TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
pipeline-obama.jpg
Both President Obama and Mitt Romney are pushing the Keystone Pipeline, while Texas farmers fight to keep it off their land. (AP image)

The other side of the Keystone pipeline story

BY Dave Ross  on October 18, 2012 @ 7:18 am (Updated: 8:39 am - 10/18/12 )

In that debate Wednesday... remember this comment:

"We're going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline I will never know," Mitt Romney said.

Romney made the Keystone Pipeline project a campaign promise, and President Obama defended himself by trying to out-pipeline him:

"We've built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire earth once," said Obama.

So no matter who wins, America will be a pipeline friendly country. But you know who's not pipeline friendly when it comes to the Keystone pipeline? Texans! And in particular, the farmers whose land it would cross.

According to an AP report, farmers along the right of way are fed up with the company building the pipeline -- Trans Canada, because, it's a foreign company, it uses a lot of foreign steel, and it hires NON-local workers.

And it won't guarantee that the oil will remain in the United States.

But what really steams them is that this private company is allowed to use the power of the state to force them to sell their farmland. And so those delays you're hearing about -- part of the blame goes to Eleanor Fairchild, age 78, arrested two weeks ago for blocking a bulldozer on her own farm.

"I am mad, this land is my land," she said.

She was standing there Tiananmen Square style.

"This is not just about my land, it's about all of our country," she said

I wonder what she thought about these guys:

"I'm all for pipelines, I'm all for oil production," said Obama.

"And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada," Romney said.

Out of the way, old woman!

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (34)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    .................
    October 18, 2012 7:54 am
    spacing
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    If "WE've" built so much pipeline already, Mr. President, just who is "WE" ?
    October 18, 2012 8:11 am
    For cripe sake, Dave. Farmers lived just fine with the railroads cutting across fields - and the interstates, too - and every state and local road in existence. And even if Obama's .."wrap around the world once." was only in the USA, that's only 25,000 miles - what, maybe, 500' wide? Including right of way?

    But the whole idea of the Keystone Pipeline is not JUST oil. It's energy independence and JOBS. .. GOOD PAYING JOBS. .. PRODUCTION jobs.

    Oh, and, Dave. Tell Eleanor not to worry. At $4/gal. there just might be a few bucks to compensate her enough that even she will be happy. ... Or at least the grand kids who should get her out of the way of bulldozers in the first place.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Ron's "good paying jobs"
    October 18, 2012 8:42 am
    The best paying jobs will be filled by Canadians.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Chuck, I doubt that
    October 18, 2012 8:55 am
    Canada is going to send 30,000 overseers down here to make Americans work for slave wages.

    Oh, and when WE contract work in Canada, the top paying jobs are filled by Americans.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Paul wrote: "Ane when WE contract work in Canada, the top paying jobs are filled by Americans."
    October 18, 2012 9:29 am
    Exactly!

    Nobody has any problem with that.

    That fact merely reinforces my contention that the best jobs will not be filled by Americans if the Canadians get to build their pipeline through the midwest.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    "William', you got my name wrong, again.
    October 18, 2012 10:21 am
    But, then, all of us to the right of Dave Ross have interchangable names.

    Point being, even if a few jobs with the highest pay go to Canadians, that's still 30,000 Americans earning a heck of a lot more than by flipping burgers, if working at all.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Ron P
    October 19, 2012 3:07 pm
    So a Canadian company using eminent domain laws to grab US property and kick US citizens off their property has no bearing with you? Of course the vast majority of those 30,000??? Are temp jobs.Where does that 30K jobs figure come from?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    right-nick pick the Keystone pipeline because and only because your hero and man crush subject kept it from happening.
    October 18, 2012 9:49 am
    Do you really think that any road or pipeline doesnt have SOME folks against it. PATHETIC!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    BS Chuck
    October 18, 2012 11:08 am
    I happen to know 3 business owners personally, that have opened branches ( 1.Trucking and 1. Welding and metal fabrication) in North Dakota and another company that is actually building a warehouse facility to build fabricated "green" portable houses to accommodate the thousands of people that will be employed along the pipeline route. You do not know what you are talking about. There are already THOUSANDS of PEOPLE that are already making and will continue to make GOOD MONEY. And by good money, I mean SIX and SEVEN FIGURE MONEY. So on this issue - you are sadly mistaken! This will be a WIN-WIN for the Country.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    FISH
    October 19, 2012 3:11 pm
    You told us earlier that as long as Obama was POTUS your friends told you they wouldn't be investing any money in hiring people. Get your MYTH straight will ya?Your yet another Righty who believes we have far too much government but have NO PROBLEM allowing a Canadian company use Domain Laws to kick to displace Americans in the way of this pipeline.You guys just can't steer your ship straight can you?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • when reality hits you wrote...
    Is pumping oil to the gulf where there is already enough oil the answer?
    October 18, 2012 9:47 am
    I dont think so. That pipeline will feed nobody but the export market with all of the rest of the oil produced in those states.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Madison2Seattle wrote...
    import canadian oil and gain energy independence?
    October 18, 2012 10:11 am
    So now US and Canada are ONE? Geez... think about your words before you speak! The whole story was about how the jobs aren't resulting from this proposal...yet the private company is permitted to use the power of eminent domain to force landowners to comply with the pipeline. Maybe if it was a USA pipeline Exporting oil and using American workers then you would have a point... IF
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    RonP "Energy Independance"
    October 19, 2012 3:01 pm
    Canadian oil,transported to American Refineries to be sold on the World Market.Hmmm doesn't sound like any form of energy independance to me.And it wasn't too long ago that the oil companies were whining that they did not have enough refiners to refine US produced oil.Sounds as if this additional oil would make it more expensive for American oil to be refined.Ron I'd love paying 25 cents a gallon like the folks in Venezuela but thats not happening.I do see Canadians coming from a country THAT DOES have oil independance lining up at US gas pumps to buy CHEAP gas from us.Why not give us 3 or 4 Western Nations that pay more for gas then we do in the USA
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    Bill Clinton claims
    October 18, 2012 8:13 am
    to have laid more pipe than any President in history.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Interesting, Paul
    October 18, 2012 8:38 am
    I've never heard of the distaff population referred to as 'pipe' before.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Ron P Laying pipe is NEW to you?
    October 19, 2012 3:12 pm
    You've led a far too sheltered life son. You need to get out and mix a bit more
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Isn't one of the Republican governor's in the midwest adamantly against the pipeline as well?
    October 18, 2012 8:15 am
    Funny. I'll bet 90-some percent of those Texas ranchers will be voting Republican anyway.

    Was it the governor of Kansas (?) who was bitterly against the pipeline as well? Seems the pipe is going to be laid right through the main aquifer for the entire state. One accidental breach, and that will be all she wrote for the economy of an entire state.

    That pipeline is sure a lot of effort to go to so that we can be sure the Canadians will be able to more easily ship their oil to whatever overseas market will pay more for it than the United States....and that's *exactly* what will happen when that oil gets to the Gulf of Mexico.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    Chuck-I get you now. I understand where you are coming from.
    October 18, 2012 2:40 pm
    Quite simply, you couldn't care less if the USA suceeds or fails!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Do any of the Keystone Pipe Dream supporters know how to read a map?
    October 18, 2012 8:17 am
    If the crude oil from Canada were *really* destined to improve the supply of crude in the United States (where there is currently no critical shortage of crude oil)the pipeline would terminate near American refineries somewhere in the center of the country.

    As it is, the plans call for it to terminate at a tanker facility on the Gulf Coast.

    Duh................

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Jobs, Chuck, Jobs.
    October 18, 2012 8:45 am
    30,000 or more just to build it.

    And that Canadian oil would go to foreign markets anyway. No matter where it's refined. So better American workers refining it.

    Did I say jobs?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    30,000 jobs?
    October 18, 2012 9:04 am
    Do you suppose the motels and restaurants will need to hire than many burger flippers and maids to feed and house the Canadians who come down here to build the pipeline?

    The oil is shipped as crude, Paul, not as a refined product. Think about it; would you want to sail on a tanker filled with gasoline? Kerbloowie.....

    Crude can be made into a variety of products that meet sometimes shifting demands in a variety of markets. Once you convert crude oil to gasoline, diesel, kerosene, or whatever; it's purpose is pretty well established.

    If you want to put 30,000 people to work, start with some of the decaying infrastructure right here in the US. That's more important than seeing that Canadian billionaires can more easily ship oil to developing nations who will outbid the US for the oil (if available to them) and drive *up* our domestic prices.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    Chuck-why are u dead set against the pipeline?
    October 18, 2012 9:51 am
    Did msnbc come out against it. I am sure you would love it if Obama loved it. Stop being in love with any politician, it will set you free!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Chuck
    October 18, 2012 12:22 pm
    YOu do not know what you are talking about! I know people that are out there, right now, preparing for what needs to be done to facilitate THOUSANDS of people coming to work. DO you not think the Governors and leaders of those states and communities are preparing for this??? This has been in the works for years! Sorry, but you are sadly ill-informed.It is a WIN-WIN for the Country!! Unless you have been out there or know anybody out there involved you really should try to pontificate with FACTS.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Well, now that you've reminded me..........
    October 18, 2012 12:29 pm
    There WILL be a lot of hospitality and service jobs created to support those workers. .. Might be where Boehner gets his '100.000'.

    Uh, no, Chuck. .. You'll get a few in top management, but not 30,000 Canadian construction workers. .. The construction jobs would be 95% USA and of the added refinery workers in Texas nearly 100%.

    And if those Canadian 'billionaires' are going to ship their oil to China anyway, our American wages can certainly do our part to reduce their profits.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Edgar Allan Pho wrote...
    Where'd you get the 30,000 number?
    October 18, 2012 9:17 am
    Transcanada estimate: 20,000

    US Chamber of Commerce: 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs

    U.S. State Department: 5-6,000

    Cornell University Global Labor Institute: 500 to 1,400 temporary construction jobs. The authors of the September report also said that much of the new employment stemming from Keystone would be outside the U.S.

    Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company said last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions.

    Another reason for the discrepancy appears to stem from what that 20,000 figure really means. As Transcanada has conceded, its estimate counted up "job years" spent on the project, not jobs. In other words, the company was counting a single construction worker who worked for two years on Keystone as two jobs, lending fuel to critics who said advocates of the pipeline were overstating its benefits.

    The Cornell study also states that there is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL -- steel pipe -- will not even be produced in the U.S.

    John Boehner says it will create 100,000 new jobs. You can trust that guy.

    And if you're a vet, Fox has some pipeline jobs for you: "Updated: Fox Invents Keystone Pipeline Jobs For Veterans".

    The job creation number could also be negative: "Fox... is clinging to the discredited claim that the Keystone XL pipeline would create at least 20,000 jobs. In fact, even the pipeline owner acknowledges that the total jobs created by the pipeline would be far fewer, and an independent report has found that the project could actually destroy more jobs than it creates through higher fuel costs and environmental damage."

    Maybe this needs to be looked into with what they used to call 'an open mind'. I'll go find someplace where people are able to do that...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Yo Edgar Allen Pinhead
    October 18, 2012 12:26 pm
    Why don't you head out there and talk to the companies and businesses and people and really find out what is going on. You have you obviously Liberal HEAD UP YOURASS!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • PaperMachete wrote...
    Maplefish
    October 19, 2012 10:08 pm
    So you believe Edgar Allen Pho, instead of citing valid sources and studies (including the company building the pipeline) should go talk to people and amass anecdotal evidence? Really? The reason Michael Moore is so good at what he does is he can find people who will back his claims. Anyone can do that. You can reference friends you have. Someone else, guaranteed, can drudge up other people who will tell you - with first hand knowledge - about how it's a horrible idea and won't create that many jobs. Maybe you need to rely less on anecdotal evidence instead of blasting someone who cited several sources.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    If these Rightys were capable of doing the math
    October 19, 2012 3:17 pm
    They would also conclude that in NO way would 30,000 jobs be created.Putting pipe into the ground (or above it) is not like putting a man on the moon.The technology already exists.It welding pipes and building pump stations and not much more
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Chuck.
    October 18, 2012 11:15 am
    Why not drill our own oil?

    Duh!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    And yet...
    October 18, 2012 9:48 am
    ...who is it that is ultimately responsible for negotiating the trade agreements that make such ventures possible?

    Somebody is asleep at the wheel...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lonestar wrote...
    The Canadians will build the pipeline
    October 18, 2012 10:07 am
    They can point it south or west. And if the pipeline goes west to the Prince Rupert Sound and there is a spill, any guesses as to where the oil slick will end up?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pete in Seattle wrote...
    Jobs
    October 18, 2012 10:17 am
    The numbers can be finagled as everyone knows. There are x direct labor jobs to do the actual building, y jobs to transport materials to the job sites, z jobs to build parts (e.g.steel), and some factor times all of those to support them. That means plenty of opportunities to cherry pick the numbers and make them add up to whatever you want them to add up to. Oh, and they could have built the line along the railroad over to Prince Rupert, but that would mean disturbing the Canadian pristine wilderness instead of ours.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    It has been a few days since the "Mother of all debates"....
    October 18, 2012 10:57 am
    And Heckle and Jeckle's talking points are bizzare in themselves. Todays talking point the pipeline. Just curious about why there was no discussiln regarding "CNN's Candy Crowley's ill-considered intervention as moderator-in-chief", or her apology for her mistake after the debate....or how about, Readers of US Weekly might have had some sticker shock when they saw a headline yesterday breaking the news that Ann Romney's debate-night dress retails for $1,690. But it turns out Michelle Obama's debate ensemble cost twice as much. The US Weekly piece went on to report this, but somehow the Obama outfit pricetag was not mentioned in the headline.....or You two liberals might also want to discuss the very recent Gallaup poll showing you "God of Gods" slipping further.......but why the heck do that right guys, bring up the pipeling, and tomorrow maybe the Seattle Times support of McKenna.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WingNut2 wrote...
    Canadian oil
    October 18, 2012 11:41 am
    So if the Canadians have so much oil and no place to send it, why isn't gas $.50 a gallon up there? In fact, their gas is the same price as ours and the pipeline will just be a way to ship their oil to China. Why bother!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }