NO PIPELINE! Thanks Mr. President

Is it really that hard to provide a link BL? Or are you incapable of that?

Hopefully, the keystone pipeline will destroy the unicorn farms and rainbow ranches that are the solar and windmill (bird chopper) industries. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Are you just to lazy to look it up?

We supply it and then you deny it!

Get it yourself. Aww fuc it, here...

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallab...eystonexl.html

How many jobs do you think this will create?

How will this lower the price at the pump for people here in the States if they are just going to ship the refined shit out of the country?

http://www.chron.com/business/steffy...of-2642909.php

Read the above link if you want some balance.

Do you just get all you talking points from Rush and Sean?

That's the way it's always been presented: 10,000 high-end ($20 to $50 per hour, plus per diem) construction jobs for two years; plus, peripheral jobs, e.g., restaurant, catering, hotel etc.,. Right now, Keystone XL is offering about 10,000 more jobs than Solyndra. Plus, there will be scores of permanent maintenance jobs after the pipe is laid.

That's the way it's always been presented: 10,000 high-end ($20 to $50 per hour, plus per diem) construction jobs for two years; plus, peripheral jobs, e.g., restaurant, catering, hotel etc.,. Right now, Keystone XL is offering about 10,000 more jobs than Solyndra. Plus, there will be scores of permanent maintenance jobs after the pipe is laid. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wow...the way some folks are crying about this project , I thought it solved both our energy and job problems all at once.

Turns out, to create around 6500 jobs over a two year period.

AND if you read the link below, that is not even a sure thing!

Wow, sounds like politics 101 to me.

http://www.chron.com/business/steffy...of-2642909.php

From the beginning, the fight wasn't about a pipeline; it was about a permit. Even if the State Department granted the permission for the line to cross the U.S.-Canadian border, it didn't mean the pipeline would be built.
As I wrote last year, an influx of Canadian crude into the northern U.S. has caused the flow of oil from the Gulf Coast to the Midwest to slow to a trickle.
Owners of those pipelines have yet to reverse their flows, but it's a safe bet that if TransCanada announced it was going forward with the Keystone line, at least some of them would.
That's what happened when Houston-based Enterprise Product Partners said it would move forward with the Wrangler pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to Houston. ConocoPhillips sold to Enbridge its stake in the Seaway pipeline, which follows a similar route but flowed north from the Gulf. Enbridge and Enterprise, which also owned part of the line, said they would reverse the flow.
If other pipeline operators follow Seaway's lead, the economic rationale for Keystone may disappear.

Wow...the way some folks are crying about this project , I thought it solved both our energy and job problems all at once.

Turns out, to create around 6500 jobs over a two year period.

AND if you read the link below, that is not even a sure thing!

Wow, sounds like politics 101 to me.

http://www.chron.com/business/steffy...of-2642909.php

From the beginning, the fight wasn't about a pipeline; it was about a permit. Even if the State Department granted the permission for the line to cross the U.S.-Canadian border, it didn't mean the pipeline would be built.
As I wrote last year, an influx of Canadian crude into the northern U.S. has caused the flow of oil from the Gulf Coast to the Midwest to slow to a trickle.
Owners of those pipelines have yet to reverse their flows, but it's a safe bet that if TransCanada announced it was going forward with the Keystone line, at least some of them would.
That's what happened when Houston-based Enterprise Product Partners said it would move forward with the Wrangler pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to Houston. ConocoPhillips sold to Enbridge its stake in the Seaway pipeline, which follows a similar route but flowed north from the Gulf. Enbridge and Enterprise, which also owned part of the line, said they would reverse the flow.
If other pipeline operators follow Seaway's lead, the economic rationale for Keystone may disappear. Originally Posted by WTF

Still more jobs than Solyndra! $50 per hour for a blue collar job is damn good. It's $75 per hour after eight hours in one day and for every hour over forty during one week. It's $100 per hour on Sundays and holidays. A man working 7-12s is paid damn well for one week of work. Then multiply that by 104 weeks - with per diem, that's almost $700,000 before taxes.

How about a quick look at a couple of those paragons of objectivity a few of you naysayers have cited?

First consider the businessinsider.com piece linked by Little Stevie in post #61. Its premise is centered around a report by the NRDC and Oil Change International. Both are anti-fossil fuel advocacy groups pushing for a radical green agenda. Just take a look at the latter's "blogroll" on the left-hand side of its page. See what I mean?

Then consider the Cornell University "Global Labor Institute" linked by Big Louie. Come on, guys. Don't you think the name is in and of itself something of a giveaway of just what its bias might be? Among other things, its home page links a video on how unions are working with the green movement. That should tell you all you need to know.

I think most will agree that both sides demagogue the issue. The oil industry and pro-business groups may make a number of exaggerated claims about potential job creation, but the suggestion that it would be in our best interest to kill the pipeline forever and just let all that oil be exported to Asia is ridiculous.

The claim that all that refined product from heavy crude would be exported is similarly ridiculous. It is true that heavy, sour oil is best suited for the production of middle distillates, but keep in mind that we have about seven million thirsty 18-wheelers as well as millions of other diesel-powered vehicles. Additionally, Jet A is a middle distillate (similar to diesel fuel) and there's plenty of domestic demand. Refinery capacity not best suited for the heavy crudes can be reserved for domestic supply of gasoline and other refines products.

How about a quick look at a couple of those paragons of objectivity a few of you naysayers have cited?

First consider the businessinsider.com piece linked by Little Stevie in post #61. Its premise is centered around a report by the NRDC and Oil Change International. Both are anti-fossil fuel advocacy groups pushing for a radical green agenda. Just take a look at the latter's "blogroll" on the left-hand side of its page. See what I mean?

Then consider the Cornell University "Global Labor Institute" linked by Big Louie. Come on, guys. Don't you think the name is in and of itself something of a giveaway of just what its bias might be? Among other things, its home page links a video on how unions are working with the green movement. That should tell you all you need to know.

I think most will agree that both sides demagogue the issue. The oil industry and pro-business groups may make a number of exaggerated claims about potential job creation, but the suggestion that it would be in our best interest to kill the pipeline forever and just let all that oil be exported to Asia is ridiculous.

The claim that all that refined product from heavy crude would be exported is similarly ridiculous. It is true that heavy, sour oil is best suited for the production of middle distillates, but keep in mind that we have about seven million thirsty 18-wheelers as well as millions of other diesel-powered vehicles. Additionally, Jet A is a middle distillate (similar to diesel fuel) and there's plenty of domestic demand. Refinery capacity not best suited for the heavy crudes can be reserved for domestic supply of gasoline and other refines products. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

After researching this issue further. This is really just a knat on an elephants ass. A few jobs. Nothing more. This is starting to look more and more like much a do about nothing.

Let us not lay all the blame at the current admin feet also.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/20/c...ystone-denial/


Why? Corbella says TransCanada could have easily avoided one of the major sticking points – the critical aquifer in Nebraska’s Sandhills.

“It became evident early on in this three-year process that concerns over an environmentally sensitive area in the north-central part of the state of Nebraska was going to be a problem,” she wrote. “But TransCanada remained stubbornly opposed to moving its proposed route to the far east of the state, where it already has a pipeline that by-passes the Ogallala aquifer as well as the controversy.”
“Why? Because shifting the route would have added about 100 kilometres to the pipeline and cost Trans Canada anywhere between a reported $200 million and $470 million,” she added.

Corbella said the company tried to save pennies on a project that could have brought in billions, and they should take some of the blame.

----------------------------------------------



Now let us take a look at this report. You must read the whole article as it points out counterpoints.

Does anyone really think that the oil and gas companies have the American people's best interest at heart?


http://www.chron.com/business/articl...-S-2642905.php

Exporting some of the glut of natural gas in the U.S. market will cause its domestic price to surge and electric bills to rise modestly, a federal agency said Thursday.
Researchers at the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that the U.S. price of natural gas will rise even without exports. But the increase would be as much as 54 percent higher in 2018 if the U.S. allowed 12 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas exports, according to the report.
Several companies are seeking federal approval to export liquefied natural gas to Asian and European countries, where natural gas prices are as much as five times higher than in the United States.
The U.S. price has plunged below $3 per million British thermal units, from more than $15 a few years ago

Still more jobs than Solyndra! $50 per hour for a blue collar job is damn good. It's $75 per hour after eight hours in one day and for every hour over forty during one week. It's $100 per hour on Sundays and holidays. A man working 7-12s is paid damn well for one week of work. Then multiply that by 104 weeks - with per diem, that's almost $700,000 before taxes. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Damn I B is that going to be the average salary of each worker or the median?

Damn I B is that going to be the average salary of each worker or the median? Originally Posted by WTF

High end. But $300,000 bottom end is nothing to sneeze at.

It is hard to find objective sources on this issue since most are players in the game. I agree with Captain Midnight's assertion that the oil is adequate for diesel fuel and is not the be all and end all advertised by the oil company players. I do NOT agree that much would NOT be exported simply because by using less sophisticated refining a cheaper product could be produced for overseas customers and easily sold to those countries that did not have the clean air standards we have and it could be sold to them at a much higher percentage of profit.

I'm too busy laughing my ass off at the projection of "SCORES" of permanent maintenance jobs AND the "but look at Solyndra" crap that is supposed to justify everything.

I'm too busy laughing my ass off at the projection of "SCORES" of permanent maintenance jobs AND the "but look at Solyndra" crap that is supposed to justify everything. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You have already demonstrated you know nothing about the industry. BTW, many of the "accidents" you listed involved some ignorant fool running machinery into a stationary object.

There's no reasoning with Stevie. And btw, I don't listen to talk radio, I listen to NPR, and I don't like Obama because I don't think he is good for America.

And I don't like the oil companies, but the jobs are going somewhere, and they might as well be here. If they can avoid the aquifer, I'm all for it, even if I don't think it is in much danger anyway.

Stevie's right about something, we have to reduce the stranglehold the oil companies have on government. But I can see now he came to the proper conclusion by accident, and not through any serious analysis.

You Teapublican morons! Your FIRST argument was that we were going to use the oil HERE. Then when that falls apart you still want to make it easy to sell high sulfur content oil tar to other countries.

And WrongStuffer, if a plastic part fails and the resulting gas leak blows up a day care van carrying 6 kids, is that the minor/major threshold you're trying to defend? Your "minor failure" point is a major flop. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Little Stevie, I'll "speak" slowly so you can understand it this time. I didn't say that a plastic fitting failure that hurt people was a minor issue. Obviously that would be tragic. What I did say is that plastic doesn't compare to metal that is installed and properly maintained. You are trying to compare apples to monkey shit and no amount of logic will get in your way.

And btw, I don't listen to talk radio, I listen to NPR, and I don't like Obama because I don't think he is good for America. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Really? As if those clueless circus clowns that are running for the Republican nomination are any good. Half of them are in the back pocket of the Koch brothers and take their orders from them and to hell with the American people.

I don't like the clowns running for the Republican nomination either.

High end. But $300,000 bottom end is nothing to sneeze at. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

6500 jobs over two years is not a whole lot but yes for those folks it would be a boom.

My point is does this story deserve all the attention it has garnered or is it more a ppolitical stunt?

The more I look into it, the more it appears to be more hype and political haymaking.


Now why do you think they would TransCanada would not have had a plan around the aquifer?

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/20/c...ystone-denial/


Why? Corbella says TransCanada could have easily avoided one of the major sticking points – the critical aquifer in Nebraska’s Sandhills.

“It became evident early on in this three-year process that concerns over an environmentally sensitive area in the north-central part of the state of Nebraska was going to be a problem,” she wrote. “But TransCanada remained stubbornly opposed to moving its proposed route to the far east of the state, where it already has a pipeline that by-passes the Ogallala aquifer as well as the controversy.”
“Why? Because shifting the route would have added about 100 kilometres to the pipeline and cost Trans Canada anywhere between a reported $200 million and $470 million,” she added.

Corbella said the company tried to save pennies on a project that could have brought in billions, and they should take some of the blame.