Obama admin. ends Keystone Pipeline plan.

This is worthless to talk about in the context of jobs. A recent State Department study said the construction workforce would be 5,000 to 6,000 workers. And once the construction phase ends, almost all of these jobs, however many are created, would go away.Person0

This is also worthless considering,

1) I wasn't talking about KXL.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] Hm. Seeing as no one has stated what you just have, I'm just going to leave you to your make-believe. Have a good night :)majoras_wrath

Yes, I'm aware no one said that genius. It's the fact that he cited NPR period is the problem.

Hey, if it ain't Fox it ain't worth jack.

It's the fact that he cited NPR period is the problem.

QuistisTrepe_

notsureifsrs

And Gas prices will now continue to rise without anything to combat it.bbkkristian

Good, I thought it was stupid to build such a huge pipeline anyway. I think Obama made the right call by waiting for the official reports of what the environmental impact could be, before approving it.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]Serraph105

I'm under the impression that the U.S just dosen't want to pay for our oil. They'd rather wait until the rest of the world starts to run out and then they'll just try to take ours. :P

[QUOTE="genfactor"] Person0

To say that a construction related job is "temporary" shows a clear lack of understanding of the industry. Beyond maintenance jobs, the VAST majority of construction jobs are "temporary." Whether you are building a new stadium, upgrading a power plant, adding a new wing to a hospital or building the Freedom Tower, they are almost ALL "temporary". You have a contract to build something, you build it, and you move on.

As far as this pipeline is concerned, I'd LOVE to see how they came up with their 5K to 6K estimate. Again, it points to a gross lack of understanding of the industry. A project like this is going to involve thousands of operating engineers, oilers, surveyors, ironworkers, lathers, steamfitters, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, inspectors, site safety representatives, air monitors and perhaps a dozen or so other trades on the physical sites alone.

Then you have to add in the people who will be working in shops for the precast concrete components, the structural and miscellaneous steel fabrication shops, electrical component manufacturers, people working on the software logic for all of the systems, not to mention all of theadditional work that local building supply houses will see within a hundred miles or so of any particular run of the pipeline (including other heavy manufacturing not mentioned).

Then add all of the engineers that will be working on this. From the structural/civil engineers to the electrical to the mechanical. Add into that all of the CAD draftsman and technical writers (I can only imagine what the conformed set of drawings and specifications would look like for a project like this). And let us not forget, beyond the contractors, the Construction Management firms (I would imagine several would be hired for different phases of the work). Each CM firm is going to have to hire dozens if not hundreds of RE's, ARE's, Cost Engineers, Controls Specialists, etc etc.

Even those with little or no skill stand to benefit, as a project like this will require hundreds if not thousands of jobs along the lines of secretaries, site administrators, file clerks, permit expediters, even a few hundred jobs to maintain temporary facilites (like portable toilets).

5,000 to 6,000 jobs. I'll believe that estimate when I see it. Or, to put it another way, I was born on a Friday night, but it wasn't lastFriday night.

To me, it seems like a shame, and whoever was saying something along the lines of 'yay green energy', bit silly, that crap has low power density(wind/solar, when compared to fossil fuels or nuclear{WTB NUCLEAR}) or is often made of food (ethanol/corn)

And don't animals like oil pipelines? 'Least I've seen pictures of animals in super cold places gathering around them to get nice and warm.

"Keystone XL is an export pipeline. According to presentations to investors, Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to Europe and Latin America. Proceeds from these exports are earned tax-free. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline's heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers' tanks"Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="theone86"]

A win for sustainability, a win for clean energy, a win for the environment, a win against big money interests having their way in Washington, if that's a win for Republicans then I hope they never stop winning.

This is why liberals shouldn't be allowed in office. They're out of their minds.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="genfactor"] Planet_Pluto

To say that a construction related job is "temporary" shows a clear lack of understanding of the industry. Beyond maintenance jobs, the VAST majority of construction jobs are "temporary."

I'm a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, I've spent the last 11 years of my life being a permanent member doing "temporary" jobs. If the company you work for doesn't pick up more work to start after you finish the current job people are going home.

IMO I could care less if Obama pissed of the Unions, they are a joke........joke....joke. Coming from an actual member. I'm almost looking to go work non-union this season to get away from it. The unions are "not concerned" if members don't work, so long as they pay dues (at least that's how they work in Canada).

To me this is just a project that didn't get off the ground, it happens all the time, all the time. The only reason this is blown way out of proportion is because it's about Oil.

i dont think i have seen a single argument in this thread i could get behind, you either have have group A stating this is bad because of bambi or because it would be good for someone OR you have group B saying it would be good because the government could create productive jobs.

If Canada wants to build it, then we should build it. Canada is far more to the left and environmentally conscious than us. If they think its a good thing, then what's the problem? Obama, you so silly.

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

If Canada wants to build it, then we should build it. Canada is far more to the left and environmentally conscious than us. If they think its a good thing, then what's the problem? Obama, you so silly.

DaBrainz

Yeah, Canada is the sole reason for the state of the Great Lakes.. lulz

i dont think i have seen a single argument in this thread i could get behind, you either have have group A stating this is bad because of bambi or because it would be good for someone OR you have group B saying it would be good because the government could create productive jobs.

surrealnumber5

I can't help but laugh at people who still buy in to anything the government says at face value without a word of debate, especially in this day in age. "The State Department says.....blah, blah, blah....," as if anyone there would know anything about running an industry in any field.

why not build a refinery or two in north dakota?? wouldn't that make more sense than piping oil 1500 miles to the gulf? the pipe is already in place there.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] The state department says it would only add 5000-6000 temporary jobs not 200,000.Mikey132

To say that a construction related job is "temporary" shows a clear lack of understanding of the industry. Beyond maintenance jobs, the VAST majority of construction jobs are "temporary."

I'm a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, I've spent the last 11 years of my life being a permanent member doing "temporary" jobs. If the company you work for doesn't pick up more work to start after you finish the current job people are going home.

IMO I could care less if Obama pissed of the Unions, they are a joke........joke....joke. Coming from an actual member. I'm almost looking to go work non-union this season to get away from it. The unions are "not concerned" if members don't work, so long as they pay dues (at least that's how they work in Canada).

To me this is just a project that didn't get off the ground, it happens all the time, all the time. The only reason this is blown way out of proportion is because it's about Oil.

i dont think i have seen a single argument in this thread i could get behind, you either have have group A stating this is bad because of bambi or because it would be good for someone OR you have group B saying it would be good because the government could create productive jobs.

surrealnumber5

why not build a refinery or two in north dakota?? wouldn't that make more sense than piping oil 1500 miles to the gulf? the pipe is already in place there.

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i dont think i have seen a single argument in this thread i could get behind, you either have have group A stating this is bad because of bambi or because it would be good for someone OR you have group B saying it would be good because the government could create productive jobs.

Serraph105

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Assuming the State Department actually said that, that is perhaps the most asinine thing I've heard in quite some time.

To say that a construction related job is "temporary" shows a clear lack of understanding of the industry. Beyond maintenance jobs, the VAST majority of construction jobs are "temporary."WhiteKnight77

I'm a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, I've spent the last 11 years of my life being a permanent member doing "temporary" jobs. If the company you work for doesn't pick up more work to start after you finish the current job people are going home.

IMO I could care less if Obama pissed of the Unions, they are a joke........joke....joke. Coming from an actual member. I'm almost looking to go work non-union this season to get away from it. The unions are "not concerned" if members don't work, so long as they pay dues (at least that's how they work in Canada).

To me this is just a project that didn't get off the ground, it happens all the time, all the time. The only reason this is blown way out of proportion is because it's about Oil.

Well I work in sewer/water main and road building. I spent 8 years at a company and probably only stopped for lunch 30ish times in those 8 years. In my bussiness you've gotta work your ass off or they get someone else. My Union gives companies the right to send anyone home at anytime, all they have to say is there's a shortage of work and our hands are tied.

Wanted to take a break makes you look like you don't want to work (well it REALLY doesn't, bosses just act like that because they feel they have to never stop pushing you)

They haven't ended it, have they? They just rejected it because it doesn't have a final route. So they've said they will re-assess the application when it has a fixed route and they know exactly where it's going to go. Seems fair? Ninja-Hippo

Knowing Canada now we'll probly just build it anyways like the new Hiway and bridge to connect Detroit and Windsor. It's a $2.2 Billion dollar project on the Canadian side. Problem: The U.S said they don't have the money for it right now. Canada's Solution: Let's build it anyways!

i dont think i have seen a single argument in this thread i could get behind, you either have have group A stating this is bad because of bambi or because it would be good for someone OR you have group B saying it would be good because the government could create productive jobs.

surrealnumber5

I don't believe I've seen a single conservative in this thread say the government would be creating these jobs. The only thing we need the government to do is get out of the way and approve the plan.

Meh. No big deal.

It's funny, though, to read everyone's opinion on the election. You think Obama will be challenged? Mitt Romney is a closet liberal and Newt Gingrich answers this question, "How should we deal with America's enemies?" with this answer, "Kill them all."

Give me a break.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="genfactor"] Planet_Pluto

To say that a construction related job is "temporary" shows a clear lack of understanding of the industry. Beyond maintenance jobs, the VAST majority of construction jobs are "temporary." Whether you are building a new stadium, upgrading a power plant, adding a new wing to a hospital or building the Freedom Tower, they are almost ALL "temporary". You have a contract to build something, you build it, and you move on.

As far as this pipeline is concerned, I'd LOVE to see how they came up with their 5K to 6K estimate. Again, it points to a gross lack of understanding of the industry. A project like this is going to involve thousands of operating engineers, oilers, surveyors, ironworkers, lathers, steamfitters, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, inspectors, site safety representatives, air monitors and perhaps a dozen or so other trades on the physical sites alone.

Then you have to add in the people who will be working in shops for the precast concrete components, the structural and miscellaneous steel fabrication shops, electrical component manufacturers, people working on the software logic for all of the systems, not to mention all of theadditional work that local building supply houses will see within a hundred miles or so of any particular run of the pipeline (including other heavy manufacturing not mentioned).

Then add all of the engineers that will be working on this. From the structural/civil engineers to the electrical to the mechanical. Add into that all of the CAD draftsman and technical writers (I can only imagine what the conformed set of drawings and specifications would look like for a project like this). And let us not forget, beyond the contractors, the Construction Management firms (I would imagine several would be hired for different phases of the work). Each CM firm is going to have to hire dozens if not hundreds of RE's, ARE's, Cost Engineers, Controls Specialists, etc etc.

Even those with little or no skill stand to benefit, as a project like this will require hundreds if not thousands of jobs along the lines of secretaries, site administrators, file clerks, permit expediters, even a few hundred jobs to maintain temporary facilites (like portable toilets).

5,000 to 6,000 jobs. I'll believe that estimate when I see it. Or, to put it another way, I was born on a Friday night, but it wasn't lastFriday night.

For the steel part. Almost half (and perhaps more) of the primary material input for KXL-steel pipe-will not even be produced in the United States; TransCanada has and continues to import pipe components(such as valves) from various multi-national corporations like Orion Spa, Valvitalia and subsidiaries of Welspun.

The Indian company, Welspun, which is likely to be the largest steel pipe manufacturer for the project, is currently being sued for the sales of defective pipelines and has been repeatedly found to produce substandard steel.

According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting major volumes of Tar Sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets.

Build a pipeline to raise prices of fuel in the midwest so that Transcanada can export more fuel!

Report

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

why not build a refinery or two in north dakota?? wouldn't that make more sense than piping oil 1500 miles to the gulf? the pipe is already in place there.

surrealnumber5

The EPA will block any construction of any refinery or nuclear power plant. Simple as that. That's a big problem.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

why not build a refinery or two in north dakota?? wouldn't that make more sense than piping oil 1500 miles to the gulf? the pipe is already in place there.

Wasdie

The EPA will block any construction of any refinery or nuclear power plant. Simple as that. That's a big problem.

The U.S has a large gas surplus. The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September.

All more refineries would do is increase exports without lowering price.

CNN

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

why not build a refinery or two in north dakota?? wouldn't that make more sense than piping oil 1500 miles to the gulf? the pipe is already in place there.

Wasdie

The EPA will block any construction of any refinery or nuclear power plant. Simple as that. That's a big problem.

I think I remember hearing that it's be over 20 years since the last Nuclear or coal plants were built in the U.S. Is that true?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] i doubt the EPA would let the construction of a refinery take place

Person0

The EPA will block any construction of any refinery or nuclear power plant. Simple as that. That's a big problem.

The U.S has a large gas surplus. The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September.

All more refineries would do is increase exports without lowering price.

CNN

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The EPA will block any construction of any refinery or nuclear power plant. Simple as that. That's a big problem.

comp_atkins

The U.S has a large gas surplus. The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September.

All more refineries would do is increase exports without lowering price.

CNN

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The EPA will block any construction of any refinery or nuclear power plant. Simple as that. That's a big problem.

comp_atkins

The U.S has a large gas surplus. The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September.

All more refineries would do is increase exports without lowering price.

CNN

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Person0"] More refineries would not do anything.

The U.S has a large gas surplus. The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September.

All more refineries would do is increase exports without lowering price.

CNN

Person0

Well then the best course of action is for us to hoard our oil, we'll build a pipline across Canada to supply all Canadians with cheap affordable gasoline. The rest of the world can figure out there own probs.

I just don't understand why we gotta sell our own oil and buy from elsewhere.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] The state department says it would only add 5000-6000 temporary jobs not 200,000.Person0

To say that a construction related job is "temporary" shows a clear lack of understanding of the industry. Beyond maintenance jobs, the VAST majority of construction jobs are "temporary." Whether you are building a new stadium, upgrading a power plant, adding a new wing to a hospital or building the Freedom Tower, they are almost ALL "temporary". You have a contract to build something, you build it, and you move on.

As far as this pipeline is concerned, I'd LOVE to see how they came up with their 5K to 6K estimate. Again, it points to a gross lack of understanding of the industry. A project like this is going to involve thousands of operating engineers, oilers, surveyors, ironworkers, lathers, steamfitters, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, inspectors, site safety representatives, air monitors and perhaps a dozen or so other trades on the physical sites alone.

Then you have to add in the people who will be working in shops for the precast concrete components, the structural and miscellaneous steel fabrication shops, electrical component manufacturers, people working on the software logic for all of the systems, not to mention all of theadditional work that local building supply houses will see within a hundred miles or so of any particular run of the pipeline (including other heavy manufacturing not mentioned).

Then add all of the engineers that will be working on this. From the structural/civil engineers to the electrical to the mechanical. Add into that all of the CAD draftsman and technical writers (I can only imagine what the conformed set of drawings and specifications would look like for a project like this). And let us not forget, beyond the contractors, the Construction Management firms (I would imagine several would be hired for different phases of the work). Each CM firm is going to have to hire dozens if not hundreds of RE's, ARE's, Cost Engineers, Controls Specialists, etc etc.

Even those with little or no skill stand to benefit, as a project like this will require hundreds if not thousands of jobs along the lines of secretaries, site administrators, file clerks, permit expediters, even a few hundred jobs to maintain temporary facilites (like portable toilets).

5,000 to 6,000 jobs. I'll believe that estimate when I see it. Or, to put it another way, I was born on a Friday night, but it wasn't lastFriday night.

For the steel part. Almost half (and perhaps more) of the primary material input for KXL-steel pipe-will not even be produced in the United States; TransCanada has and continues to import pipe components(such as valves) from various multi-national corporations like Orion Spa, Valvitalia and subsidiaries of Welspun.

The Indian company, Welspun, which is likely to be the largest steel pipe manufacturer for the project, is currently being sued for the sales of defective pipelines and has been repeatedly found to produce substandard steel.

According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting major volumes of Tar Sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets.

Build a pipeline to raise prices of fuel in the midwest so that Transcanada can export more fuel!

Report

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Person0"] More refineries would not do anything.

The U.S has a large gas surplus. The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September.

All more refineries would do is increase exports without lowering price.

CNN

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Assuming the State Department actually said that, that is perhaps the most asinine thing I've heard in quite some time.

To say that a construction related job is "temporary" shows a clear lack of understanding of the industry. Beyond maintenance jobs, the VAST majority of construction jobs are "temporary." Whether you are building a new stadium, upgrading a power plant, adding a new wing to a hospital or building the Freedom Tower, they are almost ALL "temporary". You have a contract to build something, you build it, and you move on.

As far as this pipeline is concerned, I'd LOVE to see how they came up with their 5K to 6K estimate. Again, it points to a gross lack of understanding of the industry. A project like this is going to involve thousands of operating engineers, oilers, surveyors, ironworkers, lathers, steamfitters, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, inspectors, site safety representatives, air monitors and perhaps a dozen or so other trades on the physical sites alone.

Then you have to add in the people who will be working in shops for the precast concrete components, the structural and miscellaneous steel fabrication shops, electrical component manufacturers, people working on the software logic for all of the systems, not to mention all of theadditional work that local building supply houses will see within a hundred miles or so of any particular run of the pipeline (including other heavy manufacturing not mentioned).

Then add all of the engineers that will be working on this. From the structural/civil engineers to the electrical to the mechanical. Add into that all of the CAD draftsman and technical writers (I can only imagine what the conformed set of drawings and specifications would look like for a project like this). And let us not forget, beyond the contractors, the Construction Management firms (I would imagine several would be hired for different phases of the work). Each CM firm is going to have to hire dozens if not hundreds of RE's, ARE's, Cost Engineers, Controls Specialists, etc etc.

Even those with little or no skill stand to benefit, as a project like this will require hundreds if not thousands of jobs along the lines of secretaries, site administrators, file clerks, permit expediters, even a few hundred jobs to maintain temporary facilites (like portable toilets).

5,000 to 6,000 jobs. I'll believe that estimate when I see it. Or, to put it another way, I was born on a Friday night, but it wasn't lastFriday night.

Planet_Pluto

For the steel part. Almost half (and perhaps more) of the primary material input for KXL-steel pipe-will not even be produced in the United States; TransCanada has and continues to import pipe components(such as valves) from various multi-national corporations like Orion Spa, Valvitalia and subsidiaries of Welspun.

The Indian company, Welspun, which is likely to be the largest steel pipe manufacturer for the project, is currently being sued for the sales of defective pipelines and has been repeatedly found to produce substandard steel.

According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting major volumes of Tar Sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets.

Build a pipeline to raise prices of fuel in the midwest so that Transcanada can export more fuel!

Report

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] then what's the argument for the pipeline? other than the actual construction of it?comp_atkins

It is perfect for Canada. We will end up building both pipelines, only by the time the one to the US is approved you will have to pay more for the product. Thank you Republicans for ensuring that you transfer more wealth up to us :)

SUD123456

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] pipelines are the most efficient method of transportation for physical goods, so i am not sure a refinery would be a better investment than a pipeline, but there is no way a refinery could be built because of the epa

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] pipelines are the most efficient method of transportation for physical goods, so i am not sure a refinery would be a better investment than a pipeline, but there is no way a refinery could be built because of the epa

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] do we need the pipeline to feed the gulf refineries or do we need the pipeline so that transcanada has an efficient route to the gulf to ship their oil out of?Person0

Keystone XL?

I heard one of my former teachers got arrested while trying to protest the keystone XL pipeline. I really don't have an opinion on it otherwise...

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] no one NEEDS to do anything, ever, the world will keep on turning without us. now asking what would be the most productive move for transcanada or for the united states is a whole other question, and i am not privy to enough information to make either decision, but i cant see scaring off employment by willing parties as being a good thing, so my gut has me leaning pro-work.

surrealnumber5

The most productive move for all parties would be to go ahead and build it. That oil is coming out of the ground and going somewhere anyway you look at it. I'm sure the U.S could just build the line to a old refinery. Now, if the parties involed in the upcoming election are going to try to use this to sway the election they could end up missing out. Up here in Canada we don't care about the election, we want to sell our Oil. The U.S is getting first crack at it because they are our closest allies. If they want to draw it out and don't think we'll go elsewhere....OK then.

The bottom line is Canada will sell the oil to someone.

As a Canadian all I can say is: Mr Obama you and I may not see eye to eye on many issues but you have my sincere thanks for shelving this for the time being. There's things out there more important than big oil profits. Ace6301

Yeah, like giving free advertisement to solar power companies, saying they're excellent companies yet then go bankrupt a year later. How is that even legal?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]As a Canadian all I can say is: Mr Obama you and I may not see eye to eye on many issues but you have my sincere thanks for shelving this for the time being. There's things out there more important than big oil profits. SpartanMSU

Yeah, like giving free advertisement to solar power companies, saying they're excellent companies yet then go bankrupt a year later. How is that even legal?