Umm, do USMB Republicans understand that the Keystone pipeline will only create 35 permanent jobs?

[Katzndogz]

All infrastructure building jobs are temporary. When the structure is built, the construction workers go home.

 

[tinydancer]

Why is the far left against jobs being created?

I like the idea of thousands or millions of jobs. 35 just aren't enough.

The Koch brothers stand to gain millions upon millions of dollars:


""""Based on data from the Alberta provincial energy department, corporations’ annual information forms, information from a mapping firm called GeoScout, data from a Calgary-based exploration services firm called Divestco Geomatics and interviews with industry analysts and executives, here is a list of individual companies’ net acreage lease holdings in oil sands:"""

●Cenovus Energy (Canada) 1.57 million* (includes rights to an air weapons range)

●Athabasca Oil Corp. (Canada) 1.56 million**

●Koch (U.S.) 1.12 million to 1.47 million***

●Canadian Natural Resources (Canada) 1 million*

●Suncor (Canada) 986,000****

Does Koch Industries hold most Canadian oil sands leases It s complicated. - The Washington Post

So what? Whether or not the Keystone XL is built all those companies will still make a fortune.

You are getting the crude no matter what method of transportation one chooses.

Rail, truck or pipeline that crude is flowing to the Gulf. Pick your poison.

 

[Kosh]

Why is the far left against jobs being created?

I like the idea of thousands or millions of jobs. 35 just aren't enough.

The Koch brothers stand to gain millions upon millions of dollars:


""""Based on data from the Alberta provincial energy department, corporations’ annual information forms, information from a mapping firm called GeoScout, data from a Calgary-based exploration services firm called Divestco Geomatics and interviews with industry analysts and executives, here is a list of individual companies’ net acreage lease holdings in oil sands:"""

●Cenovus Energy (Canada) 1.57 million* (includes rights to an air weapons range)

●Athabasca Oil Corp. (Canada) 1.56 million**

●Koch (U.S.) 1.12 million to 1.47 million***

●Canadian Natural Resources (Canada) 1 million*

●Suncor (Canada) 986,000****

Does Koch Industries hold most Canadian oil sands leases It s complicated. - The Washington Post

The far left is also showing they are against union jobs, why does the far let hate unions?

 

[tinydancer]

All infrastructure building jobs are temporary. When the structure is built, the construction workers go home.

I always thought liberals dense when it comes to grasping reality on how the real world works.

This thread proves that premise as bang on the money. These bloody idiots think construction jobs which by their very nature are temporary jobs aren't "real jobs".

 

[Pogo]

Why is the far left against jobs being created?

I like the idea of thousands or millions of jobs. 35 just aren't enough.

The Koch brothers stand to gain millions upon millions of dollars:


""""Based on data from the Alberta provincial energy department, corporations’ annual information forms, information from a mapping firm called GeoScout, data from a Calgary-based exploration services firm called Divestco Geomatics and interviews with industry analysts and executives, here is a list of individual companies’ net acreage lease holdings in oil sands:"""

●Cenovus Energy (Canada) 1.57 million* (includes rights to an air weapons range)

●Athabasca Oil Corp. (Canada) 1.56 million**

●Koch (U.S.) 1.12 million to 1.47 million***

●Canadian Natural Resources (Canada) 1 million*

●Suncor (Canada) 986,000****

Does Koch Industries hold most Canadian oil sands leases It s complicated. - The Washington Post

So what? Whether or not the Keystone XL is built all those companies will still make a fortune.

You are getting the crude no matter what method of transportation one chooses.

Rail, truck or pipeline that crude is flowing to the Gulf. Pick your poison.

So what? It demonstrates who stands to gain and puts the lie to bogus claims like the Boner linked in post 300, that's what. It injects a soberingly honest perspective into a basis built on bullshit.

 

[kaz]

Once again your inability to read gets you in deep doodoo. The U.S. State Department came up with the number 35 as part of the analysis it's required to do -- and that was quite some time ago

You crack me up. The article didn't say that. It said that was his claim based on his analysis of the State department report.

That's what I just said. I've done the same thing in the past, quoting the same number from the same source. That doesn't make it "my idea".

"35" is an absolute number. It doesn't need "analysis" -- it means "thirty-five", not "twenty -eight" or "forty seven thousand" or any other number.

The State Department report didn't include all the things I listed, it only included the team that directly oversees the pipeline. It's like measuring the size of a church based on the number of people who work in the church office.

That's because they're not relevant to the pipeline. You listed a bunch of people in refining and transporting the end product -- people who are already employed right now doing just that. They don't suddenly get defined as "new jobs" just because a raw material source changes.

So you don't grasp that if there is more oil, more people need to work to process it. Why doesn't that surprise me?

That processing (refining) already operates at max capacity. A fact noted over and over here in this thread as well as others. There is no work "added". All there is is overhead subtracted -- for the oil company. You can't put more water into a full glass.

I can never tell with liberals if your complete lack of grasp of knowledge of economics is because you just don't want to know or if you're actually incapable of grasping it.

 

[Pogo]

Once again your inability to read gets you in deep doodoo. The U.S. State Department came up with the number 35 as part of the analysis it's required to do -- and that was quite some time ago

You crack me up. The article didn't say that. It said that was his claim based on his analysis of the State department report.

That's what I just said. I've done the same thing in the past, quoting the same number from the same source. That doesn't make it "my idea".

"35" is an absolute number. It doesn't need "analysis" -- it means "thirty-five", not "twenty -eight" or "forty seven thousand" or any other number.

The State Department report didn't include all the things I listed, it only included the team that directly oversees the pipeline. It's like measuring the size of a church based on the number of people who work in the church office.

That's because they're not relevant to the pipeline. You listed a bunch of people in refining and transporting the end product -- people who are already employed right now doing just that. They don't suddenly get defined as "new jobs" just because a raw material source changes.

So you don't grasp that if there is more oil, more people need to work to process it. Why doesn't that surprise me?

That processing (refining) already operates at max capacity. A fact noted over and over here in this thread as well as others. There is no work "added". All there is is overhead subtracted -- for the oil company. You can't put more water into a full glass.

I can never tell with liberals if your complete lack of grasp of knowledge of economics is because you just don't want to know or if you're actually incapable of grasping it.

I can never tell with you if your complete lack of grasp of knowledge of facts presented directly to you is because you just don't want to know or if you're actually incapable of grasping them.

Do you have a refutation, or do you not? Quit the pussyfooting.

 

[kaz]

I can never tell with you if your complete lack of grasp of knowledge of facts presented directly to you is because you just don't want to know or if you're actually incapable of grasping them.

Do you have a refutation, or do you not? Quit the pussyfooting.

They're clown facts, bro.

The idea that building a pipeline through the center of the country and filling it with oil would only create 35 permanent jobs is so patently preposterous that anyone who believes that is an idiot. You put enough parameters on it and maybe you can justify the number in some word parsing way, but you can't justify it in a way that makes any sort of logical sense to support any rational argument.

 

[tinydancer]

Construction jobs are by definition temporary.

Any idiot knows that but you people are idiots of a particular kind aren't you?

So maybe we should just put the kibosh on ALL construction jobs because none of them are permanent.

Unfuckingbelievable.

What's "Unfuckingbelievable" is how the rightwinger/Republicans tried/trying to pull the wool over the American peoples eyes by touting KXL as an American jobs bill. Not even a half year ago the cowardly Speaker of the House said KXL would create 100,000 jobs, while TransCanada was claiming 20,000 jobs (at least TransCanada didn't say "American" jobs).

But now-----now on this thread, rightwing/Republican's are admitting that enabling the world to burn what many are calling the dirtiest oil in the world is not much of a jobs bill, nor is it an American energy independence bill - in fact, KXL does little, very little, for America except put our land and water at risk of contamination but-----but kochsuckers support it anyway - wtfiwwy?


John Boehner says Keystone XL pipeline would create 100,000 jobs
By Steve Contorno
June 26th, 2014

<snip>

Our ruling
Boehner said Obama’s "delay in approving Keystone is costing Americans more than 100,000 jobs." He was citing a study that experts said was "flawed" and the company in charge of the project, TransCanada, said was "no longer relevant." The State Department estimated a much lower amount, and TransCanada cited that study to PolitiFact.

We rate Boehner’s statement False.

"The nearly six-year delay in approving Keystone is costing Americans more than 100,000 jobs."
— John Boehner on Wednesday, June 25th, 2014 in an op-ed for "USA Today"

.​

Dirtiest oil in the world? Alas you get heavy crude from Mexico and Venezuela as well.

And you are burning that so called "dirty oil" every day and have been for years on end now.

Canada is your number one supplier and this crude is coming to you daily. By pipelines, rail and trucks.

Deal with it.

 

[Pogo]

I can never tell with you if your complete lack of grasp of knowledge of facts presented directly to you is because you just don't want to know or if you're actually incapable of grasping them.

Do you have a refutation, or do you not? Quit the pussyfooting.

They're clown facts, bro.

The idea that building a pipeline through the center of the country and filling it with oil would only create 35 permanent jobs is so patently preposterous that anyone who believes that is an idiot. You put enough parameters on it and maybe you can justify the number in some word parsing way, but you can't justify it in a way that makes any sort of logical sense to support any rational argument.

It's already determined. 35 maintenance workers to hold the bag for the dealer, like it or lump it. Or come up with some alternate. Not seeing any. All I see is a lot of Poisoning the Well fallacies.

And here you bring a new twist: your position is valid because the refutation of it "doesn't feel right". "Anybody who believes that is an idiot" really is not a counterargument. God forbid you might have to admit your view was mistaken in the first place. That would never do.

 

[kaz]

I can never tell with you if your complete lack of grasp of knowledge of facts presented directly to you is because you just don't want to know or if you're actually incapable of grasping them.

Do you have a refutation, or do you not? Quit the pussyfooting.

They're clown facts, bro.

The idea that building a pipeline through the center of the country and filling it with oil would only create 35 permanent jobs is so patently preposterous that anyone who believes that is an idiot. You put enough parameters on it and maybe you can justify the number in some word parsing way, but you can't justify it in a way that makes any sort of logical sense to support any rational argument.

It's already determined. 35 maintenance workers to hold the bag for the dealer, like it or lump it. Or come up with some alternate. Not seeing any. All I see is a lot of Poisoning the Well fallacies.

Like I said, you are only counting the ladies who work in the church office.

 

[tinydancer]

Once again your inability to read gets you in deep doodoo. The U.S. State Department came up with the number 35 as part of the analysis it's required to do -- and that was quite some time ago

You crack me up. The article didn't say that. It said that was his claim based on his analysis of the State department report.

That's what I just said. I've done the same thing in the past, quoting the same number from the same source. That doesn't make it "my idea".

"35" is an absolute number. It doesn't need "analysis" -- it means "thirty-five", not "twenty -eight" or "forty seven thousand" or any other number.

The State Department report didn't include all the things I listed, it only included the team that directly oversees the pipeline. It's like measuring the size of a church based on the number of people who work in the church office.

That's because they're not relevant to the pipeline. You listed a bunch of people in refining and transporting the end product -- people who are already employed right now doing just that. They don't suddenly get defined as "new jobs" just because a raw material source changes.

So you don't grasp that if there is more oil, more people need to work to process it. Why doesn't that surprise me?

That processing (refining) already operates at max capacity. A fact noted over and over here in this thread as well as others. There is no work "added". All there is is overhead subtracted -- for the oil company. You can't put more water into a full glass.

Pogo. Last January the crude started flowing like crazy to Nederland and the refineries are thrilled to get it.

This was accomplished by the completion of the southern leg of XL.

I don't understand why you think the refineries don't want the crude?



"Gulf Coast Project Begins Delivering Crude Oil to Nederland, Texas

http://transcanada.mwnewsroom.com/Files/95/95a67860-e86f-428c-b13e-2adf4250d471.pdf
NEDERLAND, TEXAS--(Marketwired - Jan. 22, 2014) - TransCanada Corporation (TSX:TRP) (NYSE:TRP) (TransCanada) announced today that at approximately 10:45 a.m. CST on January, 22, 2014, the Gulf Coast Project began delivering crude oil on behalf of our customers to Texas refineries.

The completion of this US$2.3 billion crude oil pipeline provides a safe and direct connection between the important oil hub in Cushing, Oklahoma and delivery points on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

"This is a very important milestone for TransCanada, our shippers and Gulf Coast refiners who have been waiting for a pipeline to supply oil directly from Cushing," said Russ Girling, president and chief executive officer.

"This project is a critical, modern piece of American energy infrastructure that allows producers to safely connect growing production with the world's most efficient refiners on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

It also provides those American refineries the opportunity to use more of the crude oil produced in both Canada and the United States for decades to come."

Gulf Coast Project Begins Delivering Crude Oil to Nederland Texas

 

[Pogo]

Once again your inability to read gets you in deep doodoo. The U.S. State Department came up with the number 35 as part of the analysis it's required to do -- and that was quite some time ago

You crack me up. The article didn't say that. It said that was his claim based on his analysis of the State department report.

That's what I just said. I've done the same thing in the past, quoting the same number from the same source. That doesn't make it "my idea".

"35" is an absolute number. It doesn't need "analysis" -- it means "thirty-five", not "twenty -eight" or "forty seven thousand" or any other number.

The State Department report didn't include all the things I listed, it only included the team that directly oversees the pipeline. It's like measuring the size of a church based on the number of people who work in the church office.

That's because they're not relevant to the pipeline. You listed a bunch of people in refining and transporting the end product -- people who are already employed right now doing just that. They don't suddenly get defined as "new jobs" just because a raw material source changes.

So you don't grasp that if there is more oil, more people need to work to process it. Why doesn't that surprise me?

That processing (refining) already operates at max capacity. A fact noted over and over here in this thread as well as others. There is no work "added". All there is is overhead subtracted -- for the oil company. You can't put more water into a full glass.

Pogo. Last January the crude started flowing like crazy to Nederland and the refineries are thrilled to get it.

This was accomplished by the completion of the southern leg of XL.

I don't understand why you think the refineries don't want the crude?



"Gulf Coast Project Begins Delivering Crude Oil to Nederland, Texas

NEDERLAND, TEXAS--(Marketwired - Jan. 22, 2014) - TransCanada Corporation (TSX:TRP) (NYSE:TRP) (TransCanada) announced today that at approximately 10:45 a.m. CST on January, 22, 2014, the Gulf Coast Project began delivering crude oil on behalf of our customers to Texas refineries.

The completion of this US$2.3 billion crude oil pipeline provides a safe and direct connection between the important oil hub in Cushing, Oklahoma and delivery points on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

"This is a very important milestone for TransCanada, our shippers and Gulf Coast refiners who have been waiting for a pipeline to supply oil directly from Cushing," said Russ Girling, president and chief executive officer.

"This project is a critical, modern piece of American energy infrastructure that allows producers to safely connect growing production with the world's most efficient refiners on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

It also provides those American refineries the opportunity to use more of the crude oil produced in both Canada and the United States for decades to come."

Gulf Coast Project Begins Delivering Crude Oil to Nederland Texas

I didn't post about "what anyone wanted". I deconstructed the myth that the raw material means more production. That's not possible when production is already maxed -- simple fact.

 

[rdean]

AHHHHHHHHHH! OIL PRICES! NEED PIPELINE!
AHHHHHHHHHH! WMD'S! START A WAR
AHHHHHHHHHH! BANKS MIGHT FAIL! BAIL THEM OUT!
AHHHHHHHHHH! AUTO MANUFACTURERS MIGHT FAIL! BAIL THEM OUT!
AHHHHHHHHHH! KIDS GOT SHOT, THEY MIGHT TAKE OUR GUNS, BUY GUNS!
AHHHHHHHHHH! BLACKS COMMIT MORE CRIMES, HATE BLACKS!
AHHHHHHHHHH! MUSLIMS ATTACK AMERICANS, HATE ALL MUSLIMS!
AHHHHHHHHHH! EBOLA!

It seems the party that "doesn't react on emotion" actually just reflects.

Calm the **** down and think things through before you follow your party.

Not their MO.

 

[rdean]

Once again your inability to read gets you in deep doodoo. The U.S. State Department came up with the number 35 as part of the analysis it's required to do -- and that was quite some time ago

You crack me up. The article didn't say that. It said that was his claim based on his analysis of the State department report.

That's what I just said. I've done the same thing in the past, quoting the same number from the same source. That doesn't make it "my idea".

"35" is an absolute number. It doesn't need "analysis" -- it means "thirty-five", not "twenty -eight" or "forty seven thousand" or any other number.

The State Department report didn't include all the things I listed, it only included the team that directly oversees the pipeline. It's like measuring the size of a church based on the number of people who work in the church office.

That's because they're not relevant to the pipeline. You listed a bunch of people in refining and transporting the end product -- people who are already employed right now doing just that. They don't suddenly get defined as "new jobs" just because a raw material source changes.

So you don't grasp that if there is more oil, more people need to work to process it. Why doesn't that surprise me?

That processing (refining) already operates at max capacity. A fact noted over and over here in this thread as well as others. There is no work "added". All there is is overhead subtracted -- for the oil company. You can't put more water into a full glass.

Pogo. Last January the crude started flowing like crazy to Nederland and the refineries are thrilled to get it.

This was accomplished by the completion of the southern leg of XL.

I don't understand why you think the refineries don't want the crude?



"Gulf Coast Project Begins Delivering Crude Oil to Nederland, Texas

NEDERLAND, TEXAS--(Marketwired - Jan. 22, 2014) - TransCanada Corporation (TSX:TRP) (NYSE:TRP) (TransCanada) announced today that at approximately 10:45 a.m. CST on January, 22, 2014, the Gulf Coast Project began delivering crude oil on behalf of our customers to Texas refineries.

The completion of this US$2.3 billion crude oil pipeline provides a safe and direct connection between the important oil hub in Cushing, Oklahoma and delivery points on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

"This is a very important milestone for TransCanada, our shippers and Gulf Coast refiners who have been waiting for a pipeline to supply oil directly from Cushing," said Russ Girling, president and chief executive officer.

"This project is a critical, modern piece of American energy infrastructure that allows producers to safely connect growing production with the world's most efficient refiners on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

It also provides those American refineries the opportunity to use more of the crude oil produced in both Canada and the United States for decades to come."

Gulf Coast Project Begins Delivering Crude Oil to Nederland Texas

Hello, Canadian oil is "foreign" oil.

 

[rdean]

Republicans protected BP from the American people after what they did in the Gulf.

How far will the go to protect TransCanada?

 

[Iceweasel]

Republicans protected BP from the American people after what they did in the Gulf.

How far will the go to protect TransCanada?

I don't know but if they run the pipeline up obama's ass I'll be happy.

 

[Star]

I think we should let Republicans have it. Right when they begin laying off tens of thousands, it will be time to vote. And even a tiny spill in America's bread basket and it's over. No way they will be able to lie about that. The emperor will have no clothes.

Construction workers know that their jobs are temporary. You don't have a clue about how the real world works do you?

One of my nephews is a crane operator, working on a pipeline (not KXL) in North Dakota. He earns about $10,000/mo. when he works, but because the jobs are temporary, he doesn't always work all month or every month, he's constantly running back and forth to visit his family (just shy of 1,000 miles one way). Because the jobs are not only temporary but transient - the result is, there is little to no housing and what restaurants there are, are packed 24/7. My nephew put it this way: "The pipeline is the only place in America where you can earn over $100K per year and still be sleeping in your truck eating off the McDonald's dollar menu". Hopefully, the Oklahoma welders you cite are living better than that?
.

 

[Iceweasel]

One of my nephews is a crane operator, working on a pipeline (not KXL) in North Dakota. He earns about $10,000/mo. when he works, but because the jobs are temporary, he doesn't always work all month or every month, he's constantly running back and forth to visit his family (just shy of 1,000 miles one way). Because the jobs are not only temporary but transient - the result is, there is little to no housing and what restaurants there are, are packed 24/7. My nephew put it this way: "The pipeline is the only place in America where you can earn over $100K per year and still be sleeping in your truck eating off the McDonald's dollar menu". Hopefully, the Oklahoma welders you cite are living better than that?
.

What's your point? That's the reason they are payed so well, it's hard to find help otherwise. No one should build anything because it's too far from a decent restaurant and hotel accommodations?

 

[Star]

Van Jones????

LOLz

Dean, you fucking dope! That's hilarious!!!

Prove it wrong you dope.

I'm rehabilitating a 100 unit apartment complex in the Bronx and I have 70 people on site.

35 people for thousands of miles of pipeline?

Stop snorting the Commie KoolAid

The State Department's final environmental impact report earlier this year found the project would support 42,100 jobs, but it defined those jobs as lasting just one year. In other words, there would be only 21,050 jobs that last the entirety of the two-year construction period — and the majority of those are not construction jobs (there would be no more than 1,950 of those in each of the two years) but rather are "induced" by construction workers spending their earnings on goods and services in the area.

As far as permanent jobs to operate the pipeline, there would be a total of 35 of those, according to the State Department report.

So??even if true,what relevance does that have. I had 8 people building my house,now they are gone,guess I shouldn't have built it,the job only lasted 7 months.

There's a little more to it than that. I wish it were just about jobs. This has to do with property rights, and the fact that the nasty sludge will be going to the Gulf, then loaded onto tankers, to be sold at market value. It's not like we'll be getting it at a discounted rate. We will get very little in return. It's just not worth it.

We are capable of creating jobs!

"The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, and result in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than 5.6 million new cars to U.S. roads."​

We all know how dirty refined tar sands are to burn but even the refining process itself is a dirty proposition. Tar Sands oil fouls lots and lots of water to process then...

Refining tar sands oil
After traveling through the Keystone XL pipeline, tar sands oil would be brought to facilities in Texas to be further refined. Refining tar sands oil is dirtier than refining conventional oil, and results in higher emissions of toxic sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. These emissions cause smog and acid rain and contribute to respiratory diseases like asthma. Communities near the refineries where the Keystone XL pipeline terminates, many of them low-income and communities of color, already live with dangerously high levels of air pollution. The Keystone XL pipeline would further exacerbate the heavy burden of pollution and environmental injustices these communities confront.

But lucky for Texans, their lack of regulations won't stop them from refining that dirty shit in their back yards - screw the down-winders/down-streamers at least they'll have permanent low wage jobs in and near the refineries during their shortened lives.


.