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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Considering the amount of money it cost BP, I don't think they plan on letting that happen again.
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.
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.