Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
nipsip

The US Benefits Little From the Keystone Pipeline

Rate this topic

83 posts in this topic

Assuming there are no leaks or spills, the project is basically worthless to the USA.

 

"The State Department report puts the total at 42,100 jobs, though the definition of a job in this sense is a position filled for one year. Much of the construction work would come in four- or or eight-month stretches. About 10,400 seasonal workers would be recruited for construction, the State Department said.

 

When looked at as "an average annual job," it works out to about 3,900 jobs over one year of construction or 1,950 jobs each year for two years.

 

"There’s very few jobs operating pipelines," said Ian Goodman, president of the Goodman Group Ltd., an energy and economic consulting firm in Berkeley, Calif. "That’s one of the reasons why pipelines are attractive to the oil industry. They’re relatively inexpensive to build and operate."

 

The report says the project would provide jobs for about 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors."

 

"Keystone will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming there are no leaks or spills, the project is basically worthless to the USA.

 

 

Even if there are leaks/spills that do pollute wouldn't that pollution be a scintilla of the continuous air pollution caused by diesel-powered locomotives and trucks used to transport that immense quantity of oil?

 

Is oil transport by pipeline less risky than by train, truck, or ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if there are leaks/spills that do pollute wouldn't that pollution be a scintilla of the continuous air pollution caused by diesel-powered locomotives and trucks used to transport that immense quantity of oil?

 

Is oil transport by pipeline less risky than by train, truck, or ship?

 

What's curious is the Canadians could go east or west to their own ports and not involve us at all. So in answer to your question it's less risky to transport it in a country other than you're own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at this source for the article.

 

 

CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs

 

 

 

way to go Nipsip.

 

For a pipeline of that length only 35 permanent jobs does seem understated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prob add a few refinery jobs, and some labor at the dock where they fill the ships w refined products to sell to customers that the US already has and TC doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe we should do this like Obamacare.

 

We have to build it to see how many jobs are in it. :p

 

Well that part is obvious. Those selling almost always embellish the positive and diminish the negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the title of the thread.  The premise of the discussion, is collectivist dog crap.  


"Well lets look at this from what benefit the collective will derive from it.  Will it suit the masses,and their leaders?"


 



Nipsip, the collective is done with you and people like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at this source for the article.

 

 

CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs

 

 

 

way to go Nipsip.

 

If you read the report, that is exactly how many full time jobs the pipeline creates plus 15 permanent contractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even the title of the thread.  The premise of the discussion, is collectivist dog crap.  

 

"Well lets look at this from what benefit the collective will derive from it.  Will it suit the masses,and their leaders?"

 

 

Nipsip, the collective is done with you and people like you.

 

The post is accurate, read the part of the government study about jobs and the part of the Cornell study about the steel pipe being already made in China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, they could go East, or West, but then again, how much Refinery capacity is there to the East, and West?

 

They could build it in Canada, however it has been defeated so Trans-Canada wants the US to be its huckleberry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.