Posted By RichC on September 15, 2014
Since visiting my son Taylor a couple times in northwestern (Williston) North Dakota, I pay closer attention to what is happening in his area and the boom growth as well as the politics around moving energy. Unless someone sees the train tanker cars lined up or drive on the roads which are packed with truck caravans with their own eyes, it is not fair to weigh in “against” pipeline project on the ground that the pipeline is dangerous to the environment. It is hard to imagine that the pipeline would do more damage than the 1000s of trucks or miles of tanker cars? I suspect the real fight is against fossil fuels in general, not the the pipeline itself.
Monday morning on CNBC, Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D) represented her state well considering her party is for the most party responsible for the Keystone Pipeline hold up. Not only are there considerable jobs in areas that would benefit America at a time when jobs are a big issue, the oil from North America insulate us from being held hostage by OPEC. Heitkamp would be a far better Republican than Democrat IF you were only to hear her on Squawkbox, but unfortunately her “D” keeps Harry Reid in control of what is even discussed in the Senate … in this case pressuring President Obama to approve the pipeline. Below are embeds from CNBC and remarks from Senator Heitkamp talking about pluses and minus when it comes to boom growth in North Dakota. My question (which wasn’t asked or answered) has to do with most of the oil tax revenue staying in other parts of the state rather then helping Bakken (western less populated) part of North Dakota with the challenges of living in a boomtown (graphic above) as well as many of their infrastructure needs. (video below)