• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Keystone Pipeline= 35 permanent jobs

roads need regular maintenance. they also directly impact tens of millions of other jobs.

The Keystone Pipeline does not do this.
 
wfumike02 said:
Regardless of whether Keystone is a good idea or not, how is this any different from roads projects (which have been a major component of the Obama Administration's economic policy)?

Roads also create pollution too, BTW.
Click to expand...

This.

 
Well to begin with private entities will benefit instead of the general public.
 
PhDeac said:
I won't pretend to know anything about managing a pipeline. Is that 1660 miles in the US? How many people would you think would be necessary to management that much pipeline? What does such a job entail? Watching computer monitors? Hoping the red button doesn't blink? In person inspections? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I don't know specifically, but I'd buy what WFFaithful said about 1 person/mile. Maybe less than that since the weather wouldn't be as extreme as in Alaska.
I was thinking more just regular maintenance though. (Painting/coating the thing would require more than 35 people working around the clock I would imagine) That many miles, exposed to the elements, I would imagine there are pump stations every few dozen miles those would need maintenance and upkeep, there would probably be redundancies every so often so you could divert main flow and do maintenance on certain sections. It's not as simple as someone just watching the store from a computer screen. Metal exposed to the elements with the heat/pressures of a pipeline acting as catalyst for corrosion would likely need regular maintenance/replacement.
The golden gate bridge has a full time staff of 50 people working full time just to keep it maintained....i know a pipeline and a bridge aren't the same thing, but it's something to think about.
 
Many more private entities benefit from fixing roads than will ever benefit in the US from the Keystone Pipeline.

Keystone is a self-indulgent scam. It will not help our country and could harm parts of it badly.

There is no logical reason to do it. I hope Obama doesn't pussy out and OK it.
 
Baconwfu said:
I don't know specifically, but I'd buy what WFFaithful said about 1 person/mile. Maybe less than that since the weather wouldn't be as extreme as in Alaska.
I was thinking more just regular maintenance though. (Painting/coating the thing would require more than 35 people working around the clock I would imagine) That many miles, exposed to the elements, I would imagine there are pump stations every few dozen miles those would need maintenance and upkeep, there would probably be redundancies every so often so you could divert main flow and do maintenance on certain sections. It's not as simple as someone just watching the store from a computer screen. Metal exposed to the elements with the heat/pressures of a pipeline acting as catalyst for corrosion would likely need regular maintenance/replacement.
The golden gate bridge has a full time staff of 50 people working full time just to keep it maintained....i know a pipeline and a bridge aren't the same thing, but it's something to think about.
Click to expand...

They gave the numbers to the State Department. That's how the number was created. It's not the State Department saying this. It's Keystone telling them.

Again why would we do this? Why would we put communities at risk of oil spills when no one in our nation will ever use a drop of this oil?
 
Thanks, bacon. That makes sense.
 
RJKarl said:
They gave the numbers to the State Department. That's how the number was created. It's not the State Department saying this. It's Keystone telling them.

Again why would we do this? Why would we put communities at risk of oil spills when no one in our nation will ever use a drop of this oil?
Click to expand...

i may be mistaken, but i think the 35 is purely a state department estimate. On some supplemental reading it said the state dept actually had a quote "as low as" 20 while Trans-Canada's report said at least a few hundred to a few thousand. Obviously the Trans-Canada report may be biased, but it makes more sense than the State Dept estimate
 
Well if there's a leak or worse, its gonna take more than 35 folks to clean it up so there's more jobs created. Quit being such a Sierra Club member RJ.
 
DeacWatcher said:
Well if there's a leak or worse, its gonna take more than 35 folks to clean it up so there's more jobs created. Quit being such a Sierra Club member RJ.
Click to expand...

So basically you want to risk our environment to benefit a Canadian company that is giving cheap and very dirty oil to the Chinese. We don't make shit out of it.

The real question should be - Why won't the Canadians have their pipeline to the Pacific rather than having to move that oil so much farther?
 
DeacMan said:
Wait, who works for the private entities? I presume members of the general public, but maybe we've got that all wrong.
Click to expand...

Canadian contractors and investors?

I personally wouldn't want the general public building a cheap as possible pipeline filled with shit no one knows how to clean up going through my city, knowing full well that it will leak at least twice a decade, and then watching TransCanada declare bankruptcy after the first "spill."

"An honest assessment of the Keystone XL project will show that the oil will be exported and will not benefit U.S. consumers or any reasonable definition of the nation’s interest."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...anada-is-losing-the-keystone-pipeline-debate/

Except when the pipeline leaks in Nebraska, we have to fucking deal with it.

I guess BP created jobs for people on the gulf coast after their little issue needed cleaning up (and now run ads about how much they contributed to the crisis they created as an act of altruism). Should we just explode every oil platform to create jobs?
 
Last edited:
ONW said:
"An honest assessment of the Keystone XL project will show that the oil will be exported and will not benefit U.S. consumers or any reasonable definition of the nation’s interest."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...anada-is-losing-the-keystone-pipeline-debate/
Click to expand...

I have to disagree here. First there is nothing that says that the oil has to be exported. Additionally, Russia has used the ability to shut off natural gas to Europe quite effectively. If the pipeline is running through the US we would have the ability to shut off part of China's oil flow.
 
That's a good point, Mangler.
 
There are likely more than 35 people in just one of the crews that cleans the holding tanks on the pipeline.
 
The Mangler said:
I have to disagree here. First there is nothing that says that the oil has to be exported. Additionally, Russia has used the ability to shut off natural gas to Europe quite effectively. If the pipeline is running through the US we would have the ability to shut off part of China's oil flow.
Click to expand...

I agree in theory, but

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303802904579334411874909686

"Greater diversity of supply helps shield the Chinese economy from political risks that threaten its stability. Chinese oil companies operate in parts of the world where political and social instability routinely puts flow of resources at risk."

"The release of Tuesday's data concludes a landmark year for Chinese oil companies abroad. In February, Cnooc Ltd. 0883.HK +0.16% , the listed unit of the country's primary offshore oil producer, closed on its $15.1 billion purchase of Canada's Nexen Inc.—the largest foreign acquisition of a company by a Chinese firm."

WO-AR039_CHINAO_NS_20140121184204.jpg


And we fought a war to see the Chinese not have to care about Canadian and US oil exports.
 
Last edited:
That's a good point, ONW.
 
Yeah, the Keystone oil actually can't be exported. It can only be used in the U.S. market by law due to our export ban. It's conceivable the ban could be lifted in the future, but that's a fight that's going to take a very long time to work out -- might not even be settled in our lifetime; it's that entrenched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top