The Keystone Pipeline: Jobs!

[martybegan]

And who works in refineries?

The exact same people who would would work in refineries without Keystone. No more people......no less people.

Well now they have another source of feed stock, so if one other source goes away, they get to keep their jobs instead of layoffs.

And how do you know the increased feed flow won't lead to more shifts or more process streams being put online, and thus need more people?

Because I live in the Beaumont/ Pt.Arthur area. Refineries are what we do. Most everyone I know either works in a refinery, or has worked in one.

That didn't answer the question.

People I know work in almost every part of refinery operations. Everything from mowing grass to planning and purchasing. They say they are good. There are always a few people being hired to replace people who are fired, quit, retire, die, or otherwise leave, but hiring practices or numbers haven't changed, and aren't expected to change any time soon.

And that would change if sources of feed stock dried up. All the keystone extensions do is make more sources available, and add more flexibility to the pathways of feed stock to the refineries.

 

[martybegan]

So Skynet runs the refineries?

Good to know.

No. A very precise set of programs run the refineries with minimal input from the very few plant operators. The first Apollo mission into space had less computer ability than is found on most modern smart phones. Computers have taken over much of the operation of everything from commercial airlines to refrigerators. Refineries have taken advantages of those advantages as well.

So computers repair pipes? Computers change out parts on those computers? Computers direct the various process requirements at a refinery?

Plus these are really good paying jobs, not the McJobs you try to get people paid $10 an hour more than they are worth.

No. Computers don't repair pipes. A very efficient maintenance crew along with constant inspection allows those pipes to be changed at a convenient time and pace before failure is expected. There are still rare unexpected problems, but with precise records and inspections, those unexpected events happen much less often than was even hoped for just a few years ago. There is no real need to boost personnel to handle Keystone.

Says you.

You could easily check the employment records for Pt. Arthur or Beaumont if you want to. I know the answer, so I don't have a need to do that.

Bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Construction jobs are always temporary in nature. it's amazing how much you guys keep moving the goalposts.

It makes no jobs!
It makes too few jobs!!!
The jobs it makes are only temporary!
Machines will do the work!

You put the blinders on when it suits your political interests.

You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.

And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.

Care to point at any shit you think I made up?

You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.

A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.

Won't be used here.

It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know what Bitumen is. you don't call it sludge unless it is a waste product.

And any new jobs are still new jobs. plus the additional flow would mean keeping the existing ones is other sources of flow peter out.

And why should we not help our Canadian brethren? Maybe the new workers will buy a nice Ford or Chevy and pay us back.

That's what it comes down to for you? We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers? I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.

Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.

Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.

OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.

And why should our ports not get in on the action?

Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.

Any money made will stay with the refinery owners

That's awful!
And the taxes they pay?

 

[Old Rocks]

Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs

And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:

US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined

and,

U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment

Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.

The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.

Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.

When you can run your car on solar, let us know.

Can you say EV.

 

[BULLDOG]

You put on the rose colored glasses when it suits yours. I worked in oil and pipeline construction for years. I know what this does and doesn't amount to.

And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.

Care to point at any shit you think I made up?

You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.

A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.

Won't be used here.

It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.

Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's what it comes down to for you? We should take the potential of MASSIVE ecological disaster to help Canadian workers? I won't even bother calling that nuts. It goes without saying.

Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.

Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.

OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.

And why should our ports not get in on the action?

Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.

Any money made will stay with the refinery owners

That's awful!
And the taxes they pay?

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.

Care to point at any shit you think I made up?

You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.

A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.

Won't be used here.

It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.

Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Sure, for the oi; companies/

Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.

They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Considering that pipelines are the safest way to move this stuff, and sooner or later someone is going to move it anyway, your MASSIVE (see I can do caps too!) disaster is more likely to happen with other modes of transport.

Methinks you again let your political views impact your view on reality.

OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.

And why should our ports not get in on the action?

Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.

Any money made will stay with the refinery owners

That's awful!
And the taxes they pay?

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

Can you prove your claim?

 

[Wyatt earp]

And I work in construction as well, and have a degree in ChemE, but unlike you i don't make up shit to cover my political goals.

Care to point at any shit you think I made up?

You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.

A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.

Won't be used here.

It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.

Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

WTF , you acr like a pipeline is a new concept, just admit it already ...obozo didn't like it , so you don't like it sheep




.

 

[BULLDOG]

Care to point at any shit you think I made up?

You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.

A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.

Won't be used here.

It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.

Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Sure, for the oi; companies/

Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.

They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.

Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK, it will be moved, but nobody has come up with a rational reason why we should allow it to be moved across our country when we get no benefit from it. They have ports in Canada.

And why should our ports not get in on the action?

Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.

Any money made will stay with the refinery owners

That's awful!
And the taxes they pay?

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

Can you prove your claim?

Of course
Free-trade zone - Wikipedia

http://enforcement.trade.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist-map.html#texas

 

[BULLDOG]

Care to point at any shit you think I made up?

You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.

A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.

Won't be used here.

It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.

Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

WTF , you acr like a pipeline is a new concept, just admit it already ...obozo didn't like it , so you don't like it sheep




.

Pipelines are great if there is a rational purpose for them. I made lots of money working on lots of lines.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You constantly downplay any economic impact because you don't like icky fossil fuels. The simple fact is this stuff is going to be used, and even more so if prices go up again to make it more profitable.

A pipeline is the safest way to do it, and while it isn't a lot of jobs, its still jobs, plus the subsequent economic improvements, be it in Canada, at the end of the line near a port facility, or at the local truck stand where the pipeline maintenance guy stops by for lunch 3 times a week while he does his inspections.

Won't be used here.

It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.

Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Sure, for the oi; companies/

Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.

They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.

Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.

The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly nation is a benefit.
More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers and US shareholders is a benefit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And why should our ports not get in on the action?

Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.

Any money made will stay with the refinery owners

That's awful!
And the taxes they pay?

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

Can you prove your claim?

Of course
Free-trade zone - Wikipedia

http://enforcement.trade.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist-map.html#texas

Thanks.

In the United States, FTZs provide Customs-related advantages as well as exemptions from state and local inventory taxes.

Now, do you have a source that actually proves your claim?

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

Or have you noticed your error?

 

[BULLDOG]

Won't be used here.

It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.

Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Sure, for the oi; companies/

Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.

They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.

Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.

The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly nation is a benefit.
More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers and US shareholders is a benefit.

A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It'll be exported? Sounds like something that earns a profit.

Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Sure, for the oi; companies/

Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.

They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.

Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.

The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly nation is a benefit.
More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers and US shareholders is a benefit.

A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.

A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient

Really? Net oil imports are zero? When did that happen?

 

[BULLDOG]

Our ports won't. Refineries have their own docks. Any money made will stay with the refinery owners, who will not hire any more people.

Any money made will stay with the refinery owners

That's awful!
And the taxes they pay?

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

Can you prove your claim?

Of course
Free-trade zone - Wikipedia

http://enforcement.trade.gov/ftzpage/letters/ftzlist-map.html#texas

Thanks.

In the United States, FTZs provide Customs-related advantages as well as exemptions from state and local inventory taxes.

Now, do you have a source that actually proves your claim?

The refineries are free trade zones, so none of the profit from refining is taxable.

Or have you noticed your error?

Obviously you didn't read all of both the links. Free trade zones for each state are listed in the 2nd one

 

[jon_berzerk]

Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs

And Obama's Green and Renewable fiasco:

US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined

and,

U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment

Solar energy in the US employs more people than traditional coal, gas and oil combined, a report has found, in a revelation that could undermine Donald Trump’s argument that green energy isn’t good for the economy.

The latest report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) reveals solar energy accounts for the largest proportion of employers in the Electric Power Generation sector, with wind energy the third largest, while the coal industries have declined in the past 10 years.

Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce, according to the report.

US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined

Excellent! I enjoy proof of the low productivity of solar.

Solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117

Solar, 1.4% of our electricity generation takes more than twice as many workers as the fossil fuels, gas and coal, that generate over 64% of our electricity.

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

that is just crazy

--LOL

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure, for the oi; companies/ They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Sure, for the oi; companies/

Yes, oil companies will make a profit. If only some of us received dividends from oil companies.

They will make a fortune while we assume the potential danger of a spill.

Pretty sure pipelines are safer than oil tankers, oil trains and oil trucks.

Yes, but since the country will gain no benefit or advantage from transporting that sludge all the way from the northern border to the Gulf coast. There is no reason to do it at all.

The oil is coming in now. The pipeline is safer than other transportation methods. That's a benefit.
A safer, more secure source of oil from a friendly nation is a benefit.
More profit for US based companies paying US with US workers and US shareholders is a benefit.

A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient, but that's because of recent fracking advances, and advances in alternative energy. That sludge from Canada is not part of that sufficiency. The profit goes to multi-national corporations who hold no more allegiance to us than to the other countries where they make money, and will not pay any additional taxes on their massive profit increase. They have US workers who won't make a dime more or work an hour more to process Canadian Bitumen instead of crude. I guess they might hire a few more workers along the way, but no more than would be needed for an average big box store, and certainly not as many as would be needed for another super Walmart.

A source that was never intended to be used here. We are self sufficient

Really? Net oil imports are zero? When did that happen?

Just to be clear, are you backing off on all those silly claims of massive job increases? That is after all what was used to sell the project.