
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tragedy fuels debate over oil transport</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/our-view/tragedy-fuels-debate-over-oil-transport/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/our-view/tragedy-fuels-debate-over-oil-transport/</link>
	<description>Yolo County, California</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:11:01 -0700</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Rifkin</title>
		<link>http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/our-view/tragedy-fuels-debate-over-oil-transport/comment-page-1/#comment-436764</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rich Rifkin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:54:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davisenterprise.com/?p=356172#comment-436764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t have a strong view one way or the other on Keystone. However, I am sure of this: That oil will make it to market as long as there is demand for oil. And global demand for oil is now rising quickly. So if a pipeline does not send that oil from Canada to Texas, it will likely go a longer, less efficient route to the Canadian Pacific coast, by rail (more dangerous) or pipeline. And I cannot see how anyone who opposes the Keystone project thinks that is a better outcome than allowing Keystone, but regulating it so that its effects on our environment are less dangerous.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t have a strong view one way or the other on Keystone. However, I am sure of this: That oil will make it to market as long as there is demand for oil. And global demand for oil is now rising quickly. So if a pipeline does not send that oil from Canada to Texas, it will likely go a longer, less efficient route to the Canadian Pacific coast, by rail (more dangerous) or pipeline. And I cannot see how anyone who opposes the Keystone project thinks that is a better outcome than allowing Keystone, but regulating it so that its effects on our environment are less dangerous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noreen Mazelis</title>
		<link>http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/our-view/tragedy-fuels-debate-over-oil-transport/comment-page-1/#comment-436734</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Noreen Mazelis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 19:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davisenterprise.com/?p=356172#comment-436734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Blow up the railroads and the pipelines, then we can read by candlelight &amp; freeze our vonhintens off in winter.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blow up the railroads and the pipelines, then we can read by candlelight &amp; freeze our vonhintens off in winter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
