter such as this pipeline.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:14 pm | Reply
    • T. Kozubal

      The Chinese don't want the oil sands. They just want the oil (refined).
      Exxon Mobil has a contract with the Canadian companies to deliver product to the Gulf shore. They are trying every way they can to fulfill that obligation from refining it in Gary, Indiana, to reversing pipeline flows to use pipelines that would normally carry crude to the midwest, to trucking the crap, to sending by rail. Nobody has complained about the air pollutants in Gary yet, but the Petcoke being stored along the Calumet river on Koch Brothers' property is raising red flags. The spill in the Kalamazoo river in Michigan three years ago has been hushed up even though it has killed the fish population and destroyed water supply for many towns and cities along that river. There was a town in Oklahoma where an entire neighborhood was affected by a reversed pipeline breaking and destroying the neighborhood. At least two towns have been destroyed (one in Canada, the other in USA) caused by fires from train derailments carrying that product.
      It has become apparent that Canada does not want to destroy their natural resources and fight their environmentalists on their Pacific shore. Besides, it takes more energy to convert oil sand into refined oil and that resource is not available there.
      Exxon Mobil wants to refine that oil sand at the Gulf to disguise the true environmental impact along with their other refining operations. And, the question arises: what will they do with the petcoke? My guess is barge it out into the Gulf and dump it when no one is looking.
      The XL Pipeline is continuing to be built in segments all along the way. It's just a matter of greasing the palms of more politicians until the entire pipeline is complete. Exxon Mobil and TransCanada could care less about the US environment and the water supply for the Great Plains states where cattle are raised and grain is grown. After all, they have money to be made.

      February 6, 2014 at 2:03 am | Reply
  10. Free Man in the Republic of Texas

    "MY" # 1 priority is JOBS

    TRUST "ME"
    "I" an NOT a liar

    Dictionary . com

    liar:
    a person who has lied
    or
    lies repeatedly

    TRUST "ME"

    "I" will close GITMO

    "I" will veto ALL earmarks

    "I" will CUT the deficit it half

    "I" will make the sea jump back

    “I” will cut the cost of health care

    "I" will get un-employment under 5%

    “I” will LET you keep the Dr. you like

    "I" will NOT raise your taxes; NOT by one dime

    "I" will go line by line through the budget and cut

    “I” will end fraud waste and abuse in government programs

    "I" will end Red State – Blue State and just have United States

    "I" will have the most transparent administration in American history

    “I” will support and defend
    The Constitution of the United States of America

    FORWARD >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >
    To " T R U T H " in "MY" administration !!!

    February 5, 2014 at 12:18 am | Reply
    • Vicki

      Right and you are a right winger who wanted anything that President Obama wanted to be done. LOL. Because I can say for sure that the GOP of obstruction has done their worst to this country by standing against all the benefits we would have had if they had cooperated in any way with President Obama. Republicans are the ones who lie, cheat and use nothing but propaganda and vile accusations to get their way. President Obama has done his best and I will support him as he continues to be a great president.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:18 pm | Reply
    • Keane

      Thanks for nothing, GOP.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:20 pm | Reply
    • T. Kozubal

      Why don't you try blaming the true culprit capitalists: Exxon Mobil and TransCanada? Obama is just waiting for his share of the divvy. Capitalists forever.

      February 6, 2014 at 2:09 am | Reply
  11. charles warren

    Tar sands are just that sand mixed with oil.When pumped through a pipe it will be like a giant piece of sand paper on the inside walls of the pipe.It will eat away till the pipe rupture and leaks.This is what makes the XL keystone pipe line a accident waiting to happen.Every time some body talks they talk about how much gas emissions will be dumped into the air.The bigger danger is the movement of the oil inside the pipe.And what it will do to water near where it breaks.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:41 pm | Reply
    • el_redd

      charles warren –
      The bitumen (petroleum) is extracted from the sand using natural gas before it is pumped through the pipelines. This method has been used for years in Canada, but the process is still rather "young". It has been pumped to the west coast of Canada since the late nineties. We produce the natural gas they use to extract it, sending it up several pipelines already in existence. The oversight for pipeline maintenance is staggering, as the inspection and maintenance program is designated by the DOT. I've worked in aviation and with oversight from the FAA and the NTSB. The maintenance schedule for pipeline maintenance is just as stringent. Yes, you hear about blowouts or leaks, but there are 2.5 million miles of pipelines running across the US. Just as you only hear about plane crashes as opposed to the 1000's of flights that safely make their destination, you only hear about pipeline failures, not the billions of gallons of petroleum products that safely reach their destination everyday.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:56 am | Reply
    • T. Kozubal

      The oil sand will have additives mixed in with it in an attempt to make it easier to pipe. The combination would be disastrous if spilled into the aquifer because it sinks and creeps through the sub-surface of the land instead of floating on top where it could be remediated. I think the added pressure needed to move the product through the pipe is cause for alarm. But, there is no stopping capitalists when they see money as their ultimate goal. After all, corporations are "people" who cannot be put in jail.

      February 6, 2014 at 2:19 am | Reply
  12. REGinAZ

    Let's get serious. The Keystone pipeline isn't to aid American consumption but rather to facilitate exportation and therefore isn't aimed to benefit the American people but rather to benefit oil companies' profits. Whatever value it has for the American people once again will be realized only through the questionable "trickle down" theory that Bush-Cheney so emphatically proved to be a fraud that just makes the wealthy wealthier and aggressively solicits political support. The stubborn support and arrogant persistence belligerently offered by the GOP once more demonstrates their "puppet" performance and complete loyalty to "the money" that so strongly supports and dictates to them. It has been said that the current Republican / Tea Party is totally incapable of honestly and responsibly serving the people and they keep consistently proving that to be true.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:36 pm | Reply
    • Keane

      TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application STATES their objective is billions in profits from raising the price of Canadian oil once the oil is un-landlocked from this continent and gets to global market (via American port):

      “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price DISCOUNTING [CURRENTLY] for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to INCREASE THE PRICE of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”

      What do you think TransCanada means by "strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in the Midwest" and where does the $2 Billion to $3.9 Billion in annual revenue come from, exactly? ....

      February 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm | Reply
  13. Mike H.

    CBC reports that TransCanada, the one behind the Keystone XL, has a crummy safety record for existing pipelines:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/pipeline-rupture-report-raises-questions-about-transcanada-inspections-1.2521959

    February 4, 2014 at 10:30 pm | Reply
  14. Dave

    I really like Van. I find his reference to TCPL as a "foreign" company annoying. Van, look at the major American companies developing the oilsands!!! Chevron, Exxon, Conoco Phillips and others.... I work for one here in Alberta. I do not, as a Canadian, view Americans as "foreigners". Should I? Should I begin a political campaign to get American foreign companies out of Alberta? Do you really want to replace Canadian resources with resources from the Middle-east? You need to think a little beyond the lines on the map and not speak of Canada as the villain.

    February 4, 2014 at 6:49 pm | Reply
    • T. Kozubal

      The true villains are the capitalists who routinely ignore all the warnings for the sake of making money. It is not new.

      February 6, 2014 at 2:31 am | Reply
  15. lgporter

    I would like to know what tax America will receive from the pipe line if any at all .

    February 4, 2014 at 5:39 pm | Reply
    • Jose West

      The project would create 20,000 new construction jobs and help reduce America's dependence on overseas oil. The project would also benefit states and local communities providing more than $585 million in new taxes for states and communities along the pipeline route. Keystone XL would also pay more than $5.2 billion in property taxes during the operating life of the pipeline.

      The project would infuse much needed private sector investments in the nation's infrastructure–estimated at more than $20 billion–at zero cost to U.S. taxpayers.

      February 4, 2014 at 6:30 pm | Reply
      • Karen

        Those numbers are way off. It would barely create 4000 TEMPORARY jobs.

        February 4, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
      • Jose West

        Karen, that is nonsense... That is like saying if we build a $2 billion bridge it will only create 2 jobs... one for each toll operator at each end or that the housing market doesn't create ANY jobs because once the home owners move in there is no more work being done.

        There are thousand of direct construction jobs to build the line, not to mention that the workers need to be housed and fed during the construction.. the pipe needs to be fabricated and shipped, there are hundreds if not thousands of pieces of heavy equipment needed to install the pipe which are manufactured and serviced, Then there are also all the jobs created in the refinery process... the oil doesn't refine itself. Etc..

        How about all the spin off gains by the workers wages that they would likely not have had... buying goods and services throughout the country.. Billions in taxes collected by state and local gvmts.

        Then there is all the taxes paid not only by the pipeline company but also the wage earners themselves.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:39 pm |
      • Mike H.

        2,000 to 8,000 temporary jobs is more in line of a typical pipeline that size. The REX pipeline sure didn't make 20,000 to 40,000 jobs, it was built from the Rockies to Ohio a few years ago.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
      • charles warren

        What your failing to accept is the fact the pipe line is already built.Daryl Hannah went to jail in Houston protesting the taking of a widow woman's property to build this thing.The only part left to build is the connector to Canada.And it won't take long or require a lot of workers.And the oil will be shipped over seas.So where's all these jobs? And how will this help us?The only thing we have to look forward to is pipe leaks And oh yes they will happen!

        February 4, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
      • Keane

        ACCORDING TO TRANSCANADA'S OWN DATA: Just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor jobs.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • Vicki

        The pipeline is not completed. Yes they have been building it from both ends. What you say is true that Daryl Hannah did try to stop the pipeline and a lot of other people have as well. It has not gone through all the areas where it will start affecting more and more people who will see imminent domain used against them since that is what they have done all along the way so far.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
  16. jam8canpops

    Build the pipeline but only use American workers,American materials,and American support.NO foreign involvement.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:16 pm | Reply
    • Helen

      Please become informed about the issues before you run off at the mouth. I am a Canadian and I am appalled at the ignorance of Americans when it comes to our country. You don't want foreign workers? Just to let you know we have numerous American companies doing a very handsome business in Fort McMurray, Alberta and in addition we have a large number of Americans working and making a darn good living in this country. What is there contribution to us? I just watched Crossfire and am sickened by the blatant lack of knowledge of both the journalists and the senators, for goodness sake get the facts. It worries me that we are neighbours.

      February 4, 2014 at 7:15 pm | Reply
  17. jam8canpops

    Given the amount of train derailments it a no brainer to build the pipeline but NOT before the infrastructure is upgraded.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:12 pm | Reply
  18. CALIFORNIA

    Democrats are against it ONLY because republicans are for it.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Reply
  19. bobo

    In other news...... CBO: Obamacare Will Cost Economy 2 Million Fewer Workers by 2017

    Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cbo-obamacare-2-million/2014/02/04/id/550803#ixzz2sNfTpyRy
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

    February 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm | Reply
    • T. Kozubal

      Newsmax.com is nothing more than a couple of guys with a computer in Florida trying to fight unemployment. I certainly wouldn't quote them as a news source. You want a news source? The earth just split in half but who knows how long it will take for the two pieces to separate. There's some news, just don't spread it around. Two guys and an alligator.

      February 6, 2014 at 2:43 am | Reply
  20. bobo

    This is a No brainer..... if we don't build it, Canada will send it over to the coast and sell it to China. That would be worse for the environment. Let's create jobs here & become energy independent!

    February 4, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Reply
    • SGT Rock101

      We are energy independent, China has already paid for that oil and the Canadians should take the risks of transporting that syn crude cancer poison on their land, not the US.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:32 pm | Reply
    • T. Kozubal

      You sound like one of the two guys trying to make something out of Newsmax.com. I don't think the alligator knows how to type.

      February 6, 2014 at 3:13 am | Reply
  21. bobbuck4

    I don’t understand what the big hype is for this pipeline. With all the areas in this country that we can pump real crude oil, why are we putting so many eggs in a basket of sludge? The stuff is not even oil, it’s called bitumen and it can’t be pumped out of the ground it has to be strip mined. Then once it is out of the ground the only way it will flow through a pipeline is by heating and or diluting it with a very volatile and flammable blend of chemicals to thin it. Then once it gets to a refinery all that crap has to come out of it before it even gets close to being something that’s usable. Does anyone really think this is going to make gas cheaper? Not to mention if there ever is a spill it is much more difficult to clean up and will do a lot more damage than crude ever would especially in water, it sinks like a rock to the bottom and glues itself there. I’m not a big fan of oil to begin with, but we do need it, what we don’t need is this junk.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Reply
    • Jose West

      Over 80% of the bitumen is pumped rather than mined.... less than 20% is close enough to the surface to be mined. You should check your facts first.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:30 pm | Reply
      • SGT Rock101

        Tar sands are a solid, not liquid at any depth. You have no facts to talk about.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
      • Jose West

        SGT Rock Head. Google SAGD.. and read.
        80% of oil extracted from the Oilsands is done via this method and not mining.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
  22. Steve S

    I don't think we have a choice we need the jobs. As for the national anthem if we were to go to another country we would be required to learn their language I think it should be the same for any other person coming to this country.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:17 pm | Reply
    • david

      The pipline will be filled with nasty oil yuk and carbon, if the pipline leaks all that co 2 will fill the autmorsfer with global climate implications the earth will warm and the north pole will melt. we should invest $$ in solar panels and git rid of oil, I propose that we do like the amish and drive horse and buggys to work. Oil is yukey

      February 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Reply
  23. Virginia Duffield

    More than 100 ranchers in Nebraska are fighting the pipeline. They don't want their land condemned and taken from them by a foreign corporation, which Keystone is. You do realize almost all of the oil from the pipeline will be shipped directly to China, don't you. The pipeline is a Canadian company, with some Chinese ownership, which will send the oil to China. It will not benefit Americans. It won't benefit Canadians, either, and that is why the Canadians would not allow the pipeline to built from Alberta to the Pacific Coast.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Reply
    • Jose West

      Sorry... some facts. It is against US law to import foreign oil and then directly export it. At the very least it needs to be processed/refined in the US before it can be exported again. The Gulf Coast has a significant amount of unused heavy oil refining capacity which will process this oil. If after it is processed they choose to export it rather than use it domestically that will be determined by local demand. If as you contend the oil is destined for China I would think the Gulf of Mexico is the wrong place to start from. (wrong ocean). As for the farmer land being seized it is not.. they still own it .. the pipeline gets buried underground (just like the hundreds of thousands of mile of existing pipelines) and the land is returned. The land owners are financially compensated for right of way considerations.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:27 pm | Reply
      • SGT Rock101

        Wrong. The refineries don't need the work, they have south Dakota and south Texas crude to deal with when pipelines are built to those new fields. Screw the Canadians, China and synthetic crude oil. We don't need it.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
      • Jose West

        SGT Rock Head. The Keystone XL pipeline is the line that will carry the Balkan oil from N. Dak. to the Texas refineries.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
  24. Terry Smith

    It's been over 5 years and Mr. Obama;can't make a decision. This is pathetic??

    February 4, 2014 at 10:10 am | Reply
    • bobo

      Why do today what you can push off to tomorrow??? Typical Obama... loser!

      February 4, 2014 at 1:54 pm | Reply
  25. ProtectAmericanJobs

    Yes – But only allow it, if it's being built by American companies that are using American citizens to build it. Not foreign or American companies that use foreigner workers or illegal aliens.

    February 4, 2014 at 9:29 am | Reply
  26. Kurt

    I think both extremes on this are being rather goofy.

    The only issue that should be looked at is if the pipeline will cause a danger to the areas that it passes through, particularly the Ogallala Aquifer. That aquifer is one of the largest fresh water reserves in the world, and if the pipeline (or a potential leak from the pipeline) endangers that water source, then we need to put the breaks on it.

    If it is found to not be any danger to the aquifer and the people in the areas it will go through are in favor of letting it go through their back yards... then let it be built. All the talk about the environmental impact of the production of the oil is ridiculous because it will be produced regardless of if we build the pipeline or not. All we are talking about is a distribution path.

    On the flip side, we have to remember that the economic impact for US businesses is relatively small, and if there is ANY real risk to the Ogallala Aquifer, we need to say no. Some extra jobs are not worth poisoning the water supply for 2 million people that supports 20 billion dollars in anual agriculture business. We have to take all the time needed to address that concern before giving the OK. This is NOT something to rush.

    February 4, 2014 at 8:59 am | Reply
    • Jose West

      The original path of the pipeline has been changed to go around the aquifer. Once the new route was proposed the pipeline receive the approval of the Nebraska Governor. Of note: the Southern leg of the pipeline has already been built and went on line last week.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:32 pm | Reply
      • Kurt

        And this is why Keystone will get approved at the end of the day.

        The big thing that the GOP doesn't want you to remember is that they forced the president to either approve or reject the proposal BEFORE the change of the route was made rather then let him wait until after the concerns were addressed. He could not approve it as it was at that time... BECAUSE of danger to the Aquifier.

        But because he was forced to give an up or down vote... he rejected it and put their plan a YEAR behind where it would have been if the GOP had just let him sit on it until the issues were resolved. It then would have quietly been approved. They had to start the whole approval process over again though... which is why it's still sitting.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
  27. Cathy Klager

    Yes we should build it. This administration needs to stop stalling. Far more benefits than drawbacks. After over 5 years of research and testing....it's been determined to have little environmental effect. This administration and congress need to pass this approval...it's been delayed too long already!

    February 4, 2014 at 8:26 am | Reply
    • Keane

      About that "Impact Study"...

      The Inspector General has launched an investigation into the company and a decision is expected this month. The "Impact Study, like the one before it, may be invalidated because of "conflict of interest" ties to TransCanada.

      "To do the review, State Department officials hired a London-based firm called Environmental Resource Management (ERM). TransCanada, the company wishing to build the pipeline, helped select ERM and HAD A PREVIOUS WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FIRM, BUT THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED on ERM’s application to the State Department for the job. The firm also did not disclose that it has worked for more than a dozen oil companies with a stake in the project and is a dues-paying member of the American Petroleum Institute, the No. 1 booster club for fossil fuel use in this country, which has spent at least $22 million lobbying for Keystone XL."

      February 5, 2014 at 10:44 pm | Reply
  28. Winston5

    POTUS: Say John, carbon pollution aside, are there any risks to a thousand mile pipeline cutting through the Heartland?

    Kerry: Well Mr. President, do you know what the Great Midwest Aquifer is?

    POTUS: Do tell..

    Kerry: Its the ground walter that runs underneath 11 states, also known as the World's Bread Basket, and either via terrorism or accident, if the petroleum poison's the groundwater in that vast amount of land it would take away drinking water and irrigation from millions of people. It would be that West Virginia thing that just happened times 11, at least.

    POTUS: Thanks John, Claire, can you get John Boehner on the phone and please let him know that this "lame duck" requests that he sukk it??

    February 4, 2014 at 2:37 am | Reply
    • bobo

      How does the oil.... if it does get out of the pipline, travel down into the ground 3,000 feet?

      February 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm | Reply
      • Kurt

        Same way the water does bobo. It's the same way farm chemical runoff will often poison ground water supply.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:31 pm |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers