- 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
re: Bayou Bridge Pipeline
Posted on 2/28/17 at 12:47 pm to CharleyLake
Posted on 2/28/17 at 12:47 pm to CharleyLake
I just came here to say that based on your posts in this thread; your initial post/question was rhetorical given your position.
1
Posted on 2/28/17 at 2:46 pm to Golfer
I must in part concur. The initial question's responses went on a tangent. I am pleased that the answers to the initial post disagreed with the propaganda that the pipeline company placed in the local newspapers in which many of the local polititians in SW LA quickly jumped on the bandwagon.
Posted on 2/28/17 at 3:05 pm to CharleyLake
What propaganda would that be?
Posted on 2/28/17 at 4:50 pm to CharleyLake
There will only be 7-12 permanent jobs created by the pipeline. Also, it will be run in an existing ROW. As long as they return the area back to "normal" impact will be fairly minimal.
Now one good thing to come out of this is that part of the deal to allow the pipeline through the basin, is to restore natural bayou and slough flow by removing spoil banks from the original creation of the ROW.
Now one good thing to come out of this is that part of the deal to allow the pipeline through the basin, is to restore natural bayou and slough flow by removing spoil banks from the original creation of the ROW.
Posted on 2/28/17 at 5:39 pm to tigNstick629
7-12 new jobs for 162 miles of pipe? Where does that number come from? With ETC already being in the region I do not see how this line could support/require that number of positions.
Posted on 2/28/17 at 5:50 pm to Lefty Diego
Pipeline representative. I agree and think it is on the high side.
ETA. I really don't see how there would be the need for the creation of any permanent jobs. They are touting it as a big job creator when it's not. Sure it will be a local economic stimulator with local contractors and some businesses, but not nearly as much as is being advertised. Of course I am all for it.
The opponents are way overblowing the evvironmental controls and the proponents are overblowing the job creation aspect.
ETA. I really don't see how there would be the need for the creation of any permanent jobs. They are touting it as a big job creator when it's not. Sure it will be a local economic stimulator with local contractors and some businesses, but not nearly as much as is being advertised. Of course I am all for it.
The opponents are way overblowing the evvironmental controls and the proponents are overblowing the job creation aspect.
This post was edited on 2/28/17 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 2/28/17 at 8:09 pm to CharleyLake
For the record my initial post was meant to call BS on the job creation claims. I've seen hundreds of miles of large diameter pipe operated by only a handful of field employees (supported by contractors as needed). I view eminent domain as a necessary evil. As a landowner you could do worse than having a bunch of pipeline companies wanting to get across your land... Read up on this high speed train they want to build between Dallas and Texas.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News