Friday, October 21, 2011

Comment on Your Official Here

Tell us what your elected official is doing on the Keystone XL Pipeline question.


  1. I wrote to Sen. Norman Wallman. All he said was, "I have concerns." Pretty non-committal.

  2. Ken Haar has done a lot of work on the pipeline and wants to have a special session. Go Ken!

  3. Heinemann finally calling a special session. Let's see if he means it or is just letting the senate do the dirty work. Either way, he can say it wasn't his fault, right?

  4. Langemeier tried to stop every other senator from changing the route or protecting farmers. All of a sudden, he's got a bill giving all power to the governor.

    Anybody else smell a rat?

  5. How about Nebraska's federal officials?

    Which vested interests are bankrolling Rep. Smith on the proposed oil pipeline?
    Exxon Mobil $1,000
    Koch Industries $2,500
    Petroleum Marketers Assn. $1,500
    *Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, October 31, 2011.

    Which vested interests are bankrolling Rep. Terry on the proposed oil pipeline?
    Assn of Oil Pipe Lines $1,000
    Chevron Corp $2,000
    Exxon Mobil $3,000
    Koch Industries $1,000
    National Petrochemical & Refiners Assn $1,000
    Petroleum Marketers Assn $1,000
    Society of Indep Gasoline Marketers $3,000
    Valero Energy $2,500
    *Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Monday, October 31, 2011.

  6. The environmentalists don't have a clue. You're just shooting yourselves in the foot & you don't know it.
    1. For now you are dependent on oil, so you can either get it from an ethical source like Alberta, Canada or a human rights abuser like Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran, who gladly takes your money, but would like nothing better then to see the US destroyed.
    2. You already have almost 400 of over 100,000 miles of just crude oil pipeline crisscrossing the US. And yet this 1 is a major issue??
    3. The oil from the Alberta Oilsands is far less polluting and has a smaller carbon footprint then Californias fossil fuels.
    4. This pipeline will produce thousands of jobs and billions of dollars investment in the US that needs both badly.
    5. So, instead of shipping oil in a pipeline which is probably one of the safest and most reliable means of shipping fuel, you continue to have it shipped thousands of miles from the middle east, first by pipeline to the coast, then by fuel tanker, then off loaded to the US, then by rail or other means.
    6. Alberta already is one of the biggest, if not the biggest supplier of oil to the US. But the US's thirst for oil keeps getting bigger. Where do you plan to get it from? Venezuela? Other countries that hate the US, but gladly take your money??

    The environuts have not thought this through, and the US public will be the ones to pay for it. The opposition makes no sound logical sense. The Alberta Oil is the safest, cost effective, environmentally sound, ethical source of energy from a secure reliable source that will provide thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment.

    But hey, if you don't want it, we'll gladly sell it to someone else, then don't come crying to us when Saudi Arabia or Iraq shuts off the taps.

    Also, some of the comments on the comments board make no sense. Like the comment "What does Canada think" He remarks thats the pipeline will result in less jobs for Canadians and Americans. Huh??? Does the pipeline build itself?? Does the crude oil refine itself?? The issue that Canadians have is that they would like MORE of the jobs to be for Canadians. That doesn't mean that we will lose jobs, it just means that we wish that there would be more. Also, many would like the oil to be refined in Canada and shipped as a finished product, creating more jobs for Canadians rather then shipping the crude oil to Texas to be refined. Your argument makes no logical sense.

  7. Hey, Harry. How come you're not a patriotic Canadian?
    Canadians want a refinery built in Canada. Give jobs to Canadians.

    And it's great that you're smarter than Cornell Univ. (which says the Keystone will create 6000 jobs but might cost more jobs because oil prices will rise).

    And of course you're more logical than the NYTimes, the Baltimore Sun, the LA Times, the Chicago Trib. They all said we don't need this pipeline.

    If you bothered to read before screaming, you'd know the U.S. already imports a lot of oil from Canada, and that won't change.

    You'd also know that people tried to get TransCanada to change the route to save drinking water. TransCanada refused. They got what they asked for. They could have gotten their permit, and hardly anybody would have noticed.

    Now a lot of people are asking questions.
    That's not good for guys selling oil.

    If you don't mind oil in your water, why don't you take a nice vacation on a tailing pond beach in Northern Alberta?


Comments will appear after approval by moderator. Please keep comments on topic and be courteous.