Keystone 'not even nominal benefit' to US consumers, Obama says
55 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46760601]Yes let's speculating on things that haven't happened and things we have learned from. That is why we have inspectors; same with airlines if we stopped after every crash we would be no where. Alaska and their people are still making money off it, so I fail to see the "bad" there was an ROI and the TCO proved it was worth it.
Sounds good to me which is why I voted republican this round; given proper safety inspections, technology, and proper care of what we know today, spills and such are minimal to near null.[/QUOTE]
yes, alaska is still making money off of it [i]because it is alaska's oil[/i]
we'd see nowhere near the profits from the alaskan pipeline because they wouldn't be our profits
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46760612]yes, alaska is still making money off of it [I]because it is alaska's oil[/I]
we'd see nowhere near the profits from the alaskan pipeline because they wouldn't be our profits[/QUOTE]
So you're saying the pipeline opened up other opportunities in which drilling and other methods of supporting the pipeline were turned into a profit?
Also why are we forgetting North Dakota's oil wells which could hook up to the keystone pipeline.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46760601]
Sounds good to me which is why I voted republican this round; given proper safety inspections, technology, and proper care of what we know today, spills and such are minimal to near null.[/QUOTE]
And then watch none of those be provided, because profit.
[QUOTE=gufu;46760641]And then watch none of those be provided, because profit.[/QUOTE]
Or watch them happen because the US government can over charge* bill canada
[QUOTE=woolio1;46760261]And yet the Right seems to portray it as a bastion of hope for our unemployed, and it's hard to think a lot of their talking heads aren't being paid to do so.[/QUOTE]
What is wrong with that ? It's not like they are corrupted or anything, lobbying is what democracy is all about ;)
[QUOTE=AntonioR;46760695]What is wrong with that ? It's not like they are corrupted or anything, lobbying is what democracy is all about ;)[/QUOTE]
Yep... And that money's going to keep on flowing right into their pockets because of the new budget bill.
Capitalism in a democracy can work, and work well, but we're doing a damn poor job of it for being the best country on Earth.
This pipeline is going to leak eventually, and its in a bad location to do so.
So can anyone provide the source on "only a few hundred jobs?" or what?
[editline]21st December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;46760782]This pipeline is going to leak eventually, and its in a bad location to do so.[/QUOTE]
Oh you can predict the future? man that's cool.
[QUOTE=woolio1;46760718]Yep... And that money's going to keep on flowing right into their pockets because of the new budget bill.
Capitalism in a democracy can work, and work well, but we're doing a damn poor job of it for being the best country on Earth.[/QUOTE]
The pipeline will work so long as we regulate it properly; shooting it down because "things might happen based off 40 year old reports and things that haven't happened" is wrong. If we did that We would never have 747's.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46760336]Why are people so fucking upset over the pipeline, it's much safer than rail[/QUOTE]
Pipeline is [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/]not safer[/url] than rail.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46761135]So can anyone provide the source on "only a few hundred jobs?" or what?
[/quote]
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/keystone-xls-mixed-forecast-for-job-creation/]Here's one[/url]
[quote]Independent research has also cast doubt on those forecasts for tens of thousands of jobs. Cornell University's Global Labor Institute said TransCanada's estimate was "not substantiated."
[b]The pipeline may create no more than 2,500 to 4,650 temporary direct construction jobs[/b], the report noted, citing data supplied to the State Department from TransCanada. On top of that, Cornell noted, most of the jobs wouldn't go to local employees.
[b]"The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading,"[/b] the Cornell report noted. It added that higher fuel costs, possible environmental damage, and the impact of emissions on health and the climate could actually result in job losses.[/quote]
Just to put it into perspective:
[quote]Total nonfarm payroll employment [b]increased by 321,000 in November[/b][/quote]
[url=http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf]Bureau of Labor Statistics, US dept. of Labor[/url]
[editline]20th December 2014[/editline]
The argument the pipeline is good for the economy or the environment is [b][i]Bullshit[/i][/b]
How fucked up is it that not only can Republican politicians make decisions against the well-being of the country they're supposed to be working for, solely to line their own pockets, but they can make their entire party and millions of its members all over the US argue in favor of their self-serving decisions?
The Democrats whose jobs he was trying to protect by being wishy-washy on Keystone have pretty much all lost reelection, so there really isn't any reason for him to support it anymore.
And yes, it's really irrelevant to US consumers. The purpose of the pipeline is to send tar sands oil to the Gulf coast for refinement and loading onto tankers to sell to the world market. It's not for supplying cheaper oil and gasoline to Americans, who already have stable and sufficient sources of oil for their usage, which has been mostly flat in recent years. We, as a country, don't need Keystone. We don't need the temporary construction jobs, we don't need another potential source of spills, and in the long term we [I]definitely[/I] don't need to be facilitating the mass burning of the Alberta tar sands.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;46761182][url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/keystone-xls-mixed-forecast-for-job-creation/]Here's one[/url]
okay
[quote]
That might seem like a huge number, but those are jobs that will only be created during the construction. On top of that, that 42,100 estimate includes jobs created by the "ripple" effect of the pipeline's construction. Only about 16,100 of those jobs would be direct employment from firms that are awarded contracts for goods and services from the Keystone project.
TransCanada, the company that will build the pipeline, also estimates that thousands of jobs would be created during construction. In a January 2012 forecast, it pegged the number at 20,000 jobs, split between 13,000 in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing.[/quote]
That's a lot!
[quote]Just to put it into perspective:
[url=http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf]Bureau of Labor Statistics, US dept. of Labor[/url][/quote]
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipeline/peopleevents/e_fund.html[/url]
[url]http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-111/issue-11/exploration-development/alaska-s-oil-crossroads-lucrative-ocs-prize-and-taps.html[/url]
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/29/markets/alaska_oil/[/url]
must be hard when it brought so much to something which has basically no other source of income...
[code]Annual individual payout
This is the fund's history of annual individual payouts, in nominal USD.[16]
Year Amount
2014 $1,884.00
2013 $900.00
2012 $878.00
2011 $1,174.00
2010 $1,281.00
2009 $1,305.00
2008 $2,069.00 + $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate
2007 $1,654.00
2006 $1,106.96
2005 $845.76
2004 $919.84
2003 $1,107.56
2002 $1,540.76
2001 $1,850.28
2000 $1,963.86[/code]
[editline]20th December 2014[/editline]
[quote]The argument the pipeline is good for the economy or the environment is [b][i]Bullshit[/i][/b][/QUOTE]
the return on the risks outweigh the lack of jobs and economic development associated with it.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46761331][QUOTE=BANNED USER;46761182][url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/keystone-xls-mixed-forecast-for-job-creation/]Here's one[/url]
okay
That's a lot!
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipeline/peopleevents/e_fund.html[/url]
[url]http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-111/issue-11/exploration-development/alaska-s-oil-crossroads-lucrative-ocs-prize-and-taps.html[/url]
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/29/markets/alaska_oil/[/url]
must be hard when it brought so much to something which has basically no other source of income...
[code]Annual individual payout
This is the fund's history of annual individual payouts, in nominal USD.[16]
Year Amount
2014 $1,884.00
2013 $900.00
2012 $878.00
2011 $1,174.00
2010 $1,281.00
2009 $1,305.00
2008 $2,069.00 + $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate
2007 $1,654.00
2006 $1,106.96
2005 $845.76
2004 $919.84
2003 $1,107.56
2002 $1,540.76
2001 $1,850.28
2000 $1,963.86[/code]
[editline]20th December 2014[/editline]
the return on the risks outweigh the lack of jobs and economic development associated with it.[/QUOTE]
You still manage to ignore the potential ecological ramifications of this. Even if it does create a few hundred permanent jobs, if it breaks and spills, that's a big damn mess to clean up, and if it's handled poorly, that's potential destruction of hundreds of ecosystems, in the interest of lining the Canadian's and american investor's pockets. It's been shown the pipeline won't provide a huge boon to the economy, is fraught with conflict of interest on the part of legislators pushing it through, and poses an ecological nightmare if it were to leak or break.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46761331][url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/keystone-xls-mixed-forecast-for-job-creation/]Here's one[/url]
okay
That's a lot!
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipeline/peopleevents/e_fund.html[/url]
[url]http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-111/issue-11/exploration-development/alaska-s-oil-crossroads-lucrative-ocs-prize-and-taps.html[/url]
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/29/markets/alaska_oil/[/url]
must be hard when it brought so much to something which has basically no other source of income...
[code]Annual individual payout
This is the fund's history of annual individual payouts, in nominal USD.[16]
Year Amount
2014 $1,884.00
2013 $900.00
2012 $878.00
2011 $1,174.00
2010 $1,281.00
2009 $1,305.00
2008 $2,069.00 + $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate
2007 $1,654.00
2006 $1,106.96
2005 $845.76
2004 $919.84
2003 $1,107.56
2002 $1,540.76
2001 $1,850.28
2000 $1,963.86[/code]
[editline]20th December 2014[/editline]
the return on the risks outweigh the lack of jobs and economic development associated with it.[/QUOTE]
why do you not see the difference in [b]ALASKAN[/B] oil drilled and sold by an [b]ALASKAN[/B] company and [b]CANADIAN[/B] oil drilled and sold by a [b]CANADIAN[/b] company? why do you think we would get any appreciable amount of that money? yes, the alaskan pipeline brings a shit ton of money to alaska, because they're selling it. we're not selling it, we're just nicking what amounts to pennies on their dollar, and taking the brunt of the risk.
you know, if this were a pipeline to develop american oil fields and bring us prosperity, i'd be much more okay with it. a comparable situation would be if a canadian company bought land in america to build a nuclear power plant, only to sell the electricity to mexico. sure, it has an extremely low risk of going wrong and would bring thousands of construction jobs to the area and some permanent jobs, but the risk of nuclear disaster would far outweigh the barely noticeable benefits. i know it isn't a perfect analogy, because that nuclear power plant would actually be better for the US than this pipeline
[editline]21st December 2014[/editline]
like, are you canadian? is your flagdog wrong or something? why else would you want this pipeline?
[QUOTE=kart22racer;46762468]
You still manage to ignore the potential ecological ramifications of this. Even if it does create a few hundred permanent jobs, if it breaks and spills, that's a big damn mess to clean up, and if it's handled poorly, that's potential destruction of hundreds of ecosystems, in the interest of lining the Canadian's and american investor's pockets. It's been shown the pipeline won't provide a huge boon to the economy, is fraught with conflict of interest on the part of legislators pushing it through, and poses an ecological nightmare if it were to leak or break.[/QUOTE]
You make it seem like a pipeline doesn't already exist there, it does. This extension is essentially a shortcut.
Courtesy wikipedia:
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Keystone-pipeline-route.png[/IMG]
The current pipleline could break as well, it's not like we're going from a better solution to this.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46762557]You make it seem like a pipeline doesn't already exist there, it does. This extension is essentially a shortcut.
Courtesy wikipedia:
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Keystone-pipeline-route.png[/IMG]
The current pipleline could break as well, it's not like we're going from a better solution to this.[/QUOTE]
i'd rather not double our chances. if entirely necessary, i'm sure there are there are ways that a line could be made from baker connecting through north dakota to the keystone which would lessen the danger
As already said there are already present pipelines, but will adding the Keystone extension cut back on oil travelling through other means? If this tar sand oil is going to be moving across the US to the southern ports no matter what, I would very much prefer a pipeline instead of railcars and trucks.
Oh man, fuck this pipeline bullshit, sick and tired of seeing these fake people who work directly for the company and admit in the ad, then go on saying how great they are and this is for sure for the benefit of Canada and will create 2000 million jobs. It's not great for either countries, it's only good for the companies involved in the horseshit.
I live in Vancouver so every time there's an ad on TV it's what ends up being on.
No idea where you guys are getting the numbers in jobs creation. It is estimated to create 35 permanent jobs and only about 3,500 construction jobs.
We, as a nation, need to be focusing on solar, wind, biomass and nuclear energy as our means of power. Not oil.
Now stay the fuck out of Nebraska.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46761151]Pipeline is [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/]not safer[/url] than rail.[/QUOTE]
Just to point out: your own source says that the way you are defining "safe" will change your answer. Pipelines hurt the environment more, but rail kills more people.
[QUOTE=kart22racer;46762468][QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46761331]
You still manage to ignore the potential ecological ramifications of this.[/QUOTE]
oh no the equvilent of a 4 lane highway!
[quote]Even if it does create a few hundred permanent jobs[/quote]
Source on the fact it is only a few hundred for this project?
[quote]if it breaks and spills, that's a big damn mess to clean up, and if it's handled poorly, that's potential destruction of hundreds of ecosystems, in the interest of lining the Canadian's and american investor's pockets.[/quote]
IF [B]IF[/B], can you show why it can't be done with facts and not speculation?
[quote]It's been shown the pipeline won't provide a huge boon to the economy, is fraught with conflict of interest on the part of legislators pushing it through, and poses an ecological nightmare if it were to leak or break.[/quote]
Never said it will fix everything but it is a step in the right direction for getting people back to work.
Then again I am debating on a heavily democratic forum so idk. Look at the polls of what the USA wants, it's what I want and that is why republicans won 2/3rds this round; because economic progress > stupid environmental/social issues/other equally stupid bullshit.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46766999][QUOTE=kart22racer;46762468]
oh no the equvilent of a 4 lane highway!
Source on the fact it is only a few hundred for this project?
IF [B]IF[/B], can you show why it can't be done with facts and not speculation?
Never said it will fix everything but it is a step in the right direction for getting people back to work.
Then again I am debating on a heavily democratic forum so idk. Look at the polls of what the USA wants, it's what I want and that is why republicans won 2/3rds this round; because economic progress > stupid environmental/social issues/other equally stupid bullshit.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf[/url]
Page ES-14, Paragraph 4 [QUOTE=The US Department of State] Operation of the
proposed Project would generate 35 permanent and
15 temporary jobs, primarily for routine inspections,
maintenance, and repairs.[/QUOTE]
Turns out my estimate of a few hundred was a tad high, however my point stands. It's impossible to estimate the exact damage of what would happen if the pipeline were to break, as unfortunately myself and the other members of this forum are not able to see into the future to see what will happen, and have to rely on speculation based on historic evidence. and while i agree that economic development and progress is an incredibly important thing for this country, to ignore everything else is blind stupidity, as the other issues, in your words, stupid environmental and social issues, don't go away no matter how hard you ignore them. To ignore environmental concerns is not a brilliant plan of action, as everything in an ecosystem is linked, and if a project causes too much damage, it can be felt for generations to come, and as this is the only environment we have, and coincidentally happens to be the one we all live in, it would pay to keep environmental concerns in mind when designing a project.
[edit]
I did some more reading, and if you look down to pages ES-8 through ES-17, it provides a breakdown of the environmental risks, and the likelihood of a spill, and what sort of spill it will most likely be.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46766999]
Never said it will fix everything but it is a step in the right direction for getting people back to work.
Then again I am debating on a heavily democratic forum so idk. Look at the polls of what the USA wants, it's what I want and that is why republicans won 2/3rds this round; because economic progress > stupid environmental/social issues/other equally stupid bullshit.[/QUOTE]
You're vastly overestimating the importance of the midterm elections. They're only significant in the sense that a Republican controlled senate is going to fight with Obama over more stupid shit. The voter turnout was 36%; this is hardly representative of what the majority wants, let alone evidence of a widespread change in stance on economic issues.
By the way, is that economic progress remark referring to democratic policy in general, or specifically to the keystone pipeline? Because it's well known at this point that [URL="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/10/van-jones/cnns-van-jones-says-keystone-pipeline-only-creates/"]the keystone pipeline will only create about 3900 temporary construction jobs followed by 35 permanent positions[/URL]. There's no reason to think it'll benefit anyone other than the Koch brothers and TransCanada.
I imagine with the recent plummet in gas prices support for this may partially drop off anyways, we already have cheap gas.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.