• 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

RJKarl

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...reate-35-permanent-jobs-State-Department-says

Yes, there will be a bunch of temporary jobs (which will then layoff all these people). However according to the filing there will only be 35 permanent US jobs.

So let's build this pipeline for dirty oil.

Let's build this pipeline without the ability to clean up after if inevitably sprouts leaks.

Let's build this pipeline so that China will be able to buy Canadian oil.
 
And yet 35 is still more shovel-ready jobs than the administration can brag about.
 
You mean other than taking over the presidency when were shedding over 700,000 jobs per month versus averaging adding about 200,000/month for the past several months?

That's a net gain of 900,000 jobs/month....if his name wasn't Obama, you'd be saying that's great.
 
All politics aside, I would be shocked if that was an honest and true number.
It's supposed to be 1660 miles long, that's one man for every 47 miles of pipeline. So I call BS on 35 full time jobs. It may not be a huge number of jobs, but it's got to be more than 35. If it's 500 or so, I could buy that, not that 500 is some great number that would be the political justification (you're either for it or against it), my point is that there is just no way it's only 35.
I would be skeptical of anything from the Christian Science Monitor.
 
Baconwfu said:
All politics aside, I would be shocked if that was an honest and true number.
It's supposed to be 1660 miles long, that's one man for every 47 miles of pipeline. So I call BS on 35 full time jobs. It may not be a huge number of jobs, but it's got to be more than 35. If it's 500 or so, I could buy that, not that 500 is some great number that would be the political justification (you're either for it or against it), my point is that there is just no way it's only 35.
I would be skeptical of anything from the Christian Science Monitor.
Click to expand...

They're simply citing a State Dept. report. I would certainly be skeptical of anything from the State Dept.
 
Baconwfu said:
All politics aside, I would be shocked if that was an honest and true number.
It's supposed to be 1660 miles long, that's one man for every 47 miles of pipeline. So I call BS on 35 full time jobs. It may not be a huge number of jobs, but it's got to be more than 35. If it's 500 or so, I could buy that, not that 500 is some great number that would be the political justification (you're either for it or against it), my point is that there is just no way it's only 35.
I would be skeptical of anything from the Christian Science Monitor.
Click to expand...

The CSM is too liberal for you?
 
"TransCanada told Daniel in writing that questions about spills were hypothetical because their pipeline would be designed not to spill. But in a document for the State Department, TransCanada predicted two spills every 10 years over the entire length of its Keystone XL pipeline, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Some scientists argue that the company underestimates that risk. Another pipeline it put into service two years ago has had 14 spills in the United States, although most were small, according to TransCanada."

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158025375/when-this-oil-spills-its-a-whole-new-monster

It will create thousands of jobs trying to clean these spills up. See Michigan.
 
RJKarl said:
The CSM is too liberal for you?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know much about the publication, but I do know the premise of christian scientists and they seem wacko.
However, on about 5 minutes of researching the publication the general consensus i found was that they aren't necessarily connected to the church but for some reason still have the name, so maybe it's more reliable than it's name would lend me to believe, but my assertion of the number of permanent jobs still stands
For reference, I'm not religious at all
 
Any time you move a liquid from one point to another, there's a risk of spilling it. Shit, I spilled some water on my shirt like 5 minutes ago.

Rail, pipeline, shipping, whatever. The world needs oil to function. Building or not building Keystone XL isn't going to change that.
 
ONW said:
"TransCanada told Daniel in writing that questions about spills were hypothetical because their pipeline would be designed not to spill. But in a document for the State Department, TransCanada predicted two spills every 10 years over the entire length of its Keystone XL pipeline, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Some scientists argue that the company underestimates that risk. Another pipeline it put into service two years ago has had 14 spills in the United States, although most were small, according to TransCanada."

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158025375/when-this-oil-spills-its-a-whole-new-monster

It will create thousands of jobs trying to clean these spills up. See Michigan.
Click to expand...

Oops. At least they aren't pumping unknown chemical waste into the ground like in NC.
 
Baconwfu said:
I honestly don't know much about the publication, but I do know the premise of christian scientists and they seem wacko.
However, on about 5 minutes of researching the publication the general consensus i found was that they aren't necessarily connected to the church but for some reason still have the name, so maybe it's more reliable than it's name would lend me to believe, but my assertion of the number of permanent jobs still stands
For reference, I'm not religious at all
Click to expand...

They are one of the most well respected (and right leaning) newspapers in the US.

The numbers come from documents Keystone has provided. They aren't estimates made up by others. These numbers are in Keystone's own documents.

The reality is this is a scam that won't help US consumers one bit. It is also a dangerous product for which clean up protocols do not exist.

As ONW has shown, when there is a spill of this product clean up is nearly impossible.

Why should we do something Canada isn't willing to do for their own companies?

Why should we put our country at risk to enrich the Canadians and the Chinese? This oil is never going to be used in the US.
 
RJKarl said:
They are one of the most well respected (and right leaning) newspapers in the US.

The numbers come from documents Keystone has provided. They aren't estimates made up by others. These numbers are in Keystone's own documents.

The reality is this is a scam that won't help US consumers one bit. It is also a dangerous product for which clean up protocols do not exist.

As ONW has shown, when there is a spill of this product clean up is nearly impossible.

Why should we do something Canada isn't willing to do for their own companies?

Why should we put our country at risk to enrich the Canadians and the Chinese? This oil is never going to be used in the US.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into the politics with you, but I still don't buy that number as a practical employment number is all I'm saying.
I could go to the gas station and turn $5 into $50MM, but from a practical standpoint that's not going to happen, just as from a practical standpoint 35 people couldn't manage a 1660 mile pipeline.
 
I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about reality.

None of the oil is being sold in the US. We are putting our nation at rich to enrich companies in foreign countries with little to no benefit for our people. It doesn't make sense on any level.

The only reason to support is political. It isn't about economics.
 
Baconwfu said:
I'm not going to get into the politics with you, but I still don't buy that number as a practical employment number is all I'm saying.
I could go to the gas station and turn $5 into $50MM, but from a practical standpoint that's not going to happen, just as from a practical standpoint 35 people couldn't manage a 1660 mile pipeline.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

A lot of the time the automated sensors on the pipelines either don't trip or don't trip until it's already too late. A big portion of the discovery of leaks and spills happen via the public.
 
Are the Keystone Pipeline employees allowed to unionize?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top