• No Artifacts or Remains at North Dakota Pipeline Site
    81 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51123771]building the pipeline will increase carbon emissions considerably, allow the tar oil fields to expand (when we should be preventing that), and it's going to create very few jobs for such a high cost. it'll also make it easier for companies to set up oil rigs and expand production which is the opposite of what we want environmentally there's no benefit to this, and in economic terms the benefit is questionable at best.[/QUOTE] Increase in production due to the pipeline will create tons more jobs. I service several mancamps in the bakken and can safely say most are already getting most of their rooms filled again.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51123866]Increase in production due to the pipeline will create tons more jobs. I service several mancamps in the bakken and can safely say most are already getting most of their rooms filled again.[/QUOTE] about 99% of those jobs will be temporary ones created by construction of the damned thing afterwards we're talking maybe a few dozen at most in terms of permanent positions
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51123880]about 99% of those jobs will be temporary ones created by construction of the damned thing afterwards we're talking maybe a few dozen at most in terms of permanent positions[/QUOTE] now doesn't that sound like a certain country in the east
"Fuck the natives and their water, we need more oil."
[QUOTE=OvB;51122652]If you consider the fact that we have over 2 million miles of pipeline existing in the US then it makes sense that leaks would be frequent. I feel like most people think we have a handful of trans-national pipelines. There's that one in Alaska... the Keystone, the Keystone XL, this one in the Dakotas.... maybe some more. [img]http://i.imgur.com/YLNGM21.gif[/img] I'm a huge proponent of solar and nuclear. If it were up to me, We'd cut oil/gas use by 90% tomorrow. However that's not going to happen. These fuels is going to get moved whether it's by pipe or not. Economically speaking, pipes are the best way to move a liquid from A to B. Whether it's oil or orange juice. (assuming you got the ability to pump mass volumes). So we're left with a conundrum. Move it by pipe, or move it by road/rail?[/QUOTE] Well, the less economically feasible oil is, the more alternatives will be seriously considered and developed. Since oil isn't going to become economically unfeasible until almost all stores dry out, outside intervention is the best way to go. Of course, it doesn't work so well unless you can get most oil producers on board.
Having this pipeline built will actually decrease the amount of trucks required at the oilfields, decrease the amount of trains that constantly need to move in and out of North Dakota, and the maintenance for repairing several roadways/railroads and even in certain cases reoutfitting them for the demand in transportation which climbs steadily upwards every year.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51123965]Having this pipeline built will actually decrease the amount of trucks required at the oilfields, decrease the amount of trains that constantly need to move in and out of North Dakota, and the maintenance for repairing several roadways/railroads and even in certain cases reoutfitting them for the demand in transportation which climbs steadily upwards every year.[/QUOTE] if the cost of transport is higher, there'll be less of an incentive to construct more wells in the area since it won't be as economically viable the point is to ultimately stall and then cut production of oil
Isn't it funny how Americans seem to care more about being respectful to the dead in the ground than the living on it?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51123972]if the cost of transport is higher, there'll be less of an incentive to construct more wells in the area since it won't be as economically viable the point is to ultimately stall and then cut production of oil[/QUOTE] Will not happen. North Dakota has a love and hate relationship with the oil at the moment. Most North Dakotans feel that the natives are only doing this because they want more money and mineral rights. No other reason. The fact they have been changing their reasons for why they are protesting constantly, is sorta indicative that another reasons exists.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51123978]Will not happen.[/QUOTE] will do if this pipeline gets cockblocked and the cost of solar and wind energy keeps coming down who knows, maybe by the time the thing is built the oil wells won't be economically viable anymore anyways also hillary promises to stop the pipeline so if she gets in i doubt this shit'll get built
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51123880]about 99% of those jobs will be temporary ones created by construction of the damned thing afterwards we're talking maybe a few dozen at most in terms of permanent positions[/QUOTE] No, these guys are out working on the wells. Plus the line that went into the area Im talking about is an oil gathering line, which will probably have quite a few permanent jobs attached
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51123992]No, these guys are out working on the wells. Plus the line that went into the area Im talking about is an oil gathering line, which will probably have quite a few permanent jobs attached[/QUOTE] maintaining the infrastructure takes a fraction of the jobs it does to actually build it its one of the reasons oil is such a successful moneymaker - precisely because you need very few people to actually run it after you establish the basic infrastructure
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51123880]about 99% of those jobs will be temporary ones created by construction of the damned thing afterwards we're talking maybe a few dozen at most in terms of permanent positions[/QUOTE] We shouldn't build solar farms, wind farms, or nuclear power plants. 99% of those jobs will be temporary created by the construction. This is why using "But a majority of the jobs are temporary" as an argument is stupid. It's the same no matter what you're building. My job won't be around once the two AP1000s at Plant Vogtle are done, but the money I'm making will still help the economy, no matter how temporary the job is.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51124011]We shouldn't build solar farms, wind farms, or nuclear power plants. 99% of those jobs will be temporary created by the construction. This is why using "But a majority of the jobs are temporary" as an argument is stupid. It's the same no matter what you're building. My job won't be around once the two AP1000s at Plant Vogtle are done, but the money I'm making will still help the economy, no matter how temporary the job is.[/QUOTE] except renewables are less environmentally damaging than fossil fuels what good arguments exist to support fossil fuels over renewables when we are pretty much at the point where we can already get rid of coal and start the phase out of oil? assuming the number of jobs created are the same, what benefit is there to picking the other choice?
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;51123976]Isn't it funny how Americans seem to care more about being respectful to the dead in the ground than the living on it?[/QUOTE] this may or may not be relevant here but respecting burial sites isn't respecting those who are dead and buried, it's respecting their descendants or those related to them in some way.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51124035]except renewables are less environmentally damaging than fossil fuels what good arguments exist to support fossil fuels over renewables when we are pretty much at the point where we can already get rid of coal and start the phase out of oil? assuming the number of jobs created are the same, what benefit is there to picking the other choice?[/QUOTE] Nice moving of the goal posts. Your argument was that the jobs created wouldn't be worth it because a lot are temporary. I was just showing you how your argument could be applied to any project.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51124011]We shouldn't build solar farms, wind farms, or nuclear power plants. 99% of those jobs will be temporary created by the construction. This is why using "But a majority of the jobs are temporary" as an argument is stupid. It's the same no matter what you're building. My job won't be around once the two AP1000s at Plant Vogtle are done, but the money I'm making will still help the economy, no matter how temporary the job is.[/QUOTE] Option A: create lots of temporary jobs and improve the environment Option B: create lots of temporary jobs and destroy the environment gee what a difficult choice
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51123999]maintaining the infrastructure takes a fraction of the jobs it does to actually build it its one of the reasons oil is such a successful moneymaker - precisely because you need very few people to actually run it after you establish the basic infrastructure[/QUOTE] A fraction of the original number is still a lot of permanent jobs. The amount of people working oil jobs in the bakken has been vut considerably but there are still a lot of people still working out there with no sign of pay cuts or lay offs. I realize youre against the pipeline and oil in general but using jobs an excuse to not build it is a silly reason. The oil boom in North Dakota has been nothing but good for the economy here. The lowest wage youll see up here is still higher than anywhere else in the country. Even walmart is hiring at $13 an hour in areas where the oil doesnt exist. There was a McDonalds in the Bakken that was highering for $25 an hour and had to close because no one would work there because higher wages could easily be found. The local governments have surplus in the millions for the past few years despite the boom being gone. The long term effects of the oil here have been great.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51124055]Nice moving of the goal posts. Your argument was that the jobs created wouldn't be worth it because a lot are temporary. I was just showing you how your argument could be applied to any project.[/QUOTE] yes and why shouldn't we invest in renewables instead of fossil fuels? assuming both create equal numbers of jobs (oil will create fewer jobs regardless), then what benefit is there exactly?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51124071]Option A: create lots of temporary jobs and improve the environment Option B: create lots of temporary jobs and destroy the environment gee what a difficult choice[/QUOTE] The argument of temp jobs is bullshit anyways. Theres always a windfarm being built somewhere and theres always a pipeline being built somewhere too. A lot of those jobs reside with a company where thats all they do. Theure building the pipeline right now and right now theyre even building windmills near Dickinson ND. Furthermore oil is better for the economy than wind is for the exact reason that oil isnt renewable.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51124092]The argument of temp jobs is bullshit anyways. Theres always a windfarm being built somewhere and theres always a pipeline being built somewhere too. A lot of those jobs reside with a company where thats all they do. Theure building the pipeline right now and right now theyre even building windmills near Dickinson ND. Furthermore oil is better for the economy than wind is for the exact reason that oil isnt renewable.[/QUOTE] it's also really fucking awful for the environment on multiple levels
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51124077]A fraction of the original number is still a lot of permanent jobs. The amount of people working oil jobs in the bakken has been vut considerably but there are still a lot of people still working out there with no sign of pay cuts or lay offs.[/quote] for now. the oil industry isn't exactly sustainable long term [quote]I realize youre against the pipeline and oil in general but using jobs an excuse to not build it is a silly reason.[/quote] it's not an excuse to not build it. i'm arguing against the fact you're using jobs as an excuse to build it [quote]The oil boom in North Dakota has been nothing but good for the economy here. The lowest wage youll see up here is still higher than anywhere else in the country. Even walmart is hiring at $13 an hour in areas where the oil doesnt exist. There was a McDonalds in the Bakken that was highering for $25 an hour and had to close because no one would work there because higher wages could easily be found. The local governments have surplus in the millions for the past few years despite the boom being gone. The long term effects of the oil here have been great.[/QUOTE] longer term effects are dutch disease and the impact of climate change plus environmental damage oil booms also tend to bust as much as they boom north dakota is sacrificing the future for short term gains
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51124079](oil will create fewer jobs regardless)[/QUOTE] Nope. A field of 50+ windmills can be maintained by about 10ish guys. And thats for ones that are 10+ years old. Newer ones need less maintenance. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;51124098]for now. the oil industry isn't exactly sustainable long term it's not an excuse to not build it. i'm arguing against the fact you're using jobs as an excuse to build it longer term effects are dutch disease and the impact of climate change plus environmental damage oil booms also tend to bust as much as they boom north dakota is sacrificing the future for short term gains[/QUOTE] Right, like I stated the oil boom busted a year or so ago, and the economy here with jobs is still better than anywhere else in the country. Its not like the oil wells up here are just dumping oil onto the ground then people collect it with buckets. The long term effects are manageable. And in the long term a switch to windmills up here is a viable option since the windspeeds up here are insane. But that time is not now.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51124112]Nope. A field of 50+ windmills can be maintained by about 10ish guys. And thats for ones that are 10+ years old. Newer ones need less maintenance.[/QUOTE] actually even in 2014 (when oil prices were higher and fracking boom was peaking) solar alone created 50% more jobs in that year than gas and oil pipeline construction: [url]http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/solar-jobs-report-2014/[/url] [quote]Solar already employs more people than coal mining, which has 93,185 workers, and has added 50 percent more jobs in 2014 than the oil and gas pipeline construction industry (10,529) and the crude petroleum and natural gas extraction industry (8,688) did combined, according to the Solar Foundation.[/quote] [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51124112]And in the long term a switch to windmills up here is a viable option since the windspeeds up here are insane. But that time is not now.[/QUOTE] miami will be abandoned by the end of our lifetimes, i think now is as good as ever [quote]Right, like I stated the oil boom busted a year or so ago, and the economy here with jobs is still better than anywhere else in the country.[/quote] so if you already have a strong economy and all this money, then why not invest into renewables now when you can easily do so?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51124128]actually even in 2014 (when oil prices were higher and fracking boom was peaking) solar alone created 50% more jobs in that year than gas and oil pipeline construction: [url]http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/solar-jobs-report-2014/[/url] [/quote] how many of those people are still working said jobs, and are said jobs at a similar or higher wage than those in the oil fields? [editline]29th September 2016[/editline] [Quote] miami will be abandoned by the end of our lifetimes, i think now is as good as ever [/quote] youre probably right but the elimination of all CO2 emissions wont suddenly make the ice caps freeze again or cause ocean levels to recede to pre industrial revolution levels. [Quote] so if you already have a strong economy and all this money, then why not invest into renewables now when you can easily do so?[/QUOTE] Because its not up to me and theres not as much money in renewables. If Windmills and solar had as much money, Id be all for it. But I came up to ND because my wage up here is double what it was in Florida and the cost of living is far cheaper in ND. I would be fairly disgruntled if my wage was cut or I lost my job because oil was phased out overnight.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51124183]how many of those people are still working said jobs, and are said jobs at a similar or higher wage than those in the oil fields?[/QUOTE] all of them? the fact that it's growing rapidly should be an indication? the price of solar is coming way down, and if this pipeline is blocked and solar subsidies continue then it's likely the north dakota oil industry won't have much longer to live anyways as the competition ramps up
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51124215]all of them? the fact that it's growing rapidly should be an indication? the price of solar is coming way down, and if this pipeline is blocked and solar subsidies continue then it's likely the north dakota oil industry won't have much longer to live anyways as the competition ramps up[/QUOTE] Ok, but can you answer my question on wages?. You also neglected the fact that your article states theres already near 10 million oil and gas workers in the US, compared to the few hundred thousand solar workers. If you got rid of oil and started with solar and wind then you would be at a huge deficit in jobs.
I think it's worth mentioning that North Dakota has and still does operate several windmills and solar panel farms at this moment in time. You can seriously just drive north of Bismarck and see them stretching out kilometers outwards. For us, it's not so much of a question relating to energy, it's a question relating to keeping a steady flow of income from state taxes and the like, going into the Bank of North Dakota, and therefore allowing for more loans to be issued by the local credit unions for small businesses. We cannot simply stop construction of it for this reason, and this reason alone. For us, it'll be another small boom to our local economy, as well as our treasury. By doing this, we also lessen the amount of damage to our infrastructure, such as railroads and highways, and can divert more money into education, wildlife refuges, and introduction of green technologies throughout North Dakota. This issue has transcended the whole, "Well the environment" and issues regarding the native americans. It's an issue that effects the entire population of North Dakota in the long run, and therefore it's something which will be built and completed.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51125666]Renewables don't let you hurt natives in a plausibly deniable way.[/QUOTE] Lol ok dood, way to over exagerate the situation. How is this pipeline hurting natives? Its not on their land at all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51123972]if the cost of transport is higher, there'll be less of an incentive to construct more wells in the area since it won't be as economically viable the point is to ultimately stall and then cut production of oil[/QUOTE] It's not gonna happen. It's just you looking at the situation with rose-tinted glasses; The pipeline being built won't make your dream oil-free land come any sooner.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.