He says whether we like it or not, oil is here to stay for some time. He does support solar and wind, but we are not in a position to depend on those 100 percent, so we have to accept that we need the oil. His main point is that the oil is being transported by rail, and that is totally not safe. A pipeline, he says, to transport the oil is much safer.
I thought this dirty crude oil was all Canadian oil, but he pointed out one spot where U.S. oil will be absorbed by Keystone. So what? That is supposed to offset the deleterious environmental impact?
There was a second alternative mentioned earlier in this discussion where the Canadian oil could be shipped if Keystone was not approved. My opinion: go with that alternative.
Two flaws in his discussions of late I think were in being thrown for a loop by one commentator who mentioned the flaw in the integrity of the State Department finding. So evidently, his staff looked into that, and a response was presented this evening. The State Department said a second analysis had been commissioned by a totally independent party, as opposed to a party with interests. Somehow, I found the State Department's response flat, but that might just be me. I simply did not believe it.
The other misguided point by Ed was the creation of jobs. We have previously reviewed findings from totally disinterested but responsible parties about the actual number of jobs that will be created. As I recall, the number quoted by those promoting Keystone counted a job that lasted not just one year but two as two separate jobs. After the initial work, there will be few permanent jobs because as we all know it doesn't take many people to monitor the flow of the oil through a pipeline.
In my opinion, this is all about the one hundred million dollars the Koch Brothers will realize should Keystone be approved, and that is it precisely. But hey, what do I know....
Sam
= new reply since forum marked as read
