StarTribune.com | User comments

Another twist in the pipeline debate

Article by: EDITORIAL , Los Angeles Times
Updated: December 16, 2012 - 5:56 PM

An obscure oil industry term that may soon be trending on your search engine as controversy deepens over the Keystone XL pipeline.

4
Comments

Newest first
Oldest first

1 - 4 of 4

pumiceDec. 16, 12 6:53 PM

The commentary's conclusion: "Nonetheless, there are reasons to worry that the environmental and engineering risks of this project haven't been adequately vetted." Y' think?

pumiceDec. 16, 12 6:56 PM

From the commentary: "Ongoing cleanup has cost more than $800 million, making it the most expensive onshore pipeline spill in U.S. history." Another Big Oil subsidy courtesy of the US taxpayer?

army1994Dec. 17, 12 8:41 AM

Might be more supportive of the pipeline if the oil (and gas) were going to stay here and truly provide energy independence. The fact is, they want the pipeline to the gulf so they can EXPORT the oil. This will not only NOT provide energy independence (just more money for the oil companies) it will raise gas prices in Minnesota. The risk to the environment with no benefit to the taxpayers beyond those who hold stock in the oil companies is unacceptable.

davehougDec. 17, 1212:09 PM

This is the first time in the controversy I have caught a clear explanation of WHY XL was different than other pipelines. Up to now all I heard was the source created more CO2. Transporting a product that SINKS makes all the rivers and lakes in a whole different sort of hurt when the leaks come.

1 - 4 of 4

Comment on this story |

about opinion
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
Submit a letter or commentary
Sign up for the Opinion newsletter