- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I don't really care about keystone (I would vote for it if pressed) but ...
Posted on 11/18/14 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 11/18/14 at 4:28 pm
claims that it will create one hundred kagillion jobs are b.s.
Me thinks congress prefers to focus on fake problems so they don't have to focus on the real problems? At the end of the day, this is not that big of a deal...for either party.
quote:
Supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline herald it as a job-creating machine, producing as many as 119,000 jobs.
But only 3,900 workers will actually be required to build the pipeline to carry oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, according to the U.S. State Department, and those jobs will only last for a year. There will be 35 permanent positions created.
TransCanada (TRP), the company seeking permission to build the pipeline, claims the effort will create 13,000 construction jobs.
But even TransCanada only expects that building the pipeline will take about 7 million hours of labor. That works out to about a year's worth of work for 3,400 workers. If the work were spread evenly across 13,000 workers, it would only mean three months of work for each.
Me thinks congress prefers to focus on fake problems so they don't have to focus on the real problems? At the end of the day, this is not that big of a deal...for either party.
13
Posted on 11/18/14 at 4:31 pm to a want
quote:
Me thinks congress prefers to focus on fake problems so they don't have to focus on the real problems?
Can't disagree on that. Another thing is that Canadian sands project aren't going to be all that profitable at $80 and less oil. I'll be interested to see if its built, even if approved given the current situation.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 4:35 pm to a want
How much more work will happen at the refineries 
Posted on 11/18/14 at 4:45 pm to a want
quote:
Me thinks congress prefers to focus on fake problems so they don't have to focus on the real problems? At the end of the day, this is not that big of a deal...for either party.
Both sides are total hacks on the Keystone issue. Yes it will create some jobs and lower gas prices - but not a lot and not by much. Yes it is ultimately bad for the environment to burn more fossil fuel - but not building keystone really only slightly delays the inevitable if nothing else is done.
Lanrdieu is being voted against by R's because of ObamaCare - an issue that voting her out of office will have absolutely not effect on going forward, as a repeal by Congress simply will not happen. She is being voted against by D's because of Keystone, as issue that, in the grand scheme of things, really matters a whole lot less than a lot of other Democratic concerns.
This post was edited on 11/18/14 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 11/18/14 at 4:46 pm to a want
quote:
At the end of the day, this is not that big of a deal
It's a big deal because the president has made it a big deal. It's hostile to what has been a normal activity within the US for decades. Why?
Posted on 11/18/14 at 4:51 pm to a want
I have the same sentiment, but what blew my mind today was hearing the President in a soundbite saying it would help Canada and the oil would not stay in the United States as if Canada was a geopolitical competitor.
My mind then wandered to the billions we spend defending Saudi and the other monarchies in the Persian Gulf and all the oil that ends up going to Japan, China, India and Europe.
My mind then wandered to the billions we spend defending Saudi and the other monarchies in the Persian Gulf and all the oil that ends up going to Japan, China, India and Europe.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 5:28 pm to a want
quote:
There will be 35 permanent positions created.
Do you really think that only 35 workers can monitor and maintain a pipeline of that size?
Posted on 11/18/14 at 5:35 pm to a want
quote:
There will be 35 permanent positions created.
FYI, Barbara Boxer, who led the debate against passage today, made a point of saying that figure of 35 was incorrect, that it's 50.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 6:12 pm to a want
The pipeline should have gone through thd normal permitting process and if it complied with the law it should have been able to proceed.
But politics got involved and the rest is history.
But politics got involved and the rest is history.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 6:14 pm to a want
If it's no big deal why are democrats so opposed to it?
If it's not big deal why is Mary so desperate for it to pass?
If it's not big deal why is Mary so desperate for it to pass?
Posted on 11/18/14 at 6:18 pm to a want
quote:What about the refining and terminals at the southern end? How many secondary and tertiary jobs created?
But even TransCanada only expects that building the pipeline will take about 7 million hours of labor. That works out to about a year's worth of work for 3,400 workers. If the work were spread evenly across 13,000 workers, it would only mean three months of work for each.
Job creation effect on the US and Canada of oil price stabilization worldwide?
Posted on 11/18/14 at 8:13 pm to a want
If it makes us less dependant on the Middle East and Venezuela , then I'm all for it. Jobs, prices,environment, etc are secondary to that imo.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 8:24 pm to a want
I think the jobs claims are for what the pipeline will bring in terms of additional capacity at the end points, thus creating jobs in those areas.
Not the jobs created temporarily while it's being built.
Not the jobs created temporarily while it's being built.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 9:54 pm to a want
Agreed. And for my own selfish reasons, our company would benefit from Obama veto'ing it.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News