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.
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.
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?
Well to begin with private entities will benefit instead of the general public.
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.
Wait, who works for the private entities? I presume members of the general public, but maybe we've got that all wrong.
"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/
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.