Would you approve the Keystone Pipeline if...

  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 22, 2015 2:19 AM GMT
    it is to be made with US materials, and the oil transported through it is processed for use in the United States and not sold abroad?

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230033-senate-dems-press-amendments-ahead-of-keystone-vote

    There are two amendments to the Keystone "Jobs Bill" that would indeed lead to more American jobs and less American reliance on foreign oil, which is the stated goal of those in favor of the pipeline. Should the Republicans vote against these amendments, can there be any doubt that jobs and US dependence on foreign oil have nothing to do with their true agenda?

    Without these, we can expect the pipeline to create less than 50 permanent jobs, and do nothing to help ween us off of foreign oil.

    Time for the GOP to put up or shut up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2015 2:48 AM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidit is to be made with US materials, and the oil transported through it is processed for use in the United States and not sold abroad?

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230033-senate-dems-press-amendments-ahead-of-keystone-vote

    There are two amendments to the Keystone "Jobs Bill" that would indeed lead to more American jobs and less American reliance on foreign oil, which is the stated goal of those in favor of the pipeline. Should the Republicans vote against these amendments, can there be any doubt that jobs and US dependence on foreign oil have nothing to do with their true agenda?

    Without these, we can expect the pipeline to create less than 50 permanent jobs, and do nothing to help ween us off of foreign oil.

    Time for the GOP to put up or shut up.

    There are many Democrats that are with the Republicans on the Keystone pipeline so your admonition to the GOP alone is BS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2015 3:02 AM GMT
    It's all just a lot of hot air on all sides now. I'd guess that the only reason Obama would hold on to it right now is so that he can use it as bargaining chip for something that he wants later. Not gonna give it away for free.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 22, 2015 3:42 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Physiqueflex saidit is to be made with US materials, and the oil transported through it is processed for use in the United States and not sold abroad?

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230033-senate-dems-press-amendments-ahead-of-keystone-vote

    There are two amendments to the Keystone "Jobs Bill" that would indeed lead to more American jobs and less American reliance on foreign oil, which is the stated goal of those in favor of the pipeline. Should the Republicans vote against these amendments, can there be any doubt that jobs and US dependence on foreign oil have nothing to do with their true agenda?

    Without these, we can expect the pipeline to create less than 50 permanent jobs, and do nothing to help ween us off of foreign oil.

    Time for the GOP to put up or shut up.

    There are many Democrats that are with the Republicans on the Keystone pipeline so your admonition to the GOP alone is BS.


    IIRC there were indeed 31 Democrats in the House who voted to pass the bill. I don't have the results in front of me so I can only guess as to which states those members represent. It wouldn't be a surprise if the proposed pipeline runs through most of those representatives states. That vote was in November, so the next one will be interesting. That could be as early as this Friday.

    As far as my admonition, the pipeline and continued devotion to non-renewable energy and its pollution is part of the GOP's agenda. It's their baby.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2015 3:29 PM GMT
    I think it should be approved with or without those amendments. I don't understand why they would want to curb the export of oil. If the supply is high in the U.S. then not allowing the export of oil would force them to sell the oil at very low prices, which could hurt the industry. I think it's one of those things that sounds good, but in reality wouldn't work.

    Either way this thing has dragged on for way too long. The transport of the oil will occur regardless. Whether it is hauled by pipeline, truck, or train. In the long run I think the pipeline would not only be much more efficient, but better for the environment that the other more inefficient methods of transportation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2015 5:51 PM GMT
    What part about "job engine" don't/won't people understand? As long as strict environmental controls are in place, I support it 100%. NB: strict =/= excessive.
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Jan 22, 2015 6:12 PM GMT
    Only if they bury it and encase it in concrete
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2015 7:25 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    As far as my admonition, the pipeline and continued devotion to non-renewable energy and its pollution is part of the GOP's agenda. It's their baby.


    Oil as a non-renewable resource is so 2 years ago ;) No, but there is actually some interesting things going on in the field. If you're interested, some pretty cool research has been going on at Montana State University. I don't fully understand it, but I believe they were able to use micro-organisms that have a very short lifespan and reproduce rapidly to create oil in the lab in just a few days--I've also heard of algae being used. In just a few years we very well could be referring to oil as a renewable resource.

    Ideally you're right; our continued devotion to non-renewable energy is problematic. However, where it stands right now there really isn't much option. Without going into too much detail, you run into problems with base vs. peak loading when you rely too much on renewable energy sources. To make matters worse we still don't have very good methods for storing energy for use when the renewable energy systems aren't running optimally (i.e. at night for solar or lack of wind for wind turbines). If you have solutions to some of these deep problems that we face then I'm sure lots of engineers would love you hear from you. In fact you'd become the richest man on earth.

    If you ever want to talk energy hit me up and I'd love to chat. I am very interested in energy systems as it is my area of study.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 22, 2015 8:21 PM GMT
    Thanks. I know the problems with renewable energy, and I believe strongly that the only way to resolve them is going to be with public investment. I also know that oil is going to be our primary source of energy for a while and waiting for "market forces" to do their thing would keep us dependent on it until it runs out completely, then we're scrambling to fix a much bigger problem created by short term profits. Any energy policy that doesn't have us weening off of oil is a non-starter with me. If we're going to call energy an issue of national security and a priority, we should start treating it that way.

    Further, if we're going to use the promise of a "job engine" as motivation for a project such as the pipeline, I think it damn well be more than 50 permanent jobs, and if we're going to be handing over a thousand miles of land to a private company, the People should be getting something significant in return. Alaskan residents get something like a thousand bucks per year each for the pipeline there. Permanent jobs and cheaper gas doesn't sound like too much to ask for.

    The point is that the Republican platform only pays lip-service to jobs and gas prices. Campaign contributions are all that matters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2015 10:57 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidThanks. I know the problems with renewable energy, and I believe strongly that the only way to resolve them is going to be with public investment. I also know that oil is going to be our primary source of energy for a while and waiting for "market forces" to do their thing would keep us dependent on it until it runs out completely, then we're scrambling to fix a much bigger problem created by short term profits. Any energy policy that doesn't have us weening off of oil is a non-starter with me. If we're going to call energy an issue of national security and a priority, we should start treating it that way.

    Further, if we're going to use the promise of a "job engine" as motivation for a project such as the pipeline, I think it damn well be more than 50 permanent jobs, and if we're going to be handing over a thousand miles of land to a private company, the People should be getting something significant in return. Alaskan residents get something like a thousand bucks per year each for the pipeline there. Permanent jobs and cheaper gas doesn't sound like too much to ask for.

    The point is that the Republican platform only pays lip-service to jobs and gas prices. Campaign contributions are all that matters.


    "50 jobs?" Get real; we're talking thousands, and not just during the construction phase. And, I've never known a political party or candidate that didn't hustle to get, and accept campaign contributions. Something about money being the mother's milk of politics, I think. You might want to talk to Messrs. Buffett and Soros about that.

    As for encasing the pipeline in concrete, that would be environmentally irresponsible; how would it be shut down and repaired in case of sabotage or a leak? The lessons learned from the Alaska Pipeline, along with newer advances, can easily and economically be applied here. And sure, give the residents near the pipeline a bonus, like Alaska does. But don't do it with public funds or government management; we've seen how well that works, which is to say, it doesn't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2015 11:11 PM GMT
    When you see what a cleaned up oil spill looks like with black sludge still all over the place. Putting that pipeline through the middle of our food supply in a no brainer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 12:08 AM GMT
    I'm amazed there are still people who haven't read up and learned that the pipeline won't create any significant number of jobs.

    Except perhaps cleanup jobs when it spills, like just happened on the Yellowstone.

    Bottom line is, US should support zero additional oil infrastructure. Time to move on. That same investment in renewables would yield far more jobs and be more consistent with long-term priorities. We can't even hide behind China as an excuse anymore.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 23, 2015 12:10 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex saidThanks. I know the problems with renewable energy, and I believe strongly that the only way to resolve them is going to be with public investment. I also know that oil is going to be our primary source of energy for a while and waiting for "market forces" to do their thing would keep us dependent on it until it runs out completely, then we're scrambling to fix a much bigger problem created by short term profits. Any energy policy that doesn't have us weening off of oil is a non-starter with me. If we're going to call energy an issue of national security and a priority, we should start treating it that way.

    Further, if we're going to use the promise of a "job engine" as motivation for a project such as the pipeline, I think it damn well be more than 50 permanent jobs, and if we're going to be handing over a thousand miles of land to a private company, the People should be getting something significant in return. Alaskan residents get something like a thousand bucks per year each for the pipeline there. Permanent jobs and cheaper gas doesn't sound like too much to ask for.

    The point is that the Republican platform only pays lip-service to jobs and gas prices. Campaign contributions are all that matters.


    "50 jobs?" Get real; we're talking thousands, and not just during the construction phase. And, I've never known a political party or candidate that didn't hustle to get, and accept campaign contributions. Something about money being the mother's milk of politics, I think. You might want to talk to Messrs. Buffett and Soros about that.

    As for encasing the pipeline in concrete, that would be environmentally irresponsible; how would it be shut down and repaired in case of sabotage or a leak? The lessons learned from the Alaska Pipeline, along with newer advances, can easily and economically be applied here. And sure, give the residents near the pipeline a bonus, like Alaska does. But don't do it with public funds or government management; we've seen how well that works, which is to say, it doesn't.


    According to a State Department report, the Keystone project is expected to generate 35 permanent jobs for regular inspection and maintenance. Estimates are upwards of 6500 jobs during the construction phase. This project is simply weak in the jobs-creation department and to keep touting that it is doesn't fly any more, just as the notion that it will lead to "energy independence" and lower gas prices doesn't fly. Keystone ultimately only benefits a very small group of people, which isn't how public policy should work.

    As far as paying the people a stipend, it should absolutely come from the companies that are profiting from the pipeline, but the states involved have a combined population 50 times that of Alaska, and Keystone will move half the oil of Alaska's, so I wouldn't expect anything like that to happen. They should at the very least be leasing the land and not buying it. I don't know how the land-grab portion of this thing works.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 7:57 AM GMT
    CFL_Oakland saidI'm amazed there are still people who haven't read up and learned that the pipeline won't create any significant number of jobs.

    Except perhaps cleanup jobs when it spills, like just happened on the Yellowstone.

    Bottom line is, US should support zero additional oil infrastructure. Time to move on. That same investment in renewables would yield far more jobs and be more consistent with long-term priorities. We can't even hide behind China as an excuse anymore.


    Which renewables:

    Burning Food for gasoline and causing higher food prices,
    Toxic Solar Panels made in China or
    Wind Turbines that are shredding endangered birds?

    If the pipeline is so bad, why does it have democrat union support and support from many congressional democrats?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 2:52 PM GMT
    wesbell saidWhen you see what a cleaned up oil spill looks like with black sludge still all over the place. Putting that pipeline through the middle of our food supply in a no brainer.


    It's been a "no brainer" since we've had oil

    http://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_big_image/pipeline_line_map-630x420.gif
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 23, 2015 3:18 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    wesbell saidWhen you see what a cleaned up oil spill looks like with black sludge still all over the place. Putting that pipeline through the middle of our food supply in a no brainer.


    It's been a "no brainer" since we had oil

    http://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_big_image/pipeline_line_map-630x420.gif


    Thanks for posting that. From the related article:

    "Since 1986, pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000, and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages. Using government data, ProPublica has mapped thousands of these incidents in a new interactive news application, which provides detailed information about the cause and costs of reported incidents going back nearly three decades."

    "While a slew of federal and state agencies oversee some aspect of America’s pipelines, the bulk of government monitoring and enforcement falls to a small agency within the Department of Transportation called the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration – pronounced “FIM-sa” by insiders. The agency only requires that seven percent of natural gas lines and 44 percent of all hazardous liquid lines be subject to their rigorous inspection criteria and inspected regularly. The rest of the regulated pipelines are still inspected, according to a PHMSA official, but less often."

    "Critics say that PHMSA lacks the resources to adequately monitor the millions of miles of pipelines over which it does have authority. The agency has funding for only 137 inspectors, and often employs even less than that (in 2010 the agency had 110 inspectors on staff). A Congressional Research Service report found a “long-term pattern of understaffing” in the agency’s pipeline safety program. According to the report, between 2001 and 2009 the agency reported a staffing shortfall of an average of 24 employees a year."

    http://www.propublica.org/article/pipelines-explained-how-safe-are-americas-2.5-million-miles-of-pipelines
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 23, 2015 4:00 PM GMT
    Well, the Senate has tabled both the Markey and Franken amendments, and in a late night session last night rejected or tabled amendments that:

    Would have required campaign finance disclosures for certain persons benefitting from tar sands development;

    Imposed a fee of 8 cents per barrel on oil transported through the pipeline;

    Ensured private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity;

    Amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that products derived from tar sands are crude oil for purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum.

    And on Wednesday rejected an amendment that would have continued cleaning up fields and streams while protecting neighborhoods, generating affordable energy, and creating jobs.

    The Senate did pass a "sense of the Senate" amendment that global warming is real, but then rejected one which affirmed that human activity is a significant contributor to it.

    No surprises here.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_114_1.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 4:38 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    freedomisntfree said
    wesbell saidWhen you see what a cleaned up oil spill looks like with black sludge still all over the place. Putting that pipeline through the middle of our food supply in a no brainer.


    It's been a "no brainer" since we had oil

    http://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_big_image/pipeline_line_map-630x420.gif


    Thanks for posting that. From the related article:

    "Since 1986, pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000, and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages. Using government data, ProPublica has mapped thousands of these incidents in a new interactive news application, which provides detailed information about the cause and costs of reported incidents going back nearly three decades."

    "While a slew of federal and state agencies oversee some aspect of America’s pipelines, the bulk of government monitoring and enforcement falls to a small agency within the Department of Transportation called the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration – pronounced “FIM-sa” by insiders. The agency only requires that seven percent of natural gas lines and 44 percent of all hazardous liquid lines be subject to their rigorous inspection criteria and inspected regularly. The rest of the regulated pipelines are still inspected, according to a PHMSA official, but less often."

    "Critics say that PHMSA lacks the resources to adequately monitor the millions of miles of pipelines over which it does have authority. The agency has funding for only 137 inspectors, and often employs even less than that (in 2010 the agency had 110 inspectors on staff). A Congressional Research Service report found a “long-term pattern of understaffing” in the agency’s pipeline safety program. According to the report, between 2001 and 2009 the agency reported a staffing shortfall of an average of 24 employees a year."

    http://www.propublica.org/article/pipelines-explained-how-safe-are-americas-2.5-million-miles-of-pipelines


    TLDR, but


    No one here (I don't think) is advocating anything but strict environment / safety oversight. No question that what's been done in the past can be improved .... like anything else in the world.

    Still though, build it.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 23, 2015 4:52 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said

    TLDR, but


    No one here (I don't think) is advocating anything but strict environment / safety oversight. No question that what's been done in the past can be improved .... like anything else in the world.

    Still though, build it.


    Didn't read? It was the article from which you took the map you posted. Do you usually not read what you post?

    Still though, why build it? There has yet to be a convincing argument in favor of it, or why they had a marathon session to kill any amendment that protects the environment, provides jobs for American steel manufacturers, protects American sovereignty, or helps lower gas prices domestically, though I suspect the summoning of GOP representatives and presidential hopefuls to Rancho Mirage this weekend for an audience with the Kingmaker Koch Brothers is a clue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 5:22 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    freedomisntfree said

    TLDR, but


    No one here (I don't think) is advocating anything but strict environment / safety oversight. No question that what's been done in the past can be improved .... like anything else in the world.

    Still though, build it.


    Didn't read? It was the article from which you took the map you posted. Do you usually not read what you post?

    Still though, why build it? There has yet to be a convincing argument in favor of it, or why they had a marathon session to kill any amendment that protects the environment, provides jobs for American steel manufacturers, protects American sovereignty, or helps lower gas prices domestically, though I suspect the summoning of GOP representatives and presidential hopefuls to Rancho Mirage this weekend for an audience with the Kingmaker Koch Brothers is a clue.


    "Didn't read? It was the article from which you took the map you posted. Do you usually not read what you post?

    First pic I posted from Google Images was blurly so I replaced it with another pic from 'view image'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 5:24 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex saidThanks. I know the problems with renewable energy, and I believe strongly that the only way to resolve them is going to be with public investment. I also know that oil is going to be our primary source of energy for a while and waiting for "market forces" to do their thing would keep us dependent on it until it runs out completely, then we're scrambling to fix a much bigger problem created by short term profits. Any energy policy that doesn't have us weening off of oil is a non-starter with me. If we're going to call energy an issue of national security and a priority, we should start treating it that way.

    Further, if we're going to use the promise of a "job engine" as motivation for a project such as the pipeline, I think it damn well be more than 50 permanent jobs, and if we're going to be handing over a thousand miles of land to a private company, the People should be getting something significant in return. Alaskan residents get something like a thousand bucks per year each for the pipeline there. Permanent jobs and cheaper gas doesn't sound like too much to ask for.

    The point is that the Republican platform only pays lip-service to jobs and gas prices. Campaign contributions are all that matters.


    "50 jobs?" Get real; we're talking thousands, and not just during the construction phase. And, I've never known a political party or candidate that didn't hustle to get, and accept campaign contributions. Something about money being the mother's milk of politics, I think. You might want to talk to Messrs. Buffett and Soros about that.

    As for encasing the pipeline in concrete, that would be environmentally irresponsible; how would it be shut down and repaired in case of sabotage or a leak? The lessons learned from the Alaska Pipeline, along with newer advances, can easily and economically be applied here. And sure, give the residents near the pipeline a bonus, like Alaska does. But don't do it with public funds or government management; we've seen how well that works, which is to say, it doesn't.


    According to a State Department report, the Keystone project is expected to generate 35 permanent jobs for regular inspection and maintenance. Estimates are upwards of 6500 jobs during the construction phase. This project is simply weak in the jobs-creation department and to keep touting that it is doesn't fly any more, just as the notion that it will lead to "energy independence" and lower gas prices doesn't fly. Keystone ultimately only benefits a very small group of people, which isn't how public policy should work.

    As far as paying the people a stipend, it should absolutely come from the companies that are profiting from the pipeline, but the states involved have a combined population 50 times that of Alaska, and Keystone will move half the oil of Alaska's, so I wouldn't expect anything like that to happen. They should at the very least be leasing the land and not buying it. I don't know how the land-grab portion of this thing works.


    Why State got involved in this, other than to advance Obama's anti-Keystone bias, is beyond me; it's more a matter for Interior, if that. We agree on the stipend, but not the permanent jobs, for you don't consider the refining, marketing, and other jobs that will increase as a result of more oil coming on line.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 23, 2015 5:48 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex saidThanks. I know the problems with renewable energy, and I believe strongly that the only way to resolve them is going to be with public investment. I also know that oil is going to be our primary source of energy for a while and waiting for "market forces" to do their thing would keep us dependent on it until it runs out completely, then we're scrambling to fix a much bigger problem created by short term profits. Any energy policy that doesn't have us weening off of oil is a non-starter with me. If we're going to call energy an issue of national security and a priority, we should start treating it that way.

    Further, if we're going to use the promise of a "job engine" as motivation for a project such as the pipeline, I think it damn well be more than 50 permanent jobs, and if we're going to be handing over a thousand miles of land to a private company, the People should be getting something significant in return. Alaskan residents get something like a thousand bucks per year each for the pipeline there. Permanent jobs and cheaper gas doesn't sound like too much to ask for.

    The point is that the Republican platform only pays lip-service to jobs and gas prices. Campaign contributions are all that matters.


    "50 jobs?" Get real; we're talking thousands, and not just during the construction phase. And, I've never known a political party or candidate that didn't hustle to get, and accept campaign contributions. Something about money being the mother's milk of politics, I think. You might want to talk to Messrs. Buffett and Soros about that.

    As for encasing the pipeline in concrete, that would be environmentally irresponsible; how would it be shut down and repaired in case of sabotage or a leak? The lessons learned from the Alaska Pipeline, along with newer advances, can easily and economically be applied here. And sure, give the residents near the pipeline a bonus, like Alaska does. But don't do it with public funds or government management; we've seen how well that works, which is to say, it doesn't.


    According to a State Department report, the Keystone project is expected to generate 35 permanent jobs for regular inspection and maintenance. Estimates are upwards of 6500 jobs during the construction phase. This project is simply weak in the jobs-creation department and to keep touting that it is doesn't fly any more, just as the notion that it will lead to "energy independence" and lower gas prices doesn't fly. Keystone ultimately only benefits a very small group of people, which isn't how public policy should work.

    As far as paying the people a stipend, it should absolutely come from the companies that are profiting from the pipeline, but the states involved have a combined population 50 times that of Alaska, and Keystone will move half the oil of Alaska's, so I wouldn't expect anything like that to happen. They should at the very least be leasing the land and not buying it. I don't know how the land-grab portion of this thing works.


    Why State got involved in this, other than to advance Obama's anti-Keystone bias, is beyond me; it's more a matter for Interior, if that. We agree on the stipend, but not the permanent jobs, for you don't consider the refining, marketing, and other jobs that will increase as a result of more oil coming on line.


    Seriously? You cannot think of Another reason why the State Department would get involved?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 5:58 PM GMT
    lol, at this point the only thing the keystone will be carrying is air. With the collapse in oil price, layoffs are happening and more coming.

    I't rather intriguing to see these topics on RJ when some conserv posters blamed Obama for cranking up the price of gasoline, when really it was the global price of oil.

    You'll have to make up your minds. If oil recovers well, and keystone flows, and oil is exported, your domestic gas price will surge. You can't have it both ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 5:59 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex saidThanks. I know the problems with renewable energy, and I believe strongly that the only way to resolve them is going to be with public investment. I also know that oil is going to be our primary source of energy for a while and waiting for "market forces" to do their thing would keep us dependent on it until it runs out completely, then we're scrambling to fix a much bigger problem created by short term profits. Any energy policy that doesn't have us weening off of oil is a non-starter with me. If we're going to call energy an issue of national security and a priority, we should start treating it that way.

    Further, if we're going to use the promise of a "job engine" as motivation for a project such as the pipeline, I think it damn well be more than 50 permanent jobs, and if we're going to be handing over a thousand miles of land to a private company, the People should be getting something significant in return. Alaskan residents get something like a thousand bucks per year each for the pipeline there. Permanent jobs and cheaper gas doesn't sound like too much to ask for.

    The point is that the Republican platform only pays lip-service to jobs and gas prices. Campaign contributions are all that matters.


    "50 jobs?" Get real; we're talking thousands, and not just during the construction phase. And, I've never known a political party or candidate that didn't hustle to get, and accept campaign contributions. Something about money being the mother's milk of politics, I think. You might want to talk to Messrs. Buffett and Soros about that.

    As for encasing the pipeline in concrete, that would be environmentally irresponsible; how would it be shut down and repaired in case of sabotage or a leak? The lessons learned from the Alaska Pipeline, along with newer advances, can easily and economically be applied here. And sure, give the residents near the pipeline a bonus, like Alaska does. But don't do it with public funds or government management; we've seen how well that works, which is to say, it doesn't.


    According to a State Department report, the Keystone project is expected to generate 35 permanent jobs for regular inspection and maintenance. Estimates are upwards of 6500 jobs during the construction phase. This project is simply weak in the jobs-creation department and to keep touting that it is doesn't fly any more, just as the notion that it will lead to "energy independence" and lower gas prices doesn't fly. Keystone ultimately only benefits a very small group of people, which isn't how public policy should work.

    As far as paying the people a stipend, it should absolutely come from the companies that are profiting from the pipeline, but the states involved have a combined population 50 times that of Alaska, and Keystone will move half the oil of Alaska's, so I wouldn't expect anything like that to happen. They should at the very least be leasing the land and not buying it. I don't know how the land-grab portion of this thing works.


    Why State got involved in this, other than to advance Obama's anti-Keystone bias, is beyond me; it's more a matter for Interior, if that. We agree on the stipend, but not the permanent jobs, for you don't consider the refining, marketing, and other jobs that will increase as a result of more oil coming on line.


    Seriously? You cannot think of Another reason why the State Department would get involved?


    No
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jan 23, 2015 6:38 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex said
    MGINSD said
    Physiqueflex saidThanks. I know the problems with renewable energy, and I believe strongly that the only way to resolve them is going to be with public investment. I also know that oil is going to be our primary source of energy for a while and waiting for "market forces" to do their thing would keep us dependent on it until it runs out completely, then we're scrambling to fix a much bigger problem created by short term profits. Any energy policy that doesn't have us weening off of oil is a non-starter with me. If we're going to call energy an issue of national security and a priority, we should start treating it that way.

    Further, if we're going to use the promise of a "job engine" as motivation for a project such as the pipeline, I think it damn well be more than 50 permanent jobs, and if we're going to be handing over a thousand miles of land to a private company, the People should be getting something significant in return. Alaskan residents get something like a thousand bucks per year each for the pipeline there. Permanent jobs and cheaper gas doesn't sound like too much to ask for.

    The point is that the Republican platform only pays lip-service to jobs and gas prices. Campaign contributions are all that matters.


    "50 jobs?" Get real; we're talking thousands, and not just during the construction phase. And, I've never known a political party or candidate that didn't hustle to get, and accept campaign contributions. Something about money being the mother's milk of politics, I think. You might want to talk to Messrs. Buffett and Soros about that.

    As for encasing the pipeline in concrete, that would be environmentally irresponsible; how would it be shut down and repaired in case of sabotage or a leak? The lessons learned from the Alaska Pipeline, along with newer advances, can easily and economically be applied here. And sure, give the residents near the pipeline a bonus, like Alaska does. But don't do it with public funds or government management; we've seen how well that works, which is to say, it doesn't.


    According to a State Department report, the Keystone project is expected to generate 35 permanent jobs for regular inspection and maintenance. Estimates are upwards of 6500 jobs during the construction phase. This project is simply weak in the jobs-creation department and to keep touting that it is doesn't fly any more, just as the notion that it will lead to "energy independence" and lower gas prices doesn't fly. Keystone ultimately only benefits a very small group of people, which isn't how public policy should work.

    As far as paying the people a stipend, it should absolutely come from the companies that are profiting from the pipeline, but the states involved have a combined population 50 times that of Alaska, and Keystone will move half the oil of Alaska's, so I wouldn't expect anything like that to happen. They should at the very least be leasing the land and not buying it. I don't know how the land-grab portion of this thing works.


    Why State got involved in this, other than to advance Obama's anti-Keystone bias, is beyond me; it's more a matter for Interior, if that. We agree on the stipend, but not the permanent jobs, for you don't consider the refining, marketing, and other jobs that will increase as a result of more oil coming on line.


    Seriously? You cannot think of Another reason why the State Department would get involved?


    No


    Well this is the third time you've shown that you are posting from ignorance, so it's time to put you on ignore.

    For the benefit of the poster to whom I posed the question, there's a very good reason why the State Department is interested in this and that is we are selling an 1100 mile stretch of US land to a Canadian company. Of course they will be involved.