-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Keystone XL pipeline - why the fuss?
Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
lol, nice try with the duhversion but it's really quite simple. The issue at hand is pretty cut and dry whereas the items you point out are quite vague in nature and have been and can be twisted to suit one's needs. You might as well have put "immigration reform" in there🙄 Yes, a majority want it but the spectrum of what it looks like is broad.
Bowfinger
Lifer
Irony
The only thing that's simple is your blind partisanship. All of the issues I listed are just as "cut and dry" as Keystone (or more accurately, comparably nuanced). (And I did NOT include immigration reform precisely because it is not nearly so "cut and dry" as the issues I did list.) To suggest that "the left" is somehow unique in discounting public opinion when it contradicts their agenda is pure partisan hackery.
himkhan
Senior member
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters now at least somewhat favor building the major oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. Hardly overwhelming support to begin with. When people realize that the estimated 35 full time jobs created will displace thousands of rail line workers and that the cost of gasoline will not go down one penny, that support dies a quick death.
himkhan
Senior member
They won't have the 66 votes to override a veto. I think you are overestimating the political damage it will do. POTUS elections are 2 years away and unless the GOP invents some new candidate we don't know about, Hillary will have a cake walk and the gains the GOP made, just like every other two years will swing back.
hal2kilo
Lifer
I'm sure the Petroleum Institute will help get that message out right away.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
:thumbsup: Oil companies benefit and they are spending millions to make sure this pipeline gets built. This is about one thing: Profit
Thanks for pointing that out Capt Obvious
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
You're welcome Capt Dickhead
Svnla
Lifer
I am neither for or against this project and I do not live anywhere near by to be affect by it. Not sure what is your point. See the reply right below your post.
Yup, a lot of money, as in hundreds of million of dollars. The folks in North Lousiana (Haysville Shale) and North Texas (Barnett Shale) and South Texas (Eagle Ford Shale) are raking in big money from royalty fees/oil leases of big oil/gas companies = http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/15/texas-oil-boom-fracking/4481977/
Last edited:
theeedude
Lifer
I wonder if anyone told the Dixiecrat senators that only the base votes in midterm election and only the ace of base votes in the midterm runoffs.
They all seem to be doing stuff to appeal to the Republican base, which isn't going to vote for them anyways, and giving ample reasons for their own base to sit on the couch and vote with their ass on election day.
They all seem to be doing stuff to appeal to the Republican base, which isn't going to vote for them anyways, and giving ample reasons for their own base to sit on the couch and vote with their ass on election day.
Bitek
Lifer
I have a pipeline running through my property and I don't get any bennies from it. The original owner negotiated a deal, but I don't get anything. All depends on what was agreed to.
The 90% voluntary figure is misleading. The pipeline company tries to cut deals first with landowners under the threat of eminant domain. Deal with us and you can get yourself the best deal, oppose and we can force the pipeline and you will get whatever an arbitrator decides. So most people go for the deal.
That's not to say many landowners go out looking for these deal. Some rural areas may as its an easy way to get some $$ on otherwise underutilized land. In more suburban/urban areas its only a pain in the ass as it comes with all sorts of building and other restrictions on portions of your land.
If I had a choice, I would gladly have the pipeline off my prop. Its nothing but a headache. However, there is no huge damage going on, its otherwise unnoticeable.
Planes/helis fly over with cameras once a week. The pipeline also has all sorts of monitoring equipment, including seismic. You go digging with power tools around it you WILL have a bunch of pissed of company men on your ass fast.
Last edited:
Bitek
Lifer
My biggest opposition to it (other than it goes jack for the US as a whole) is that I don't like the way the issue has been forced on us by company lobbyists.
They are spending large amts of money to make this a partisan political issue in an effort to try an force their position. How congress is fighting and lining up bills for a private company's capital project is disturbing. Do they work for the voters or for the moneymen?
(its a trick question, of course its about the money!)
They are spending large amts of money to make this a partisan political issue in an effort to try an force their position. How congress is fighting and lining up bills for a private company's capital project is disturbing. Do they work for the voters or for the moneymen?
(its a trick question, of course its about the money!)
It is easier to build the section needed in the US to connect to the existing structure. While it may not generate many additional long term jobs; those jobs will be there instead of in Canada.
And you still have the construction jobs that will be needed to get the pipeline built.
If it goes to Canada, there will be more construction jobs needed (longer distance), more permanent jobs (longer distance) and the infrastructure built at the terminus for shipping the oil by water. Again more permanent jobs.
So the cost to create the Keystone is lower and more economical to the oil companies.
The amount of jobs for the US is less that what would be created for Canada but still there will be jobs.
And you still have the construction jobs that will be needed to get the pipeline built.
If it goes to Canada, there will be more construction jobs needed (longer distance), more permanent jobs (longer distance) and the infrastructure built at the terminus for shipping the oil by water. Again more permanent jobs.
So the cost to create the Keystone is lower and more economical to the oil companies.
The amount of jobs for the US is less that what would be created for Canada but still there will be jobs.
doubledeluxe
Golden Member
I posted yesterday but the government claims it will generate 35 jobs. Yes some temp jobs but quite frankly this whole issue makes no sense. Spend the money on our roads instead
Thebobo
Lifer
Bottom line is we don't need it.
There is already a pipeline that has excess capacity.
It could be decades until that excess is reached.
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/proj_docs/index.htm
The only reason they want to go to Texas is because the area is a trade free zone and they can sell the oil to China and other countries.
There is already a pipeline that has excess capacity.
It could be decades until that excess is reached.
http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/proj_docs/index.htm
The only reason they want to go to Texas is because the area is a trade free zone and they can sell the oil to China and other countries.
zinfamous
No Lifer
The information has been misleading
The numbers are:
~40k temporary jobs for the construction.
--35-40 jobs are permanent jobs, after it is complete.
This whole stink is basically over ....40 fucking jobs, and I and others have been saying it this whole time.
It's not that temporary jobs are nothing, especially for anyone that is out of work, but the information bandied around about this project has been criminally wrong. And those 40k jobs are probably quite temporary--clearing team to come in for a certain amount of time, then construction team to come in for a separate amount of time.
I honestly don't know how long construction would take, but I can't imagine this taking more than 3-5 years total, right? And you'd imagine for each group of people in this project, that's about 2 years max on a contract.
Again, 2 years employment is a useful thing for sure, but this is temporary work. It was always going to be temporary work. If the yahoos that are so vocal about pointing out favorable job numbers as being misleading due to seasonal, temporary employment (holiday season, for example) had an ounce of honesty, they would never use the job argument for Keystone XL. But of course they will use it, because they are profoundly dishonest buffoons.
And those 40 permanent jobs? LOL--sorry blue color salt-of-earth type that really does need a job. That ain't gonna be you. 😀
Last edited:
hal2kilo
Lifer
That was some winning strategy for the Dems wasn't it. Landreiu was/is DOA. What a wasted effort.
kage69
Lifer
Would have been nice to see the vote not so close, but kudos I guess to Congress for getting something right. Horrible idea that pipeline. I was hoping Obama would veto it, but this works too.
The exemptions for TransCanada, the income going mainly to Canada, and the relatively meager number of jobs created which would dwindle after project completion doesn't sit right with me, never has. Knowing what asshats we look like to the rest of the world by saying that we all have to get serious about climate change... but oh btw back in the states were going to invest in tar sands on a massive scale, so our neighbors can get the dirtier, more costly to produce oil to their customers with less hassle. In action we would be saying that American companies must have the right to turn a buck even if it isn't in the best interests of our country or the environment - while asking others to adhere to CO2 and carbon reductions while investing in renewable energy.
I'd have a lot fewer objections if this pipeline were carrying natural gas. If the Canadians want to devastate an area the size of Florida for money, helping to prolong the use of an energy model we need to move away from while giving the end product an even bigger carbon footprint than normal, fine. But it's their time, their dime, their side of the line.
The exemptions for TransCanada, the income going mainly to Canada, and the relatively meager number of jobs created which would dwindle after project completion doesn't sit right with me, never has. Knowing what asshats we look like to the rest of the world by saying that we all have to get serious about climate change... but oh btw back in the states were going to invest in tar sands on a massive scale, so our neighbors can get the dirtier, more costly to produce oil to their customers with less hassle. In action we would be saying that American companies must have the right to turn a buck even if it isn't in the best interests of our country or the environment - while asking others to adhere to CO2 and carbon reductions while investing in renewable energy.
I'd have a lot fewer objections if this pipeline were carrying natural gas. If the Canadians want to devastate an area the size of Florida for money, helping to prolong the use of an energy model we need to move away from while giving the end product an even bigger carbon footprint than normal, fine. But it's their time, their dime, their side of the line.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
lol at the parrots squawking about only 40 jobs and the rest are "temporary" now that the leftist talking points have been handed out. BTW, wasn't it you morons who were claiming how great obama's stimulus was going to be? You know... all those "TEMPORARY" jobs??? BTW2, it's not just the construction jobs, it's all the suppliers, engineers, etc that will be part of this project... But I think the problem is that it isn't a gov't project since those were supported by you leftists... it's probably "evil" since it's all PRIVATE money funding this project... we better not have that... the only "good" projects are gov't projects...
I wish this post was an over exaggeration but sadly it's not.
I wish this post was an over exaggeration but sadly it's not.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
nice try but it's just not the facts. Look at the list you posted - it's not as cut and dry as you claim - not even close.
Oh and I didn't say anything about "the left" or it being "unique" to you. Try reading instead of letting your knee fire right off.
Bitek
Lifer
I wish the GOP could get as fired up about construction jobs for road and bridge building. I also recall they turned down high-speed rail money that would have provided useful infrastructure as well as temp&perm jobs.
I don't see that they have much of a leg to stand on as this project is pretty small scale in the scheme of things
zinfamous
No Lifer
This level of cognitive dissonance is not surprising coming from someone who admires a fascist traitor.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
So are infrastructure jobs good or bad now? Just curious.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
