Keystone XL pipeline rises from the dead.

[Eug]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nts-to-give-keystone-xl-pipeline-another-try/

I am not keen on it because of the potential environmental problems, but have to admit it'd be an economic bonus for Canada (where I live). The irony of all this is that a lot of the people who campaigned against the pipeline (in the northern prairie states), are the ones who helped elect Trump who has supported the pipeline.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Canada is going to sell its crude. A pipe is either going to go south or it's going west, might as well take the jobs (with STRICT environmental oversight).

 

[glenn1]

If you live in a coastal city near sea level then you'll be happy to know that Trump's EPA transition lead is perhaps the leading climate change "denier" of this generation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

 

[UglyCasanova]

Ugh.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It gets even better and better as it goes along.

 

[soundforbjt]

Trump has the best people to rape the environment...Believe Me !

 

[theeedude]

I just ride my bicycle to work and leave the car at home, all I can really do about this situation, and the obesity epidemic.

 

[brycejones]

Trump has the best people to rape the environment...Believe Me !

Now he has committed to the best clean air and water. Just doesn't mention the water will be 5 miles further inland, the air temp 5 degrees warmer. But it will be clean.

 

[Paratus]

If you live in a coastal city near sea level then you'll be happy to know that Trump's EPA transition lead is perhaps the leading climate change "denier" of this generation.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

And he's looking at Sarah Palin for the Department of the Interior!

At any rate coal is not coming back any time soon. The market is pushing towards natural gas due to cost.

 

[ivwshane]

Canada is going to sell its crude. A pipe is either going to go south or it's going west, might as well take the jobs (with STRICT environmental oversight).

Yep! Those thirty jobs will be badly needed!


/s

 

[brycejones]

Yep! Those thirty jobs will be badly needed!


/s

Yeah this is one of the most annoying arguments for the keystone pipeline. The claims that it will thousands and thousands of jobs to the areas it passes through. The reality is a fairly small crew will pass through a town in a matter of a few months and that will be that. Beyond that there will be a few hundred positions across the pipeline going forward or a few dozen per state. Not exactly an economic boon.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Yeah this is one of the most annoying arguments for the keystone pipeline. The claims that it will thousands and thousands of jobs to the areas it passes through. The reality is a fairly small crew will pass through a town in a matter of a few months and that will be that. Beyond that there will be a few hundred positions across the pipeline going forward or a few dozen per state. Not exactly an economic boon.

There will be construction crews for sure and it will be a hell of a lot more than thirty people. But I'm thinking more in line with the jobs down here where it will get refined.

 

[K1052]

At any rate coal is not coming back any time soon. The market is pushing towards natural gas due to cost.

Yea, watching the market get excited about coal companies is a big WTF. Natural gas is totally eating their lunch along with increasing demands from corporations and regular customers for renewable energy. Unless Trump is going to tax natural gas production to drive the price up to make coal competitive it will continue it's precipitous decline as a a fuel source.

 

[K1052]

There will be construction crews for sure and it will be a hell of a lot more than thirty people. But I'm thinking more in line with the jobs down here where it will get refined.

The whole long term impact was 50 jobs.

 

[K1052]

Canada is going to sell its crude. A pipe is either going to go south or it's going west, might as well take the jobs (with STRICT environmental oversight).

You haven't been paying much attention to what's happening in Canada have you? All of their proposals to pipe diluted bitumen to either coast have come up against insurmountable political obstacles. They want to pipe it through us because we can be bought.

 

[glenn1]

The whole long term impact was 50 jobs.

So your sole metric for determining whether infrastructure projects get built is how many long term jobs they create? Well that would be convenient because a lot of shit would never get built then such as bike lanes which probably have never led to the creation of long term job in history. Or do you prefer petroleum products to travel via rail instead because you refused to allow a pipeline to be built, thus increasing the net number of long-term jobs because rail is more unsafe and thus we'll need jobs to clean up the spills, derailments, and ashes of the people who get incinerated when one blows up?

 

[K1052]

So your sole metric for determining whether infrastructure projects get built is how many long term jobs they create? Well that would be convenient because a lot of shit would never get built then such as bike lanes which probably have never led to the creation of long term job in history. Or do you prefer petroleum products to travel via rail instead because you refused to allow a pipeline to be built, thus increasing the net number of long-term jobs because rail is more unsafe and thus we'll need jobs to clean up the spills, derailments, and ashes of the people who get incinerated when one blows up?

I was responding, quite specifically, about the employment figures in the context of economic impact. Not sure where your side track about bike lanes is going other than to expose an irrational hatred of them.

I'm also pro-rail safety if that is what the above screed is about. Pipelines are also not without risk and do sometimes explode killing and injuring people, though statistically safer by unit of product moved. That said the potential environmental damage from their failure can be vastly larger than any rail accident (Kalamazoo River spill for example).

 

[glenn1]

I was responding, quite specifically, about the employment figures in the context of economic impact. Not sure where your side track about bike lanes is going other than to expose an irrational hatred of them.

I'm also pro-rail safety if that is what the above screed is about. Pipelines are also not without risk and do sometimes explode killing and injuring people, though statistically safer by unit of product moved. That said the potential environmental damage from their failure can be vastly larger than any rail accident (Kalamazoo River spill for example).

I don't have an irrational hatred of bike lanes any more than you have one of pipelines. My point is that talking about "long term jobs" with infrastructure is nothing more than a red herring and misleading way of judging the merit of whether to build them or not. Something like a bike lane or a pipeline isn't a profit center or a jobs bank. You wouldn't argue against rural electrification because "after you build the power lines there won't be many long-term jobs to maintain them," you build the power lines (or pipeline) because it's a public utility that allows customers to obtain desired energy supplies in the most efficient, cost effective, and safe means among all the alternatives. Supporting "no build" on XL because only #N jobs will be created is a self-serving argument that doesn't even deserve a dignified response. If you're going to oppose it then do so upon honest grounds like "I don't want XL to be built because I'm hoping if it doesn't the tar sands never get drilled." That's the true and honest answer for probably 99% of the people who oppose it and is an honorable position to take.

 

[K1052]

I don't have an irrational hatred of bike lanes any more than you have one of pipelines.

Then why bring it up? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

My point is that talking about "long term jobs" with infrastructure is nothing more than a red herring and misleading way of judging the merit of whether to build them or not.

This infrastructure won't serve America. It serves Canadian oil interests who want to export refined goods. Maybe Trump will make them "pay up" like he claimed but that's probably just bs.

Something like a bike lane or a pipeline isn't a profit center or a jobs bank. You wouldn't argue against rural electrification because "after you build the power lines there won't be many long-term jobs to maintain them," you build the power lines (or pipeline) because it's a public utility that allows customers to obtain desired energy supplies in the most efficient, cost effective, and safe means among all the alternatives.

The idea that Keystone XL is like the REA is so amazingly wrong that it barely deserves a response, which I already have above. Rural electrification serves Americans, this project will not in any meaningful way.

Supporting "no build" on XL because only #N jobs will be created is a self-serving argument that doesn't even deserve a dignified response. If you're going to oppose it then do so upon honest grounds like "I don't want XL to be built because I'm hoping if it doesn't the tar sands never get drilled." That's the true and honest answer for probably 99% of the people who oppose it and is an honorable position to take.

I was replying to the "but all the jobs" argument often made in favor of the project. The truth is that there will be almost no jobs and little economic benefit to the US.

 

[Jhhnn]

There will be construction crews for sure and it will be a hell of a lot more than thirty people. But I'm thinking more in line with the jobs down here where it will get refined.

There won't be any more jobs. Several Texas refineries are built to handle heavy Venezuelan crude. Big Oil wants to starve out the Venezuelan regime & Keystone XL is their way of doing it. The pipeline won't be built, anyway, not until crude prices are higher.

 

[Yakk]

Pipeline is the safest way too move crude with the lowest environmental impact, nothing to say against that.

But yeah prices would need to go higher to be profitable which is another matter entirely on the other side of the world.

 

[glenn1]

Then why bring it up? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.




This infrastructure won't serve America. It serves Canadian oil interests who want to export refined goods. Maybe Trump will make them "pay up" like he claimed but that's probably just bs.



The idea that Keystone XL is like the REA is so amazingly wrong that it barely deserves a response, which I already have above. Rural electrification serves Americans, this project will not in any meaningful way.



I was replying to the "but all the jobs" argument often made in favor of the project. The truth is that there will be almost no jobs and little economic benefit to the US.

So if it was an American company you'd suddenly support it? Again, why can't you just be honest and say "I don't want the tar sands to be drilled and this is how I hope to prevent it"? There's no shame in that position.

 

[K1052]

So if it was an American company you'd suddenly support it? Again, why can't you just be honest and say "I don't want the tar sands to be drilled and this is how I hope to prevent it"? There's no shame in that position.

I'm not sure why you are unable to comprehend what I wrote. I was refuting your argument that this is infrastructure that serves Americans when it isn't.

 

[brycejones]

There will be construction crews for sure and it will be a hell of a lot more than thirty people. But I'm thinking more in line with the jobs down here where it will get refined.

Yes there are construction jobs. That is a very short term impact. They recently built a large pipeline near the small town where my parents live. They were in and out within weeks. No real long term economic impact to that community.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not sure why you are unable to comprehend what I wrote. I was refuting your argument that this is infrastructure that serves Americans when it isn't.

I don't understand your logic about how it doesn't serve Americans. Would you oppose building a new airport terminal because Lufthansa was going to use it rather than United? I'm not sure what difference it makes if they aren't an "American company" or how you could argue that it "doesn't serve Americans" because the terminal might be used primarily by Europeans passing through the U.S. on their way to South America.

Likewise, should we not build docks because it only benefits exporters from other countries and only a few dozen longshoreman workers are going to be hired long term?