Obama Blocks Pipeline to Get Cheap Canadian Oil

#51
#51
I don't really care about the politics of it. It looks like scientists have put the environmental risk potential low. If that's the case, it shouldn't be political.
 
#52
#52
I've noticed you keep ratcheting down the estimates of job impact. A post or 2 earlier you were at 4900 and 100.

I expect the next post to be 2000 temps and a net loss of 500...


No, the numbers from Cornell were I think 4900+, total, of which only about 50 would be other than temporary.
 
#53
#53
I don't know how much oil the pipeline would translate into but it must be significant, otherwise, why would large oil companies care? In my opinion, any amount that reduces our dependence on Middle East oil is worth the investment.


That's the point. It might not be worth "any amount." I'm not sure where to draw the line, but would like to know the truth before setting out to try to figure out where the line is.
 
#54
#54
Here's the truth. The environmental studies almost uniformly point to this not being a problem. The job estimates are all over the place but logic dictates it will have some positive impact on jobs.

Why then should the government block this activity? What is the reason to empower the government to stop this even if it created no new jobs? The risks have been determined to be minimal.

For the government to stop an activity there should be a compelling reason. A business shouldn't have to prove "x" of jobs created to be approved.

/truth
 
#55
#55
That's the point. It might not be worth "any amount." I'm not sure where to draw the line, but would like to know the truth before setting out to try to figure out where the line is.

Where would you draw the line? Is reducing our importants of ME oil by 10% worth it? I don't know the actual number, I'm just using a hypothetical.
 
#56
#56
That's the point. It might not be worth "any amount." I'm not sure where to draw the line, but would like to know the truth before setting out to try to figure out where the line is.

Washington Post writer says about 700,000 barrels of oil like bitumen will move through the pipeline each day. Don't know how that translates into refined product but sounds like a significant amount to me.
 
#57
#57
Funny how LG will throw garbage articles out all day everyday and submit them as fact yet on this he needs more info. What a clown.
 
#58
#58
I've noticed you keep ratcheting down the estimates of job impact. A post or 2 earlier you were at 4900 and 100.

I expect the next post to be 2000 temps and a net loss of 500...

The map of the pipe line I saw the other day is not gonna be like a Christmas season job at Walmart.

As a land surveyor I have gathered info for many gas, water, and sewer lines in my time in the field ranging from 2 miles to 30. This would be much more extensive information, not to mention the length that is proposed.

You could take a 100 surveyors and keep them in work for a year by themselves. That doesn't even touch design, construction, and managing.
 
#59
#59
The map of the pipe line I saw the other day is not gonna be like a Christmas season job at Walmart.

As a land surveyor I have gathered info for many gas, water, and sewer lines in my time in the field ranging from 2 miles to 30. This would be much more extensive information, not to mention the length that is proposed.

You could take a 100 surveyors and keep them in work for a year by themselves. That doesn't even touch design, construction, and managing.

Yep - add in the 3 to 4 guys that stand around for every one guy working and pretty soon you are up to some real numbers.
 
#60
#60
Yep - add in the 3 to 4 guys that stand around for every one guy working and pretty soon you are up to some real numbers.

Say what?

We're not employed by the government.:)
And when we work for them they want a flat price up front. Ain't no standing around.:good!:

I actually just got back to the office from one of those government gigs. Had a land owner threaten to shoot me if I came on his property. Nobody likes the government.
 
#61
#61
I was driving down I40 last weekend and noticed a dozen or so flatbeds hauling drill pipe east and a couple of compressor stations. I am guessing they are headed north onto I81 and into PA.

Those truckers are probably getting $5 grand per trip
 
#62
#62
Say what?

We're not employed by the government.:)
And when we work for them they want a flat price up front. Ain't no standing around.:good!:

I actually just got back to the office from one of those government gigs. Had a land owner threaten to shoot me if I came on his property. Nobody likes the government.


Not you of course - I meant the construction guys :whistling:
 
#63
#63
Possible correction here.

The 120,000 number is coincidentally Romney's claim about how many jobs Bain has created over the years. I saw elsewhere that the pipeline would create 20,000, not 120,000. Its very confusing. The math, as they say, is fuzzy.
 
#64
#64
Whether its one job or 100 thousand, environmental studies have indicated it's not a problem, the land owners have agreed, the businesses have agreed and the Canadian government is supporting it - what are the grounds for the Federal government to deny it?

Shouldn't the Feds have to give a reason why they are blocking something rather than the principals proving some job impact?
 
#65
#65
Whether its one job or 100 thousand, environmental studies have indicated it's not a problem, the land owners have agreed, the businesses have agreed and the Canadian government is supporting it - what are the grounds for the Federal government to deny it?

Shouldn't the Feds have to give a reason why they are blocking something rather than the principals proving some job impact?


They did.

You disagree and that's ok.

I would just like to find a neutral source on these issues.
 
#67
#67
They did.

You disagree and that's ok.

I would just like to find a neutral source on these issues.


What was the reason? We need to study it more? That is not really a reason.

I think you are also missing the point about the philosophy here. Why shouldn't the government default position to be allowing economic activity rather than defaulting to denying it until the parties involved can prove some job benefit/outcome to justify it?
 
Last edited:
#68
#68
What was the reason? We need to study it more? That is not really a reason.

I think you are also missing the point about the philosophy here. Why shouldn't the government default position to be allowing economic activity rather than defaulting to denying it until the parties involved can prove some job benefit/outcome to justify it?


Yes, because history has shown that projects involving the drilling of, and transportation of, oil always works out perfectly as planned. The industry is never wrong on safety.

Ever.

So we should just trust their representations as to both environmental impact and jobs.

Brilliant.
 

Attachments

  • oil.jpg
    oil.jpg
    7.7 KB · Views: 47
#69
#69
Considering the amount of money it cost BP, I don't think they plan on letting that happen again.
 
#70
#70
Considering the amount of money it cost BP, I don't think they plan on letting that happen again.


Of course they don't PLAN on it.

The question is, do they underestimate the risk? Either by internal bias or simply by mistake?

Look, I'm going to say this again: I personally am prepared to support the pipeline. I am very worried about both supply and price. And a big construction project makes sense to me for obvious reasons.

At the same time, I just want to have some comfort that its worth the risk. I'm not there yet. I'm open to it. But not there yet.
 
#71
#71
looks like we're just stuck with ME oil since we can't get it from Brazil or even Canada. We will be buying it retail from China soon
 
#72
#72
Yes, because history has shown that projects involving the drilling of, and transportation of, oil always works out perfectly as planned. The industry is never wrong on safety.

Ever.

So we should just trust their representations as to both environmental impact and jobs.

Brilliant.

Nice try but this thing has been studied for over 3 years. Reasonable precautions have turned to stonewalling.

Also, there is considerable difference between deep water drilling and a pipeline over land.

Keystone would be responsible for damages and the government can put in stipulations for inspection, etc.

Instead, they've said no for political reasons.
 
#73
#73
Yes, because history has shown that projects involving the drilling of, and transportation of, oil always works out perfectly as planned. The industry is never wrong on safety.

Ever.

So we should just trust their representations as to both environmental impact and jobs.

Brilliant.

Obama did not reject it for any of the reasons you listed above. He said he hadn't had enough time, but it's been on his desk since the day he took office. If he'd come to the conclusions you listed, he should have said so. If not, then 3 years should have been more than enough time to complete whatever studies were needed.
 
#74
#74
when was the last time an oil pipeline - one used solely for the transportation of oil - failed? just curious b/c I can't think of a time that that has happened.
 
#75
#75
LG the Obamacare plan has much more impact on the US and was forced down our throats within months. This has been studied and reported sufficiently. Sadly this is politics, bad politics that is harmful to our nation.
 

VN Store



Back
Top