Home > blog > Randy's Blog

Randy's Blog

Question of the Week: Should the Administration approve construction plans of the XL pipeline running from Canada to Texas to create jobs and provide U.S. energy security?
Posted by Randy | November 17, 2011

Last week, the Administration announced that it would delay approval of the TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL $7 billion pipeline, which would carry 700,000 barrels of crude oil a day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas.  Such a large quantity of oil would reduce the United States' dependence on oil from nations that often do not share our nation's interests, such as those in the Middle East and South America.  In response to the Administration's delay, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with Chinese President Hu Jintao and announced that Canada is considering the sale of its crude oil in the Asian market.  Such a move, which is in direct response to the Administration's inaction, could hurt the creation of new American jobs and jeopardize future energy security. 

Question of the Week: Should the Administration approve construction plans of the XL pipeline running from Canada to Texas to create jobs and provide U.S. energy security?

(  ) Yes
(  ) No
(  ) I am unsure.
(  ) Other. (Share your thoughts on my blog)

Take the instaPoll here.

Find the results of last week's instaPoll here.


What do you think? Weigh in:
We encourage you to analyze and comment on the posts featured on this blog, but please understand that comments which include campaign content, engage in personal attacks, or include vulgar, profane, obscene, or inappropriate language will be removed from the site. Please note that there may be a brief delay in the publication of your comment.

*By leaving a comment on this blog, you are subscribing to my e-mail newsletter.
Users are solely responsible for the opinions they post here and their comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Congressman Forbes.
  • Alex Innes commented on 11/16/2011
    Leave it to Randy Forbes to make an issue partisan - the route chosen by TransCanada went over the regions water aquifer, the regions water source. After the Obama administration delayed the decision, TransCanada agreed to reroute the pipeline. The pipeline is still going to be built.
  • Thomas G commented on 11/16/2011
    The administration will probably approve this pipeline in about a year...but it was the republican leadership in Nebraska that has essentially stopped it because of serious concerns regarding the environment and crucial areas to the water supply. So I guess one would have to ask...especially since there has already been 12 leaks in a portion of the pipeline, why the republicans themselves always seek to leave out the facts. The republicans in Nebraska want an alternate route to safeguard the public and thank heavens for that. How much toxic capacity do you think the public is going to put up with congressman Forbes. Frankly it is just shocking that any politician would choose to risk public health when there are clear alternatives. This is what happens when greed rules the day. Once again, congressman I view you to be far out of step with your own constituency. Would you have taken this position if the water supply at lake gaston was threatened too?
  • Thomas G commented on 11/16/2011
    Update...the Nebraska legislature voted unamiously to force that pipline to use an alternate route...and the Canadian company finally agreed to comply...Victory Obama Administration and the American people...loser...congressional whiners.
  • R. G. commented on 11/16/2011
    Congressman Forbes, while I'm all for energy independence, including letting the market provide alternate forms (rather than allowing crony government to throw billions at the 'solyndras' of the world). However, I'm not sure building this pipeline is the answer. You can imagine the eminent domain issues involved in a project of this magnitude, not to mention the upkeep and maintenance costs. Why not let the free market provide a new American refinery closer to the Canadian border? Aren't we as a nation running a decade or two behind in refining capacity anyway? Rather than conveying crude across the continental U.S., why not bring the refining needs closer to the oil, with a infrastructure footprint many orders of magnitude smaller? Respecting property rights first and foremost, I'm sure some of the folks in our states along the Canadian border would welcome the infrastructure and jobs associated with a new refinery.
  • Nellie McConnell commented on 11/16/2011
    CO has lot of oil and we should concentrate on American oil. The short pipline in Alaska that can be finished to get oil to the port. With all the oil we have here why are we buying from Canada. Yes! China will try and buy the oil from Canada when we should be selling oil from U.S.A to China pay off the debt that is costing us an arm and leg. Obama is still borrowing from China to get the economy going., We need jobs here! No more Chinese products until the trade is balanced. If I don't neet it and it is Chinese I put it back on the shelf. Why should the U.S.A borrow money from China and other foreign countries to bale out a foreign country. All of the governments need to cut government spending and work together! GOD BLESS OUR COUNTRY. CUTTING MILITARY IS NOT THE ANSWER TO A GOOD DEFENSE,,
  • F Eileen Burklow commented on 11/16/2011
    Absolutely not!! Use our technolgy to create clean energy jobs such as solar, wind and hydro (ocean waves). We've got to think beyond the instant gratification and do more looking into the future for the sake of our children. We are using the verbage of "creating jobs" as an excuse to defile Mother Earth. No pipelines, no coal plants, YES, SUN and WIND!
  • Joe Teachey commented on 11/16/2011
    On the surface it appears the Administration should make the deal. What is the reason for White Houses resistance? Are the reserves not as promising as first advertised? Or is the squeeze to get the pipeline built and operational not worth the juice? I certainly would not like to see China monopolize another limited energy source, but not enough information has been provided to make a well informed push to invest in this potential resource, other than the promise of jobs, which may or may not occur.
  • Stephen Dexter commented on 11/16/2011
    The question is slanted toward an outcome Mr. Forbes want to attain. News articles have pointed out that the concern by both farmers and environmentalists in Nebraska, including the state's Republican governor, is that there will be damage to farm land and the state's water aquifers. Mr. Forbes neglected to point this out. SHAME.
  • Stephen Dexter commented on 11/16/2011
    The question is slanted toward an outcome Mr. Forbes want to attain. News articles have pointed out that the concern by both farmers and environmentalists in Nebraska, including the state's Republican governor, is that there will be damage to farm land and the state's water aquifers. Mr. Forbes neglected to point this out. SHAME.
  • Thomas Arrington III commented on 11/16/2011
    It's so reckless for some to speak about corporation donors etc; remember if it was not for those corporations, you may not own a home or have a decent retirement. Remember it's those bad corporations that have employed all of us at one time or another. This pipeline needs to be built ASAP. I would purchase Canadian crude any day, if it would reduce the amount purchased from the middle east or Chavez. To say any different makes no sense. 700,000 bbls per day is 255,500,000 bbls per year, At 85.00 per barrel (being kind on price) equals $21,717,500,000 of our treasure not going to hostile nations. YES THAT'S 21 BILLION WITH A B. ARE YOU STILL AGAINST THE PIPELINE NOW?
  • WAYNE PARKS commented on 11/16/2011
    I can see the the benefits, but why Texas? Three of the top 10 refineries are much closer to Canada than Texas.
  • Mallery Nord commented on 11/16/2011
    Yes build it with American Labor. Moving it out of the sensetive Ogallala.Use the alternate route TransCanada has suggested. We in the Midwest need that gas for our farm equipment to feed the world. Electricity isn't going to move our tractors or get our crops to market. I favor buying local and Canada is pretty local.
  • Amber Houk commented on 11/16/2011
    We need to refurbish and improve our deteriorating existing oil/gas pipelines and invest in new extracting technologies in existing refineries. We need to give a superpush of support to solar, wind and geothermal energys. We CAN succeed at building our new energy infrastructure around non-polluting FREE reasources. It is not economically responsible to plan and support energy resources that are already limited and loaded with problems. Oil and gas should a secondary or emergency energy resource, not the primary. It is time to move on, oil has served its purpose. Support new technologys. We are reading about them, learning the lingo, and talking about them with our friends, neighbors & co-workers. We are not stupid and aware of the horrible impositions of dependence on fossil fuels. Give in to new things that protect and support our economy and environment.
  • Mark Brandt commented on 11/16/2011
    Why build a pipeline to Texas. How about build it to Detroit and then build a refinery there.
  • Rod Elser commented on 11/16/2011
    Congratulations on another biased poll! To the best of my memory, that makes 8 for 8 since I've been receiving them! If all you want to do is provide some "justification" for your misconstrued perception of reality, why don't you just watch Fox News instead of sending out such "surveys."
  • Ronnie White commented on 11/16/2011
    I'm not in favor of LX pipeline - too much at risk: environmental and security wise. Another consideration: build Alaska Refinery and shorter pipeline that will create jobs be more modern and secure than an international pipeline.
  • Barbara Blair commented on 11/16/2011
    Why should America's clean water and land be threatened by an oil line that will profit Canada? We have already had a preview of this with the Bp oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. How many fishermen and tourist industry workers were hurt, not to mentioned the enviroment? I say NO to being victimized by other countries greed. Perhaps American oil companies can offer to build and operate a refinery in Canada, employing some Canadians but sending the profits back home. Shoe's in the other foot, eh?
  • Richard Fender commented on 11/16/2011
    There are two factors about the pipeline I am concerned about: 1) based upon the Exxon pipeline breach on the Yellowstone River in Montana last July, I believe the 4 ft. depth by which the Keystone Pipeline plan is grossly insufficient when traversing a river/creek/stream; 2) The pipe that Keystone planned to use was made in India and there has been structural failures with it. If the pipe was made in the USA, the standards would be higher and it would create even more jobs here at home. I do think the proposed pipeline concept is a good one but until the items mentioned above are addressed, I am opposed to it. I wonder why there is no effort to build a refinery closer to the oil source, i.e. in North Dakota. Due to increased oil production in the Dakotas why can't oil be refined there? Building a refinery closer to the oil sources would also create a lot of jobs with much less environmental impact potential.
  • WESLY STOHR commented on 11/16/2011
  • C J commented on 11/16/2011
    Looks like the environmental tree huggers have taken over this blog. The reality is that there will be NO negative environmental impact as a result of building this much needed pipeline. You wachos said the same thing when the Alaskan pipeline was proposed. Not only does the Alaskan pipeline NOT have a negative impact on the environment ,ut it actually has a positive impact. The nearby wildlife loves to hang around the pipeline for its warmth and protection it offers from the worst of the Alaskan winters. Do your homework, if your not too lazy as your man Obama recently suggested.
  • Dave Reichert commented on 11/16/2011
    As is often the case you've asked a yes/no question to a problem that falls in the middle. And you've slanted the question to get the answer you want. Yes, energy security and job creation are advantages, but the pipeline is routed through a sensitive aquifer. Pipelines decay and get damaged. Is the environmental risk worth the reward? Latest word in the newspaper is that there is a proposal to reroute the pipeline. Perhaps a compromise is possible. Unfortunately, more oil availability without an energy policy enables continuation of our consumptive addiction and only postpones the time when we'll have to have an intervention to wean us from our wasteful habits.
  • Anna Beasley commented on 11/16/2011
    If this pipeline would be bringing oil for US consumption I would feel differently, but this is an export pipeline. There is no benefit for the American people and a great environmental risk at stake. I am against this pipeline. It will not help with energy security and will not create a significant number of jobs. This is a bad idea. If Canada wants to export it's oil to countries besides ours, let them run their own pipeline to their own ports.
  • shawn allen commented on 11/17/2011
    It is obvious that many folks are uneducated about the minimal impact these pipelines have on he environment. However i agree that water needs to come first which is why the republican governor of ne is opposed to this possibility. It is imperative that we get oil whether the environmentalists agree or not, whether we search for non fossil fuel energy or not. Oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear energy sources are imperative to maintain our current energy needs. We all hope to find a less impactful energy source like wind or solar but the technology isnt there so lets use what we have. So in response to the question...if we can be somewhat assured that any leaks or spills will not contaminate any major water resources such as the oglalla reservoir which serves the water needs of several central states then build it. If not, dont build it. Either way though, find a way to reduce the EPAs power so legitimate businesses can utulize the resources we already have.
  • Robert Stillman commented on 11/17/2011
    Mr. Forbes, your polls are ridiculous. You have them worded to get the response that you want. On the current subject, are you suggesting that the pipeline should be run on the route originally planned, or are you in favor of building it along a more environmentally friendly route? Are you saying that all construction projects should be exempt from studies on environmental impact? Please be more honest in your future polls.
  • Charles Joseph commented on 11/17/2011
    If we are to climb out of the economic mess we are in we must become energy independent. We must develop our resources here at home. There is no other way out.
  • Peter Dajevskis commented on 11/17/2011
    First of all, the Congressman's question has been phrased in a leading way and focuses his inquiry not on getting the right thing done but rather to tilt the respondent's answer in the direction that he would like to see it go. The public is really not that uneducated. To say that the pipeline is about jobs is just a small part of the issue and not even the most important aspect of the policy question at hand. The real issue should be addressed by qualified scientists with a balanced look at the long term impact of the pipeline on our land and the communities it affects. This has to be addressed objectively to have any credibility. The Congressman seems to forget that we have an obligation to view the environmental impact of major proposals like this; he must undersand that the President is also a custodian of our land and our national policy is well establsihed in this regard. With regard to the oil issue, when will our Congress wake up and seriously look at alternative energy solutions and think about the future? When will it seek out alternative energy sources in a meaningful or are we truly wed to the oil interests? A trip to Denmark to look at the major impact of wind energy investment may be a nice wake-up call for most of our elected officials, including Congressman Forbes. I ask that Congress take a concrete look at what's possible with altenative energy sources and remove the public policy constraints in our laws today that inhibit alternative energy development. That's how jobs will be created. It really is time for the Congress to start addressing a comprehensive view of national energy priorities and to work with the President in a constructive manner.
  • Daniel Bedford commented on 11/17/2011
    The answer is no because there are more hazards and problems with the pipeline already in Canada. Additionally, from a congressional report the oil that will be coming out of Canada would be going to prop up foreign countries and not be used in the US. This is just another way to make someone rich and not help the american economy.
  • Jeanne Steffanelli commented on 11/17/2011
    For the most part it sounds like a good idea for our economy and Canada’s. However, in reading your responses, and especially the ones about the wording of these questions and the elicited response, I think we need to get clear information on the following: Why is government involved and who approved the delay? Why? When? What ecosystems would be involved? Who would regulate this endeavor? I am just joining this blog and want to know what bill is this referring to
  • Tom Tracy commented on 11/17/2011
    The pipeline is important and so is the Sand hills region of Nebraska; there is a workaround for the issue and it can be a win-win situation whereby the pipeline is installed and done so in an environmentally friendlier way.
  • Mary Letson commented on 11/17/2011
    If the pipeline could be constructed along the same route as already established public works (roadways/electric/water/gas..) so as to not further damage wildlife/ water tables/ land surface; If the work would be designed, planned, constructed and managed by a US ecology conscious company with US workers.... then I think the matter warrants further investigation. I am a land owner in Texas where shale is being extracted. I have not incurred any problems due to the mechanical process, but have heard many complaints from people along the Barton shale tract regarding water tables in the area. If we could pipe the oil from Canada, I think it would be less environmentally intrusive than harvesting oil, shale and other fossil fuels from our states.
  • r walker commented on 11/17/2011
    Why not build the refinery closer to the source. This would shorten the pipeline as well as provide the refined product closer to the area needed. This also create a refinery in an area other than the Gulf.
  • Fran Grav commented on 11/17/2011
    The media and politicians do not want us to know that the US already receives much oil from Canada. Why the refinery has to be in Texas and not build one closer, is an interesting question. I wonder what the other considerations are that are not being mentioned. Above ground or below? Either can be built while protecting our environment. Jobs, yes.
  • Shawn Brinkley commented on 11/17/2011
    Why can't we just utilize our own oil?
  • jerry silovich commented on 11/17/2011
    wee shoyuld be drilling of both coaast,anwr,the gulf and up off newwengland for natural gas
  • Denae Armstrong commented on 11/17/2011
    I think we should build it. We depend too much on foreign oil. But why is this the government's decision? Why isn't a private industry decision by the oil company and those wanting to build the pipeline? I guess I'm just not understanding. And why Texas if it is coming from Canada? Build some refineries up North for that and a shorter pipeline will be all that is needed. I know that we need to quit being dependent on people to provide us with oil that really want us all dead. It's ridiculous.
  • Jeffrey Anderson commented on 11/17/2011
    I would want that as long as 2 things were done. 1st we close taxloophole for big oil business. 2) If 5 % of income made was to expand & develope renewable energy products and design of equipment for renewable energy...
  • Jeffrey Anderson commented on 11/17/2011
    A short pipelinine to Detroit or build refinery in Alsaka, Spokane or Detroit to put Americans to work. No skimping on USA Standards for quality and safety. Also tie it to closing Big Business taxloopholes and 2% to go to developing renwable energy resource development
  • Suzanne Lesher commented on 11/17/2011
    Why are we propsing to pay another country? We should be drilling in the US for our energy, expecially with all the reserves available. Provide oil and gas, and make thousands of jobs - That would make us truly independent!
  • Michael Jones commented on 11/17/2011
    When are we going to understand that oil is a finite resource. Oil is used in many different ways and unless we change uses that eat up huge quantities like transportation there are many things that will disappear. It is time this country had a Manhatten Project to fully develop a synthetic fuel for transportation requirements that is efficent and enviornmentally safe. Meanwhile build a refinory closer to Canada.
  • Tom Davin commented on 11/17/2011
    build the pipeline however require a double pipeline through the aquiefer.
  • C J commented on 11/17/2011
    The best alternative it seems, would be to build a new refinery closer to the Canadian border, however current EPA regulations effectivly prohibit any new refinery construction. The freight train load of regulations with which corporations must comply are simply cost prohibitive. The 2nd alternative to re-route the pipeline will also NOT work because again the EPA will require a new set of environmental impact studies that will require years to complete. In the mean time the Canadian administration will simply build a new pipeline to Vancouver, load it onto tankers and sell it to the Chinese. In the mean time the good old USA, thanks to you so called environmentalists will continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars to countries that will use some of that money to plot our destruction. I trust all of you environmentalists are riding bicycles and are heating your homes with solar and wind power or "ocean waves" as the brilliant F. Eileen Burklow stated. It is her & her ilk's obligation to humanity to build and finance these "alternative" sources of energy. The pipeline should have been built yesterday!
  • Vernard Robertson commented on 11/17/2011
    I believe that the pipeline is a good idea; however, any oil spills along the country's waterways would be a disaster. Instead of having a single line it might be better to break the line near the waterways and add a railroad line to transport oil to recovery station/pipeline that continues to the final destination.
  • Vernard Robertson commented on 11/17/2011
    A combination of pipeline/railroad is perhaps the best way to help our economy while protecting the environment.
  • Clifton Byrd commented on 11/18/2011
    To consider any delay whatsoever would continue to damage the USA's "word" with our neighbor, Canada, and further delay our ability to move away from the Middle East and South America's grip on our energy supply. I am not surprised at all that Obama would even consider such a change in plans. I can't bring myself to even call this man President. Regards, Clifton N. Byrd Chesapeake, VA 23322
  • James Brookins commented on 11/21/2011
    My thoughts $15,000,000,000,000,00! Get the National Debt piped out. The Government ONLY seems to know how to spend. There is something to be said about spending when it is applied to a need, it is for better to spend $7 billion on actually creating jobs in the area of renewable energy such as solar and natural gas. The importance is how can America learn to generate it's own resources of power (energy). How can we from an individual view afford to change our vehicles over to natural gas,our houses to solar power,wind power or hydro depending on geography and available natural resources that do not affect the environment or at least cuts back on the carbon footprint. Let us get on with solutions to big issues. Remove the need for crude oil and the dependance on foreign supply. Work on RENEWABLE ENERGY HERE AT HOME.
  • Kelly Leighton commented on 11/24/2011
    I really do wish congress could focus on things that are critical first and then address topics like these when the heavy lifting is over. While this may well be important, I think the oil lobbyists have proven quite capable of getting what they want without such obvious bias by our politicians. Randy, please concentrate on debt and jobs. Concentrate on the half of America who aren't paying any types of taxes. How about getting our school systems into somewhere close to competitive condition? More money to teachers is NOT the answer. Hold them accountable. Here's a concept, how about holding parents accountable for their students grades too?! How about the road systems (in and out of Hampton roads)? They're all getting more crowded and less able to carry the traffic. How much productivity, gas, greenhouse emissions, and just lost time because of traffic jams, inefficient signal lights, poor lighting, roads unable to handle rain, etc? How about really rightsizing the number of police everywhere? Why are 10 police units all on 64 between Chesapeake and the base on a single morning?! If we have that many to check for speeding, why isn't all the raping, robbery, and murder eliminated? Why are our priorities so broken that speeding is where we feel we must allocate our resources instead of cleaning up gang areas and making us safe. Oh, I'm sorry, safe is the TSA and taking my shoes off for imbeciles at the airport. Hassling me and other travelers to make me safe. How's that working out for America Randy? Patriot Act and library books. No terrorist reads library books to figure out what and how to kill. The plethora of intelligence agencies dropped the ball and are a more bloated organization than before 9/11! How about getting some type of balance between the defense we need and the defense we're sold by lobbyists. How about we get some constructive roadmap for how we're going to get to energy independence? The current plan, bailing out car companies who made a conscious choice to NOT retool and keep up with demand, NOT fight the labor unions, and hold us hostage rather than invest R&D dollars into the future. How about we spend some time re-making and maintaining great old America and less time crowing about how great it is while it slides into the toilet? How about really, I mean really, coming to grips with the incredible number of illegal immigrants in this country? How about getting term limits in place so that those in Washington DC have no choice but to remember this used to be a citizen government? Randy, you're MY congressman. While I'm glad you spend time with your constituents and they have all kinds of pet issues, why can't congress stop wasting time with long speeches about individuals who did some great thing? Why can't you all stop wasting your time and our dollars by declaring this and that days. What in the heck is going on that banks were "too big to fail" so congress encouraged or MADE them consolidate into even BIGGER entities? I'm sorry, how did that help America again? You, congressman, are wasting my dollars if you aren't focusing on at least some of these things that I see wrong with our country. Critical, blockers to our future as a nation. Obama has done a lot of things I disagree with. But I also see the right wing folks using the same old accusations that have been rehashed years before. I want government out of our lives, it's the anchor on our country. But that isn't realistic or achievable at this point, so why won't your colleagues focus on at least some of these important issues. Who gives a doggone about these oil flats. Isn't there an authorization process for that without you deviating from working on things of import? I don't want new committees, or positions, and I want old useless congressional findings, archaic and unenforced laws, and declarations of feel-good days all stripped from the books. No one even reads the garbage you folks pass now, not even you! legislation is so cumbersome and filled with legalese, we the people can't understand it even when we try! This isn't just a Democrat problem, Republicans are guilty too. I didn't mean to get into a long rant when you asked a question about a pipeline (although some of the others on this blog do it too, and I wonder if you even read the replies), but I really want you focused on issues critical to our country - and this ain't one. 50% of Americans have no "skin in the game"! How can you turn this around? I, for one, have zero difficulty with higher taxes for the extremely well off (who gets to decide how much that is, the guy who doesn't earn that much?)...but it should be balanced with some level of taxes for those who pay none! I'm not advocating we break the little person, but right now, it's extremely easy to point the finger at the other guy and tell that rich person to pay, but keep this in mind. The rich person already has a vested interest in keeping abreast of what's going on. That 50% only reacts to scare tactics and a dumbed down news cycle so bad it's hard to learn anything from it at all. We have some real problems with the level of literacy, science skill, common sense, and methodical thinking in this country. I'm not seeing anyone in congress with the guts to start talking about the fact that our wars have brought us no positives at all. None. I know that isn't popular with the military community, I work with them every day. But, as I recently heard on an AM station, if you ask a barber if you need a haircut, he's going to say yes. If you ask a military person if we should be over there, they're going to say yes. They're doing what they're paid to do. With cool toys and lots of adrenaline. God bless 'em for going over there and risking their lives every single day. But what is America getting in return? Pakistan's support? Greater influence anywhere? ANYWHERE?! Does anyone really feel these wars are attriting bad will and hostility to America? We're playing whack-a-mole on the global stage and in the same place the USSR did it for 10 years to no avail. What stupidity and arrogance to think we could "do it right". Doesn't everyone else see the similarities to Vietnam and the crappy regimes we're trying to prop up that only want our money and blood, but who really are in bed with the folks we're shooting? Doesn't anyone see we're not winning hearts and minds any more than we won over the folks in 'Nam? We're bleeding ourselves dry like complete morons while other nations are letting us do it! Let's get our finances fixed and electorate educated, engaged, and employed. Then we have time to focus on minor trivia like whether we do or don't build a pipe to some sand an Canada. Randy, please be that voice out there that tries to right this ship. Someone needs to.
  • daniel riegel commented on 11/26/2011
    wouldn't a new, more efficient, closer refinery be better for the environment and more profitable, as well as create more long term jobs and more taxable income directly from one state be better than taking the pipe all the way to Texas..why Texas anyway?
  • Phil Polson commented on 12/9/2011
    I say get the pipeline going. It always more efficient to refine right next to the source and then carry it by pipe. Go for it, drive the economy.
  • Phil Polson commented on 12/9/2011
    I say go for it. Build the pipeline. It is always easier to refine right next to the source and then carry by pipe.
  • Phil Polson commented on 12/9/2011
    I say go for it. It is always best to refine right next to the source then carry by pipeline.
  • Jason Creel commented on 12/27/2011
    Polson is right. It'll be best option. Though there's a chance of less job opportunities for the Americans, but it can be a great benefit for the future fuel crisis. With Regards, Jason Creel from
  • Donald Wells commented on 1/13/2012
    I had not heard of this pipe line until it was added as a dare for the President to not pass the tax cut for middle Americans. Are the Canadians trying to blackmail us? Unless we do as they say will they ship the oil to China? Who is going to pay for that pipe line? I think clear minds should first think about the pros and cons before we rush head long into this deal. What are the environmental problems. Will an American or foriegn company build it? Population diruptions. Whose back yard? Cost benefit ratio. Simply citing jobs and independence is politics. Put America first.
  • Richard Reviello commented on 1/15/2012
    Mr. Congressman: I think you failed to mention the Company that is behind the Keystone Pipeline, Enbridge has a very bad track record as far as safety and environmental issues. Is that by design you failed to mention this or, are the lobbyist got you guys in Congress turning a blind eye to environmental issues. The raw tar sands oil disaster was caused by a break in a pipeline owned by Canadian tar sands giant, Enbridge. The company was cited for safety violations in the pipeline before it ruptured, and Enbridge was recently found responsible for safety violations in a 2007 pipeline explosion that killed two employees in Minnesota. Again you try to turn this into something the President is doing wrong, but your own members of the GOP in Nebraska want it stopped also, because it is in their backyard. You failed to mention that the Republican Lawmakers from Nebraska don't want it either. The same Republican Law Makers who would side with you that the EPA has too many regulations and they are bad for business, until the environmental concerns show up in your back yard.
Contact and Connect with Randy Forbes

stay connected

connect on instagram

Connect on Instagram
Follow Randy Forbes on Twitter