DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Clap clap Keystone pipeline veto

It's good to know we have people looking to preserve natural resources. It's good to know we have people looking to provide for the needs of today, while preserving the needs of future generations.

Sustainable development. Thank you Mr. Obama, way to stem the tide of oil and republicans for at least a couple years. 2+ years of more resources and less CO2

I don't get why so many people wanted this. It wouldn't even benefit us as a country. I think Clem posted an article that basically it would help the Koch brothers and no one else.

It would create jobs, both in the building of the pipeline, and in the maintenance and operation of the pipeline.

Let's not revert to slander. Just appreciate the resources to preserve.

a crap ton of temporary jobs, and very few permanent jobs.

for the price invested, that isn't remotely worth it.

Here's a good article on the job creation aspects of the keystone pipeline:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource...by-keystone-xl/

Basically, proponents of the pipeline tend to use the old job numbers, from when the pipeline was first proposed back in 1973 - those job estimates are very high (~20K jobs). However, the number of people needed to do projects like this has decreased dramatically.

The most recent US Government numbers predict between 5500-6000 temporary jobs. A study by TransCanada predicts 9000 jobs would be necessary (can't tell if these are the canadian jobs, or all jobs including US?)

Most importantly (IMO anyway)

"A State Department study projects only 35 permanent jobs in pipeline maintenance and inspection."

I am invested in railroads so I am just as happy to have it all shipped by rail even though sometimes we crash and burn down towns. Oh well, Obama's choice.

got this from your link as well:


Trans-Alaska Pipeline (actual)

Keystone XL Pipeline

(proposal)

Length
800 miles

1,179 miles

Maximum capacity in barrels per day
2.1 million BPD

830,000 BDP

Pipe diameter
48 inch

36 inch

Estimated cost before construction
$900 million

$5.3 billion

Actual cost
$8 billion

—

Construction time
3 years 2 months

2 years

Starting point
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska

Hardisty, Alberta

Termination
Valdez, Alaska

Houston, Texas

______

its a chart, so better to look at it from the link, but 5.3 billion dollars is the estimated cost before construction?

and all it brings is at best 6000 jobs, and only 35 percent of that will be permanent?

huh.... seems like this miracle word "jobs" is becoming about as empty as the word "change"

Why We Should ALL Want the Keystone Pipeline


Wall Street Daily
Mon, Feb 2, 2015
Shelley Goldberg, Commodity Strategist


After six years of debate and despite Obama’s veto threat, the Keystone XL bill cleared the Senate hurdle on January 29, 2015…

I, and everyone else who supports the building of the pipeline, see it as a critical infrastructure project.

Many opponents say it will have negative environmental and employment impacts, hence the strife.

But all the arguing in the world can’t change the reality that oil will come from Canada. The only question now is how…

It’s time for environmentalists to accept the facts and see the truth – the XL pipeline is the lesser of two evils.

Many argue that the Keystone XL will be used to send Canadian oil to the United States only to be exported to China and elsewhere. In actuality, it’s a supply line to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, which have a contract for up to a 20-year binding commercial agreement to receive oil through the XL pipeline and refine it into gasoline, aviation fuels, and diesel fuels for U.S. consumption.

Yes, U.S. refiners have been refining and exporting heavy Canadian crude, a cheaper grade than West Texas Intermediate. But given the current market condition and transportation costs, exporting is now less economically viable.

The fact is, the United States will still need to import oil to meet its domestic demand for decades to come, despite its growing oil production. Using oil from Canada will displace more expensive heavy crude oils coming from less stable countries, such as Venezuela and Mexico.

And let’s face it – most of us would prefer sourcing oil from a friendly neighbor than, say, Saudi Arabia.

In addition to transporting crude from Canada, the pipeline will also support the growth of crude production in the United States by allowing American oil producers greater access to the large refining markets in the Midwest and Gulf Coast.

The Keystone XL project is also expected to contribute roughly $3.4 billion to the economy.

In addition to the 42,100 direct and indirect jobs it will create during its two-year construction, the XL pipeline has already supported more than 7,000 jobs through the billions spent on sourcing U.S. goods and services.

And while many argue that the boon to employment is only temporary and jobs will terminate post-construction, pipelines do require ongoing operations, service, maintenance, and repair.

“But what about those destructive environmental and health impacts?” you might ask…

The reality is, the pipeline won’t cross any reservation lands or lands held in a trust. TransCanada has even proposed working with tribes over the project’s lifecycle and proactively addressing any concerns, while striving to create employment opportunities for tribe communities along the route.

TransCanada has also built wind farms, solar facilities, and hydro operations in an effort to offset the emission produced during their operations. In fact, the Carbon Disclosure Project ranked TransCanada as an A-list company for making legitimate steps towards climate change mitigation in 2014.

But of course the biggest pet peeve among the anti-XL’ers is that the pipeline would carry some of the dirtiest and most polluting oil in the world.

Arguments range from the oil’s effect on the Great Plains Aquifer under southern Nebraska to the fate of the American burying beetle, one of the 14 species that could be affected by the pipeline’s construction.

Opponents also say all that extra fossil fuel will exacerbate global warming because Canadian oil sands crude creates 17% more greenhouse gas emissions than the oil produced in the United States.

Yes, Alberta’s oil sands are more viscous and contain more impurities than other types of oil, but it will get to its destination in one form or another. The bottom line is this: So long as there’s demand for oil, producers will find a way to get much of that oil to market.

The question everyone should be asking now is: What is the best choice?

If the Keystone XL pipeline doesn’t get approved, that means thousands of rails and tanker ships will move crude to refineries instead.

Both of these methods are much less economical and efficient. Plus they are by far more dangerous than a pipeline. Trains have the potential for accidents and derailments. And ships not only pollute our seas, but they can also spill oil into them.

Both would have a worse impact on climate change than the Keystone XL.

In essence, the Keystone XL has become a proxy for a much greater debate regarding energy and climate change – a topic that definitely should be addressed.

But the issue of global warming will ultimately be resolved by gradually reducing our demand for all fossil fuels and scaling up workable alternative energy sources. That’s a massive task, albeit we’re making inroads.

This seemingly endless argument over the pipeline is just one small piece of that. And in my opinion, those efforts would be best focused elsewhere.


*Shelley Goldberg is a global resources, commodities and environmental sustainability strategist with over 20 years of sector experience in energy, metals and mining, agriculture, and infrastructure.


http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/02/02/keystone-xl-pipeline-benefits/

No natural resources will be preserved. That oil is going to be sold one way or another. It will either be brought into this country by rail or ship, and probably both. The pipeline allows the oil to move without being brought into this country on rail or through the Great Lakes and down the Mississippi. If we don't buy the oil, it will be sent to Canada's west coast and overseas to China or other countries. It's far more environmentally sound to use a pipeline than other modes of transport.

As for jobs, the pipeline will create jobs for construction, which are temporary. Please let me know which construction jobs are permanent, other than building the roads in the DC area. Other jobs will include those in the petrochemical industries, plastics, transportation, and even environmental jobs, as they will keep an eye on the pipelines and other industries. The global warming/climate change science is more full of lies than the IRS' claims that lois lerner's emails were lost.

People in this country forget how dirty this country used to be. I remember when people were advised to stay inside in LA due to air pollution. I remember when Lake Erie was so polluted they advised people to stay out of the water. I remember when the river in Cleveland was on fire. I remember the crying indian on TV and the garbage all over the sides of the road. We are nowhere near that anymore.

We are going to import the same amount of oil we could get from Canada anyway. I assume you that are against the pipeline would prefer to get it from countries that don't like us. I just don't understand that foolish thinking.

I agree. I think the environmental impacts are net positive -- the oil has to be transported one way or another and pipelines are relatively safe. So I'm vaguely for the pipeline, there aren't tons of drawbacks.

I don't buy the foreign oil problem. We have lots of allies who are willing to send us oil. There is no national security risk here unless we do something really evil.

But lets not call this a jobs bill -- if you spent the same 6 billion in almost any other way you would create more jobs than this will.Government spending on projects always creates jobs. Which party is for government spending tends to depend on who likes those sort of projects.

Really, if you think about - I'm sure the Keystone pipeline is job killing overall. Many more truck drivers and tanker operators (who used to carry the oil) will be put out of work - then there will be people hired to monitor the pipeline. In general that's a good thing though - fewer people getting more work done more efficiently.

The same way - the environmental effects are probably net positive, there are fewer spills per gallon of oil transported via pipeline than via trucks.

A lot of people try to argue whether a pipeline is "good" or "bad" as if it existed in a vacuum -- it doesn't. It's weighing the plan vs. the alternative (which is certainly not "the US just doesn't get enough oil").

That is a good post. Makes me want to say "there's always 2 sides to a discussion/debate." But in reality, there a 20-50-100 sides?

So much for Obama "working with republicans"

How is that any different from the Obama stimulus? It created a bunch of temporary construction jobs.

I don't understand the question. I didn't support the stimulus.

Can We please make something clear here? I support Obama as a person, from these personal attacks.

from his policies, there's very little i support him on.

Did you also support Bush as a person from the equally bad personal attacks?

yes. I'm one who doesn't like it when people take personal shots at any president. I feel its just disrespectful.

I didn't agree with Bush's policies, not one bit,

but that dude absolutely loved us military guys. actually, all republicans do. He made sure we got the gear we needed to handle business, like the MRAP's we was driving around and such. the body armor was constantly getting upgraded.

I might make a post highlighting the difference between republican and democratic presidents during a time of war. I'm of the belief that we need a republican president during the initiation of war, and a democrat during the drawdown.


but thats a different topic. so yes, i defended bush aggressively from personal attacks. dude wasn't dude. just because he wasn't Rico Suave in front of the mic doesn't mean crap. he knew what he was doing, even if we didn't agree on what direction to go.

Honest question: Where was the personal attack on O in that post?

Based on a study by the CATO institute we spend almost $2B a day on over 120 "welfare" programs.. how many jobs is that creating? So by Tuesday, we will have spent that $6B with virtually zero ROI..

You know how many people you have to pay to administer/run those programs?

Twice as many as it actually should take?

Yes. About half of what they currently employ to do it.


But think about it - $2 billion per day? Who says gov't. doesn't create jobs, right? Problem is, those jobs are not sustainable without people paying taxes - in other words, they aren't sustainable.

I believe you have that backwards arch... the jobs are government jobs and they become temporary or unsustainable if the number of people on welfare goes down significantly... the more people on welfare, the more government jobs we can create to distribute stuff to them...

People are bringing up the cost to taxpayers, but isn't TransCanada paying for most of that?

I have also read that TransCanada would pay property taxes where the pipeline runs, accounting for a total of around $3 billion in additional local taxes per year.

Like anything else in this world, there are pluses and minuses, but I think that this one would bring jobs, good paying jobs, at least for a while, and we absolutely need that.

Correct. And then, the more tax money needed to fund them. Gov't. always "needs" more money. Always - and if they don't get it, what's the first thing they do? Cut services - not costs or overhead.

People credit Roosevelt and The New Deal with bringing us out of the great depression (I disagree but that's for a different post).. and all he did was spend a ton of money to create projects like this that involved thousands of temporary jobs to improve infrastructure... by building roads and bridges, damming up rivers, etc..

And it's usually important service that get cut first .... on the local level, it;s police and firemen, not the extra 2 guys sitting in the car or truck while 1 guy actually works.

Important services? No, usually it's the actual job they are supposed to do that gets cut first - you know, the old "if they won't give us more money, we'll cut back on the service we're supposed to provide. That'll show'em."

Look at the IRS right now Their budget got cut. I haven't heard of mass layoffs..........but I dare you to call them with a question.

Schools do something similar - at least around here. The old "we need more money, and if we don't get it, we'll cut bussing and sports."

The fed. gov't. always, always threatens military pay and social security if they don't get more money.

people just assume i support Obama, so they always asking questions like this to see if I blindly support him.

Just a couple general replies.

Someone brought up a pipeline being infrastructure. IMO infrastructure is improving failing roads and bridges, while getting back to rails. We need way better, faster trains to provide public transportation.

We will burn through all of the oil on planet earth. All this does is preserve some of that oil for a couple years. It will get used, just not so quickly.

The post Roosevelt congress was composed of a majority of war veterans who were responsible passing many of the spending bills which created high ways, the GI Bill, and other programs.
You can say, "all that Roosevelt did was", but in the big picture he started the political willingness to create new infrastructure that increased the American standard of living.

Actually the opposite. There's a lot of people arguing that firefighters (especially) need to be cut back severely. The number of firefighters in the US has doubled in the last 30 years, while the number of fires has been cut in half (primarily due to safer building materials, safer cars, and more smoke detectors)



See this interesting post by libertarian economist Alex Tabarrok:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/firefighters-dont-fight-fires.html

There is a lot more to infrastructure than just roads and bridges. Yes, we need to find alternatives to oil, but none of those alternatives are cost effective yet. Until we find that alternative, we still need oil.

Definitely no need for the Keystone Pipeline. I usually vote Republican, but this issue has become so politicized.

Why would we want to put a pipeline through America's Heartland that moves Canadian Oil that will only be exported via foreign ships.

For a few short term jobs? This oil is a special type that corrodes easily. Is that the idea? Jobs created because the pipeline needs to be constantly maintained so that it won't leak onto our land? That just seems idiotic.

I just don't get it at all...... I'm with the President on this. This benefits some oil company. I'd love to see who this company is donating to. Because this makes no sense.

Let's not take some oil company's cash to build a pipeline of this corosive oil through the heartland of America. Let them build it through Canada. The oil is sold on the world market anyway. Makes no sense.


I work in the oil industry. Truth is, we should throw a major tax on exporting oil. And we should throw a major tax on importing oil. Oil from our country should be used by us. And we shouldn't allow the world market to affect our oil prices. We have a ton of the stuff, why not just refine our own? And if we want to sell our crude, our government should make a significant amount of money off of it. Otherwise, let's keep the price stable. Keep a significant amount of crude ready to go in reserves, just in case of a major disaster (and so we can fluctuate the import tax if this happens).

TransCanada Is Seizing People’s Land To Build Keystone

For Julia Trigg Crawford, watching TransCanada construct the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline on a corner of her 600-acre farm was “gut-wrenching.”

Crawford, who lives in Direct, Texas, had been trying since 2011 to keep the pipeline company off her property. But she ultimately lost, the portion of her land needed for the pipeline condemned through eminent domain — a process by which government can force citizens to sell their property for “public use,” such as the building of roads, railroads, and power lines. Crawford can’t wrap her head around why TransCanada, a foreign company, was granted the right of eminent domain to build a pipeline that wouldn’t be carrying Texas oil through the state of Texas.

That question — how eminent domain can be used in a case like Keystone — has some anti-Keystone groups stumped too. But the groups that usually are vocal proponents of property rights, including the Institute for Justice, have been silent when it comes to the controversial pipeline.

“I have not seen a single group that would normally rail against eminent domain speak up on behalf of farmers or ranchers on the Keystone XL route,” said Jane Kleeb, founder of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska.

That’s surprising to Kleeb, whose organization is supporting the efforts of a group of Nebraska landowners along the pipeline’s proposed route who have held out against giving TransCanada access to their land. She had thought that at least a few conservative or pro-lands rights groups would have voiced their general support for Keystone XL, but still denounced the use of eminent domain to get it built. That hasn’t happened, Kleeb said — not among property rights groups nor among most pro-Keystone lawmakers.

“If this were a wind mill project or a solar project, Republicans would have been hair-on-fire crazy supporting the property rights of farmers and ranchers,” she observed. “But because it’s an oil pipeline, it’s fine.”

You also need to consider the amount of ground they have to cover. There is a heck of a lot more structures today then there was in 1985.

Two things:

1) Even as the number of structures is going up, the number of fires is going down. You are right that there might be more rural areas that need firefighters just to cover area -- but the biggest growth in the number of firefighters has been in major cities (Tabbarok uses Boston as an example).

2.) You can assume the number of structures trends with the number of people in the country. There were 238M people in 1985 and 309M in 2010. That predicts an increase from 225K firefighters to 290K firefighters. Instead we have around 340K firefighters by 2010.

My point was that every time they want more taxes in my part of the world, they strat cutting important c=services, while ignoring actual waste,

That's it.

In Youngstown, if they want a tax to pass, they start cutting firement and police, and start letting the criminals out of jail. They don't try to cut anywhere else ..... they just go for the hot button areas they know will get people to vote for higher taxes, No one cuts their executive staff ..... or gives up perks ...... and no one asks the unions to take a pay cut. Instead, they just start laying people off .... people who we wind up having to pay anyway