Las Vegas Sun

February 23, 2012

Currently: 57° | Complete forecast | Log in

Letter to the editor:

President has no grip on oil crisis

J.J. Schrader, Henderson

Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.

Give me a break! President Barack Obama vetoes the construction of the XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. and then tries to blame Republicans because they put an “unrealistic deadline” on the decision? This pipeline has been studied for over three years and was approved as environmentally safe. And now he comes to Las Vegas to promote his jobs program? In November, I hope the unemployed workers in America and all of us who have to fill up our gas tanks with expensive oil imported from the Middle East remember where this president’s priorities really lie.

Perhaps Obama can mobilize the environmental tree hugger voting bloc and have them hug an unemployed construction worker instead.

Discussion: 49 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. By BChap (Bradley Chapline)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:19 a.m.
    Flag

    J.J. Schrader; So, you say, jobs at the expense of environment? Okay, lets build a pipeline with dirty energy flowing over your property, per se, where hypothetically you have fruits and vegetables growing on your farmland. The property of where your children play. The water that irrigates your farm and the water that you all drink?

    By the way Mr. Schrader, what is your stance on Yucca Mountain? I can't wait to read the background of your previous posts here in the Las Vegas Sun and see whether or not you are a political hypocrite. Would you personally so no to Yucca Mountain for the inherent dangers of stockpiling the nations nuclear waste at your back door? Or, would you be lame enough to say, "But the jobs that are lost at Yucca Mountain is just so terrible? And, (sniffle, sniffle), I wouldn't mind hugging a toxic rock to save jobs at the waste dump!"

    And your response is, Mr. Schrader?

  2. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:40 a.m.
    Flag

    Bradley, first, there are 25,000 miles of pipeline criss-crossing this country. Thousands of those miles are in the SAME area of the proposed route for the pipeline...

    Second, don't drag this "where the children play" nonsense into the discussion - it's beneath you. This is arable farmland we're talking about. There are no children prancing around the back forty. The pipeline itself would take up very small tracts of that farmland.

    Third, the pipeline would have to have a catastrophic occurrence to even come close to affecting the water table. There is a greater danger to water pollution from motor oil seepage into the Las Vegas wash than there is from the pipeline.

    Finally, this environmental "outrage" is due to one concern from the "greenies" - MONEY. The "green" lobby does not want the focus of energy development to be taken off the renewable sector and move to more fossil fuels. If the pipeline is built and energy prices go down there won't be the outcry for renewable sources and the "greenies" fundraising takes a hit.

    As for Yucca Mountain, Bradley, we need to get away from this 1950's "Godzilla" mentality. Yucca Mountain is SAFE, CONTAINED and the best alternative. Again, your hyperbole is beneath you as this "toxic rock" nonsense is the same rhetoric that caused Americans to build bomb shelters......BUILD IT and create some good paying jobs here in Nevada.

    (By the way, Bradley, where do you live? Yucca Mountain "at your back door"?....another example of EXTREME rhetoric)

  3. By BChap (Bradley Chapline)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:55 a.m.
    Flag

    If what you say is true Mister DiFazio, sounds like a pretty good alternative to the pipeline and a pretty shrewd business move on the part of Warren Buffett. I would think a Republican would be able to see this. Or it is 20,000 temporary jobs in construction of this pipeline and the environmental threat to this areas aquifers are better than several thousand long term jobs being secured within the railroad for many years to come? Nothing personal, but, political hypocrites sure do confuse me!

  4. By ressince73 (Gary Lind)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:56 a.m.
    Flag

    How much of the tar sands oil from Canada will ACTUALLY be used by AMERICAN consumers? As for gas prices, unless you use premium unleaded in your tank, no one is paying anything near $4.00 per gallon. The oil companies have now lulled everyone to accept the new paradigm of well over $3.00 per gallon. Pipeline or not, prices will never again be below $3.00 per gallon. Get used to it. I remember .25 cents per gallon gas, but I don't expect to see prices that low again either.

  5. By lericgoodman (Leric Goodman)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    5:17 a.m.
    Flag

    The letter writer is misinformed. Before writing that "the pipeline was environmentally approved", he ought to have at least glanced at the letter of July 2011to the U.S. Department of State from the EPA rating the project as Environmentally Objectionable and setting forth in detail the reasons for that. I understand that there is a further letter from the EPA dated in November 2011, which refers to the Environmental Impact Statement submitted for the project as "inadequate."

    If I want to start a project and have my own Environmental Impact Study done and label it "approved" (since I approve of my own project) then has my project been "environmentally approved"? That is what seems to have happened here. And it seems to be what letter writer means by "environmentally approved."

    And what, exactly, is the rush on this -- besides the all-important rush for members of Congress to secure campaign contributions?

  6. By Houstonjac (Bob Jack)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    5:34 a.m.
    Flag

    The failure to approve the Keystone Oil Pipeline project is another travesty emanating from the Oval Office. Another example of a failed policy by this administration. While we must be willing to protect the environment, the needs of the nation have to be prioritized and there is no question that both job creation and energy independence from the Middle East are at the top of the list of the nation's critical priorities. In this case the President is placing the complaints of the envirnmental community above the highest priority needs of the nation for his own political interests. This is an outrageous case of the President pandering to a loud part of his base, while the nation suffers from joblessness and energy dependence on the Middle East.

  7. By BChap (Bradley Chapline)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    5:40 a.m.
    Flag

    Joe, first and foremost, I am old school, and I'm not going to change. I drive a big truck, and it uses a lot of fuel. I would walk or crawl before I would drive a green automobile like the Volt. However, I think some green energy should be supported, but certainly not to the extent that President Obama desires. If what Mr. DiFazio from the "All Comments" section said is true about Warren Buffett investing in, and proposing that the railroads haul this oil from Canada, than that is a perfect alternative to the pipeline. Or is it, Republicans have now turn coated on Warren Buffett because he has publicly stated that he believes the wealthy should pay their fair share in taxes?

    As far as Yucca Mountain. Once the Department of Energy has hired three totally politically independent scientists to conduct their studies on Yucca Mountain, and they all confirm that the storage of such nuclear waste is safe to be stored at Yucca Mountain, I will then consider changing my views on this dumpsite. Until such time, my answer is, unequivocally, NO!!! I need absolute proof from any politically biased politician before I believe what they say. That's Democrat or Republican.

  8. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    6:21 a.m.
    Flag

    Bradley, guess what will happen if the alternative of hauling the oil to the U.S. via expanded railroad lines is suggested?

    The "greenies" will not allow thousands of mile of new track to be built, nor will it sit idly by while millions of barrels of oil are transported into this country.

    This is NOT about the pipeline, per se, it is about the CONTINUAL usage of fossil fuel. The "greenies" think they have a toehold with this administration to continue the expansion of renewable energy and they want to do everything they can to stop the importation or expansion of fossil fuel development in any way they can.

    This is all a charade. This is not about aquifirs or water tables. Even the "greenies" know the pipeline is safe. Just the mere sight of a giant metal tube snaking across the country makes them sick to their stomachs - it means they are losing ground.

    This is about choking off the fossil fuel usage in this country to advance an agenda. Why was there no outrage when smaller, less significant pipelines were built? Simple. They could not nearly have the impact on fossil fuel availability that this pipeline has.

    As for prices. I'm up this morning watching Crude Oil trading in NYC because I have a position on that controls 120,000 barrels of oil. I watch the prices EVERY day. If this pipeline was built the price of Crude Oil would drop by $10-15 per barrel EASILY - maybe more. And the oil companies could NOT keep the price of gas at current levels. To think otherwise is to believe there is a huge conspiracy amongst the big oil companies to control the market - and there isn't.

    Those are just the FACTS.

  9. By fosimmons (frank simmons)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    6:55 a.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling

  10. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    7:04 a.m.
    Flag

    Well, it seems Sux has been drinking the "green" tea provided by our tree hugging friends. He posts the following regarding current pipelines:

    "and none that cross the biggest aquifer in the midwest."

    Here are the FACTS that Sux doesn't know or doesn't want out in the open:

    "The Keystone XL pipeline would cross the Ogallala Aquifer for some 250 miles. To help put this number in perspective, there are currently almost 21,000 miles of pipelines crossing Nebraska, including almost 3,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines. Many miles of these pipelines co-exist with the Ogallala Aquifer. In addition, oil wells have been drilled and are in production within areas overlying the Ogallala Aquifer, including in western Nebraska."

    So you see, there are ALREADY pipelines AND drilling operations in Nebraska on land that covers the aquifer.

    But, alas, FACTS are of no consequence to Sux and his defenders of the LIES promulgated by this White House and the "Green Lobby" - darn it, they just don't like fossil fuels and they aim to stop them....

    With whatever lies, distortions and claims they can come up with....

  11. By BChap (Bradley Chapline)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    7:07 a.m.
    Flag

    Some excellent points Joe. The good thing about Warren Buffett's investment in the railroads is, there will be many jobs created in building these extensions. Secondly, should a disaster occur in transporting this oil by railroad, the risks to areas that are environmentally sensitive and the quantity of oil lost will be minimized.

    As for the environmentalists, if the oil shall be shipped by railroad, they do not have a leg to stand on. Oh!!! I want the oil, whether or not we use it for our own consumption. If not, once the oil companies have gone through their processes of conversion, I say maximize our oil reserves and sell the rest to the highest bidder on the market. This would be good business practice, and profitable too. I absolutely love this plan!

    I have good cause to believe that the only conspiracy that exists here is that of the environmentalists against oil companies. To a small degree, I will occasionally agree with environmentalists. However, once a suitable alternative has been recommended, they need to withdraw from the issue at hand. I agree with their protests of the pipeline over the aquifers. But, that's it, that's as far as I will go with them.

    The only questions I would have in Warren Buffett's proposal of the railroads transporting this oil from Canada across the United States is; Can this type of transportation by railroad equal the daily output of oil that would have originally been shipped to the United States by pipeline? I wouldn't think so? If not, what would be the differential?

    I would say if the disparities are too great, we should turn back to rerouting the XL Pipeline around the aquifers in shipping this Canadian oil across the United States. Then, and only then, if President Obama would opt to once again deny the building of this pipeline, outrage would surely be warranted.

  12. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    7:51 a.m.
    Flag

    Well, well, well, Willie has now jumped into the fray with a load of false information. Willie posts:

    "Another patch of the planet that will be uninhabitable for centuries."

    While the decontamination zone still exists, the Japanese government says people will be able to move back to their homes in the near future. Also, this plant - built by GE no less - was built using technology that existed in the 1960's!

    The science of nuclear power has leaped forward by leaps and bounds since then and there have been ZERO incidents at reactors built after 1980.

    So, Willie, you are safe from "Godzilla" and Yucca Mountain would be a great project to have here in Nevada!

  13. By petef (Peter Fritz)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    9:17 a.m.
    Flag

    Obama is plain wrong on this. Besides the Canadian oil, which money given to Canada for oil will come back to the US in forms of exports to Canada, there is a big oil shale field in ND that will need infrastructure to get the oil to the refineries which I am sure the XL will play a part in. Presidents do dumb things, with Bush it was the wars, with Obama it will be sticking it to the people with high energy costs while further enriching our Arab "friends". What about the carbon footprint of moving that oil across the world? Potential catastrophic things that can happen in transit? Brazil is so pissed off about this it will not sell the oil out of thier big offshore field to USA because of Obama's decision, it will be sold to China instead, how is that better for us?

  14. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    9:22 a.m.
    Flag

    Willie, simple question. Do you have any understanding of the English language?

    Let's look AGAIN at your post:

    "Another patch of the planet that will be uninhabitable for centuries."

    The word "Centuries", is defined by the following. A "Century" is a period of 100 years. By applying an "s" you have - at least - maintained that we are speaking of a minimum of 200 years.

    Now let's look at your most recent post:

    "I believe it is possible to save Fukushima," said the supporter, Tatsuhiko Kodama, director of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo. "But many evacuated residents must accept that it won't happen in their lifetimes."

    Now we see you saying that the area will again be suitable for habitation, but maybe not in a human lifetime. It seems to me that a human lifetime is far less than 200 years - thus your previous statement is a complete crock.

    Also, in te article Willie quoted from various Japanese officials say the clean up will be successful and faster than what Willie portrays. In fact, there is a parcel of land that can be inhabited 3-5 years from the nuclear incident.

    This post by Willie underscores the wild and reckless rhetoric thrown out there by the left in response to an accident from an antiquated reactor. It's like saying we want to ban automobiles because a 1954 Edsel caused a car accident and someone died.

    All based on emotion - not on FACTS....the usual tactic of the lunatic left...

  15. By lericgoodman (Leric Goodman)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    9:22 a.m.
    Flag

    1. All of y'all ought to go look at a map of the Keystone pipelines before you opine. You will see: (a) that there is more than one Keystone pipeline; (b) that many of these send Canadian oil shale "crude" (it is really more like an asphaltic slurry) to U.S. refineries; (c) the XL project is one phase of an entire network; (d) the XL project phase you are opining on would have crossed the Ogallala aquifer which is a key water supply.

    2. The letter writer believes this is a "crisis." A crisis is an event which will lead to an unstable or dangerous situation. Iran getting nukes would be a crisis. The collapse of Pakistan allowing its' nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists would be a crisis. The delay of one oil pipeline route is NOT a crisis. It might be poor policy (or it might be wisdom) -- only time will tell.

    3. Everyone ought to look at the price of producing a barrel of oil and at the prices producing countries have to get to sustain their governments (the "Political Price" of oil). It costs $17/bbl to for oil produced in Kuwait. Most of the Arabian and Iranian oil costs less to produce than oil from the Canadian tar sands which costs about $33/bbl. But when you look at the political price of oil, Canada's would be very low in comparison to many other sources. Three points follow from this: (a) The Canadian tar sands product already flowing to landlocked midwestern U.S. refineries results in lower costs per gallon petroleum products than if the oil were imported from other producing countries; (b) The XL project will open up big exporting Gulf Coast refineries, allowing the Canadian product to flow out to a higher-priced stronger demand for petroleum products in other countries rather than be "trapped" in lower-priced U.S. Midwestern markets; and (c) The difference between a $100/bbl world price for oil and $33/bbl cost of production is huge and strongly motivating the building of a pipeline to existing refineries that can handle it and refine it for export -- refineries that exist only on the U.S. Gulf Coast. That pipeline isn't going anywhere else because anywhere else would involve too much capital and cut ROI and operating profit too much.

    4. The only "crisis" might be one perceived by members of Congress who continue to seek funds for their perpetual re-elections. If they don't get those contributions, it might cause them to lose -- and we all know just how unstable and dangerous that condition might be for them.

  16. By xslnt1 (Tom OUTTRIM)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    9:48 a.m.
    Flag

    So whats the deal? Is the south the only place a refinery can be built ? Seems like all the environmental concerns could be eliminated by building a refinery close to the oil supply. What am I missing ? Is it too cold to refine oil in the north?

  17. By VernosB (vernos branco)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    10:37 a.m.
    Flag

    The pipeline will be built after the environmental impact is judged over the new route.

    A fact for you Obama haters. According to the WSJ oil drilling in the United States is at it's highest rate, ever. I'll bet the increase in prices is due to speculation, people playing on the Wall St. casino market.

    Number of the Week: How Many Rigs Are Drilling for Oil?. 1,069: The number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. this week. The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/08/2...

  18. By zippert1 (gerry hageman)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    11:04 a.m.
    Flag

    A letter was published recently stating very little of the XL oil would make it's way to US consumers. That Canada wanted to send it to the gulf and ship it to the rest of the world.
    Does anyone know if this is true???? I don't have a clue.

  19. By dipstick (dennis williams)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    11:12 a.m.
    Flag

    zipper; none of the XL oil will be consumed by americans nor will it drop the price of a gallon of gas one penny. all of the oil is to be imported overseas from the ports of texas.

  20. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    12:13 p.m.
    Flag

    Sorry, Sux, you and your inbred Democrats are about to get trounced next November...

    Why? Simple, the Democrats have ZERO common sense...

    We need to stabilize our domestic oil supply - Obama kills the pipeline....

    Revenues are down during the recession - Obama runs up the debt to unbelievable levels....

    The Mad Hatter says he isn't practicing "Class Warfare" - he then presents a speech laden with class warfare....

    The Mad Hatter blames everyone for his failures but himself...

    Let's look at a GREAT example of what the Republican Party is all about - WISCONSIN!

    Governor Scott Walker made some really tough choices and the unions spent tens of millions trying to beat him and now on a recall effort...

    Walker's approval rating was in the low 30's after the onslaught by the unions....

    But guess what, Sux?

    Almost all the school districts in Wisconsin are showing a surplus, not ONE teacher was fired and the approval rating for Governor Walker is now OVER 50%!!!!

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/poll-...

    People are sick and tired of this political hack in the White House who panders on decisions like the XL Pipeline...the Republicans will hang this around his neck right up until election day...

    And the Dumbocrats will suffer a humiliating defeat in November as they lose the Senate and the House remains the same...

    Sorry, Sux, you're in for a major A** whuppin"!

  21. By VernosB (vernos branco)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    12:38 p.m.
    Flag

    Walker's job creation 13,500 after six months of steady private sector loss:

    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/prom...

  22. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    12:58 p.m.
    Flag

    GOPReallySux,

    If we stipulate that the oil from the XL pipeline will add to the overall amount of oil but will not be reserved for America. And if we agree that an oil spill could happen with the XL pipeline, even though we have thousands of miles of oil pipelines all over the US and almost no spills, isn't is also true that the 20,000 jobs connected to the XL Pipeline would be a good thing?

    Michael

  23. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    1:01 p.m.
    Flag

    Tell me, Vernos, how in the world is Scott Walker's approval ratings going through the roof while you think he's doing a terrible job?

    Oh, yeah, I forgot....Vernos idea of "doing a great job" is the Obamamatrix of losing tens of thousands of jobs, putting millions of food stamps and increasing the debt by well over a trillion dollars per year....

    Yup, that would be one vote - by Vernos - for spendthrift Government and no results versus responsible spending and common sense by the voters of Wisconsin....

    Sorry, Vernos, you lose.......

  24. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    1:04 p.m.
    Flag

    Michael, we would rather spend PUBLIC money propping up the "green" energy lobby to the tune of about $250K per job than have PRIVATE money come in and provide jobs....

    Obama's latest ad on energy said "2.7 million jobs and growing rapidly"...

    Those 2.7 million jobs included truck drivers and university professors...

    And the "rapid growth" was less than 3,000 jobs in the last year...at a huge cost to the taxpayers..

    Yeah, this is EXACTLY the kind of thinking we need in Washington, D.C.!

  25. By fosimmons (frank simmons)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    1:39 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling

  26. By mike_kerns (mike kerns)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    1:59 p.m.
    Flag

    The reason oil is so expensive has nothing to do with supply and demand. It has everything to do with the speculators on wall street who play games by trading a single barrel of oil 6 thousand times to create the illusion of high demand. As for the keystone pipeline do you believe that the right wingers are telling the truth That 20 thousand jobs will be created? Where do you think the pipe is manufactured? China or India?

  27. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    3:15 p.m.
    Flag

    GOPReallySux,

    20,000 or 6,000, they are jobs and we do need jobs. Actually, I would consider legalizing both pot and prostitution, since we do an awful job of trying to prevent access to either and each is a personal choice. Oil is transported all over the world and this country, all at some risk. Why arbitrarily draw the line here? Is it because of an agenda?

    Michael

  28. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    3:26 p.m.
    Flag

    Well, well, well, it seems that ANOTHER darling of the solar power industry has just laid off about two thirds of it's work force right here in North Las Vegas!

    This after receiving a $6 million dollar subsidy from the Obama "graft and payoff" department.....oops, Energy Department!

    Also, if you read the story, the company is partly owned by a Singapore Company. Good to know, after the giant subsidy made to Sunpower - a FRENCH company - that we are doing everything we can to help out these foreign companies with our tax dollars.

    And Kernsie again gets his FACTS wrong. I trade Crude Oil and "speculation" has ZERO to do with the price of Crude Oil - world events control the market. But the busboy named Kerns would know more about how the price of Crude Oil is established than anyone else.(sarcasm)

    In addition, the parts of the pipeline to be used are going to be manufactured in Ohio and Arkansas, Kernsie....I don't believe either one is in the Canton Province or anywhere else in China or part of the massive steel industry in India! (sarcasm)

    Here's a lesson for you, Kernsie. Crude Oil traded in a range today of -$.50 to a +$1.60. That means the total VOLUME of the trading day was comprised of trading when the price was going UP and when the price was going DOWN with the net for the day being a +$.40. That just blows your little ignorant post right out of the water, eh, Kernsie?

    And, finally, after the BS given to us by the White House about the "rapidly increasing" (about 3,000) jobs in the "green sector" and the BS about the millions of jobs "created or saved" by the bogus stimulus, it seems farcical to see a moron like Kernsie belittling the ACTUAL creation of jobs by a PRIVATE concern whether there are 20,000 or 2,000. What a moron!

    By the way, Kernsie, tell us a little about that "lovely" food "business" you "own". Gross over $100K in a year? How many employees? Zero? Asset valuation? Over $5K yet?

    A FARCE...typical....and the moron rails at me when I paid out $12M in payroll in five years and ran a highly profitable company.....typical...

  29. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:02 p.m.
    Flag

    GOPReallySux,

    We agree to disagree. I suspect that if it were possible to use existing lines, Canada and the Canadian company would do so because it probably would be much less costly than building a new pipeline. I understand you just don't want any more oil pipelines in the US and that's your call, but you may regret that stance one day. Time will tell.

    Also, unlike you, I find private industry numbers and studies questionable but I also find government numbers and studies questionable. Let's face the fact that the people providing the number and studies are all human beings and that all sides have an 'agenda'.

    Michael

  30. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:05 p.m.
    Flag

    Sux posts:

    "If we have so many pipelines as you say - why not use those?"

    A. Those pipelines may carry alternate forms of fuel that would not mix with the sand based oil from Canada.

    B. TransCanada probably does not own those pipelines.

    C. The terminal is the key ingredient for the pipeline. The other pipelines don't end at the necessary facilities.

    D. The pipeline is most likely specially built to handle this type of product.

    That's just a few, Sux, and your contention that THIS pipeline is any more dangerous than the thousands of miles already criss-crossing the aquifer is just silly.

    Face it, Sux, your hero in the White House WILL approve the pipeline right after the election if he is elected. And he will come out and say "We've looked at it more closely and it seems O.K."...and your "greenies" will have been sold out and YOU will look like a fool.....

    Of course, that would be nice to see, but I can't stand the thought of this incompetent being in the White House for four more years!

  31. By askmrmark (Mark Anthony)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:17 p.m.
    Flag

    Three years in office and does absolutely nothing to help get America back to being stable. One year left and suddenly he feels the urge to do something. Anything. And that includes talk one thing and do another.

    He likes to take the credit for killing Osama (Thank you GW) and opening up a natural gas fueling corridor that has been under construction for over 10 years. (Thank you GW) but feels its too soon to start blaming him for the failures under his watch.

  32. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:26 p.m.
    Flag

    Sux is trying to make irrationality seem rational. The pipeline will be built - AFTER the election. There is no doubt it is going to happen...

    And when it does Sux will have egg all over his face...just more stupid comments from a guy who never ran a business, knows nothing about business and can't understand anything about business!

    My firm grew from $10K a week in sales to $300K a week in sales in two years. In the course of five years I had ZERO complaints lodged against me and had over 6,000 units sold. Sux doesn't even know what I was marketing! He thinks it was office supplies! the firm was a GIANT success until my partner stole it from me and it was shut down.

    But Sux opines about things he knows nothing about - an affliction us posters with FACTS have to deal with EVERY day!

    Now that's DISGRACEFUL!

    (By the way, sux, I'll ask again. why the cowardice in not positing your name?)

  33. By mike_kerns (mike kerns)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:33 p.m.
    Flag

    Does a wheat farmer need wall street speculating on there business to survive and prosper. The answer is no.
    Does wall street speculators need a wheat farmer to make a living. The answer is yes. So it quite obvious that the speculators like shrillmoeller are in fact parasites they cannot survive on there own they need someone else to produce a product for them.

  34. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:46 p.m.
    Flag

    Wrong again, Kernsie, farmers DO need the futures market to hedge their physical crops and lock-in prices so they can budget for the next year.

    For example, Farmer A has 40,000 bushels of Wheat in storage. Wheat is trading at %6.50 so the farmer can go "Short" Wheat at that price. If Wheat drops to $6.00 the farmer makes money on the futures position while he loses money on the physicals. The futures GUARANTEE him a certain price!

    So you see, Kernsie, the FARMER needs the futures market as much - or more - than the speculators!

    AGAIN you show your ignorance of the financial world and the implications of the ridiculous regulations being imposed by this corrupt Administration when they hurt the markets.

    As for "parasites" Kernsie again uses the word incorrectly. Seems as if my previous English lesson didn't take hold - another example of Kernsie being unable to retain information. An affliction that has bedeviled him for his entire life!

    By the way, Kernsie, how may people do you employ? What are your total annual receipts? What are your carrying assets - over $5K yet?

    I would "Love" to know what kind of business tycoon you really are!

    I'm "Forever" waiting for your answers!

  35. By mike_kerns (mike kerns)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    4:46 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  36. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    5:01 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  37. By mike_kerns (mike kerns)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    5:40 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  38. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    5:40 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  39. By mike_kerns (mike kerns)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    6:03 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  40. By VernosB (vernos branco)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    6:14 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  41. By mike_kerns (mike kerns)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    6:35 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  42. By lericgoodman (Leric Goodman)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    6:53 p.m.
    Flag

    Well, Michael, the jobs created DURING the construction of the XL segment MIGHT be a good thing, but if the tar leaks into the Ogallala, the lost production of wheat, corn, and soybeans and the products that incorporate them (and the jobs that go along with that) would be LOST PERMANENTLY. So I guess whether on balance it would be good or bad depends on (1) how you rate temporary construction jobs as against permanent ag-related jobs, (2) whether we can make up any lost production by growing these crops elsewhere, and (3) the cost of moving a population that no longer has a water supply or, in the alternative the cost of building and operating treatment plants to remove the contaminants.

  43. By gogowhitesox (joseph schillmoeller)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    7:03 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  44. By BChap (Bradley Chapline)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    7:03 p.m.
    Flag

    Well, well, well, Carmine DiFazio is attempting to win a debate from the ranks of the unenlightened.
    He says, "Believe or not it's costlier to transport the barrels over rails than through pipelines. Isn't that something!"

    That's very good Carmine! So I assume you leave your car parked in the driveway and take the bus to work because it is cheaper? What a pointless, ridiculous, absurd and meaningless comment you made. But, I'm not surprised in the least.
    .

  45. By zippert1 (gerry hageman)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    8:16 p.m.
    Flag

    http://omrpublic.iea.org/
    oil consumption has gone up by 4 million barrels per day in the last YEAR. China put nearly 19 million cars on the road last year. The US 12 million units. Refining capacity is limited around the world. Those who think oil is NOT a supply and demand driven commodity are living on fantasy island.
    As the world economy continues to grow you will see $6.00 a gallon gas before you can blink. Without refineries the oil does us no good.
    The world needs refineries and Saudi Arabia is the only country building up capacity to any degree. According to T Boone Pickens the world refining capacity is 91M/BPD. That is where we are at currently. Next stop MUCH higher prices.

  46. By gmag39
    Jan. 26, 2012
    8:41 p.m.
    Flag

    Wah!!! Wah!!! Waaaah!!!
    "I want my Oil Pipeline! Waaaah!"

    "The debate over whether Keystone XL creates jobs is a convenient diversion from something oil company backers don't want you to know: this is an export pipeline to help them access foreign markets and bypass the United States. Oil companies will make bigger profits and oil prices for Americans will increase. That's not a project that helps Americans. It's a project that helps Big Oil."

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/13...

    CNN Shatters Supporters' Claims That Keystone XL Would Create Thousands Of Jobs

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/20111111001...

    "If the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline were approved, even more oil will flow to the Gulf Coast and then to international markets and not provide the United States with energy security. And building Keystone XL would very likely lead to even higher oil prices according to IHS CERA. This confirms the findings of Oil Change International's report. Keystone XL has always been about increasing US oil prices and finding a route to export tar sands on the world market."

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroit...

    According to the State Department, only 20 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline. Even the pipeline company acknowledged that only "a few hundred permanent jobs' will be created.

  47. By mike_kerns (mike kerns)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    11:09 p.m.
    Flag

    Zippert

    Maybe I interpreted your 8:16 link wrong but I believe the demand for oil contracted in the fourth quarter. Seems the problem is not that there is not enough oil as in there is not enough refining capacity? Why would the merchants of oil not want to build anymore refineries? Perhaps to manipulate oil prices to increase profit?

  48. By zippert1 (gerry hageman)
    Jan. 26, 2012
    11:55 p.m.
    Flag

    1976 was the last one built in the USA. You can't get them built. Who wants a refinery in their back yard.

  49. By mike_kerns (mike kerns)
    Jan. 27, 2012
    12:42 a.m.
    Flag

    zippert

    Texas

Post a comment

Commenting requires registration.

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

If you would like to submit your comment as a letter to the editor, you may submit it here.

Most Popular

  • Viewed
  • Discussed
  • E-mailed
  • Facebook

The Sun

Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.