jobs lost due to the pipeline

[danielpalos]

Infrastructure is a public sector obligation. We could be improving time to market and market supply with better infrastructure.

 

[surada]

But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?-slyhunter

Any Republican talking-point is disarmed upon more than 5 seconds of thought on the matter. For example: They don't seem to realize that screaming "Fraud" about the 2020 Election means that all the GOP Senators and Congresspeople who won also need to be kicked out of the Congress, too...since it was a fraud...

GOP: "It was FRAUD and DEAD PEOPLE voted"
-
Sane person: "Really? That's kinda interesting, so what about all the Senators and Reps who won their races?"
-
GOP: "No those people keep their seats, but the election was FRAUD"

you sure lead a rich fantasy life inside your head.

TransCanada has lied their asses off about the number of jobs? Why?

 

[BlindBoo]

It's cheaper for refiners to process American light oil from North Dakota and Texas than the heavy crude oil from western Canada. Let them get it over to China some other way.

Not when the Canadian Slurry is sold at a discount.

 

[danielpalos]

Transporting oil underground where it can be better contained could be a goal of an infrastructure upgrade.

 

[bendog]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

Gee, lets look at that notion.

If we have a single product that is being shipped in an environmentally safe manner, we run a small risk of some incident.

Now, a refinery produces:

Fuels

• butane
• diesel fuel
• fuel oil
• gasoline
• kerosene
• liquefied natural gas
• liquefied petroleum gas
• propane

Other Products

• microcrystalline wax
• napalm
• naphtha
• naphthalene
• paraffin wax
• petroleum jelly
• petroleum wax
• refined asphalt
• refined bitumen

Now we have to ship ALL OF THIS refined material

Do you feel embarrassed yet?

Ship all those products separately but have the refining process close to the source, or;

Move the raw product to the refineries that are close to the transportation infrastructure for exporting.

Gee...I wonder just how hard a decision that can be?

By shipping refined products abroad the Canadians make more profit.

The issue isn't about how much profit Canadians can make. The pipeline is shut down because of some idiotology about environmental dangers.

My reply was on the notion that it is more sensible to place the refinery close to the source based on the environmental issue, clearly, that is not the case.

Given that the 17 volatile and toxic products of oil refinement have to be shipped by rail or truck, the risk to the environment is now orders of magnitude greater.

A pipeline of the raw product is the most economical and enviromentally sound solution.

You're right on the refinery location thing, and probably the cost of a refinery is out of the question, but you could have been nicer to the OP who didn't diss you in any way. I'm not sure why Canada is extracting the "crude" from tar sands. Is that even profitable given the price of oil now?

But if the canadians want it shipped, it'd be in my self interest for the XL, and trains are just a pain in the ass not to mention safety.

It's just Joe tossing a bone to his Prog base.

 

[surada]

It's cheaper for refiners to process American light oil from North Dakota and Texas than the heavy crude oil from western Canada. Let them get it over to China some other way.

Not when the Canadian Slurry is sold at a discount.

Yes, it sold at a deep discount. $29 a barrel last time I looked.

 

[healthmyths]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

You said build refineries at the source that way you don't transport.
So how do you move the "refined" products to the consumers?
Ever think about that?

 

[healthmyths]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

Gee, lets look at that notion.

If we have a single product that is being shipped in an environmentally safe manner, we run a small risk of some incident.

Now, a refinery produces:

Fuels

• butane
• diesel fuel
• fuel oil
• gasoline
• kerosene
• liquefied natural gas
• liquefied petroleum gas
• propane

Other Products

• microcrystalline wax
• napalm
• naphtha
• naphthalene
• paraffin wax
• petroleum jelly
• petroleum wax
• refined asphalt
• refined bitumen

Now we have to ship ALL OF THIS refined material

Do you feel embarrassed yet?

Ship all those products separately but have the refining process close to the source, or;

Move the raw product to the refineries that are close to the transportation infrastructure for exporting.

Gee...I wonder just how hard a decision that can be?

By shipping refined products abroad the Canadians make more profit.

The issue isn't about how much profit Canadians can make. The pipeline is shut down because of some idiotology about environmental dangers.

My reply was on the notion that it is more sensible to place the refinery close to the source based on the environmental issue, clearly, that is not the case.

Given that the 17 volatile and toxic products of oil refinement have to be shipped by rail or truck, the risk to the environment is now orders of magnitude greater.

A pipeline of the raw product is the most economical and enviromentally sound solution.

You're right on the refinery location thing, and probably the cost of a refinery is out of the question, but you could have been nicer to the OP who didn't diss you in any way. I'm not sure why Canada is extracting the "crude" from tar sands. Is that even profitable given the price of oil now?

But if the canadians want it shipped, it'd be in my self interest for the XL, and trains are just a pain in the ass not to mention safety.

It's just Joe tossing a bone to his Prog base.

OK... so you have refineries at the source. How do you move the refined products to the consumers?
OH WAIT... I KNOW!! I KNOW!!! All the consumers move to the refineries! That's the ticket!!!

Truthfully do you people know how dumb what you suggested is? Again... how do you get the refined products to the users?

 

[healthmyths]

I don't know how many times I have to remind some of you!
Which has a proven potential to destroy more of the environment?
1 million barrels traveling one mile in an oil tanker on the open ocean OR
700 barrels traveling one mile in a pipeline on dry land?
Am I the only person concerned about the damages another Exxon Valdez spilling in Alaska, more than 200,000 barrels of oil?
Doesn't this concern you?
would send 34 tankers a month through international waters of Haro Strait and the Strait of Juan de Fuca
Very sensitive waters, these . . . with millions of sockeye salmon bound for the Fraser River,
an endangered Orca population surviving on endangered Chinook salmon, and major populations of nesting bald eagles.

A pipeline next door: Canadian project means 34 tankers a month in our waters

www.seattlepi.com

 

[Slyhunter]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

You said build refineries at the source that way you don't transport.
So how do you move the "refined" products to the consumers?
Ever think about that?

It Doesn't matter where the refineries are the end product will still need to be shipped to the consumer. There would be less of a need to ship anything anywhere if you put the manufacturer nearer to the source. Just saying.

 

[healthmyths]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

You said build refineries at the source that way you don't transport.
So how do you move the "refined" products to the consumers?
Ever think about that?

It Doesn't matter where the refineries are the end product will still need to be shipped to the consumer. There would be less of a need to ship anything anywhere if you put the manufacturer nearer to the source. Just saying.

Well, I'm sure more knowledgeable people than you or me have spent more time than we have figuring out the economics. But hey to each their own opinion regardless of how stupid!

 

[Darkwind]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

Gee, lets look at that notion.

If we have a single product that is being shipped in an environmentally safe manner, we run a small risk of some incident.

Now, a refinery produces:

Fuels

• butane
• diesel fuel
• fuel oil
• gasoline
• kerosene
• liquefied natural gas
• liquefied petroleum gas
• propane

Other Products

• microcrystalline wax
• napalm
• naphtha
• naphthalene
• paraffin wax
• petroleum jelly
• petroleum wax
• refined asphalt
• refined bitumen

Now we have to ship ALL OF THIS refined material

Do you feel embarrassed yet?

Ship all those products separately but have the refining process close to the source, or;

Move the raw product to the refineries that are close to the transportation infrastructure for exporting.

Gee...I wonder just how hard a decision that can be?

By shipping refined products abroad the Canadians make more profit.

The issue isn't about how much profit Canadians can make. The pipeline is shut down because of some idiotology about environmental dangers.

My reply was on the notion that it is more sensible to place the refinery close to the source based on the environmental issue, clearly, that is not the case.

Given that the 17 volatile and toxic products of oil refinement have to be shipped by rail or truck, the risk to the environment is now orders of magnitude greater.

A pipeline of the raw product is the most economical and enviromentally sound solution.

You're right on the refinery location thing, and probably the cost of a refinery is out of the question, but you could have been nicer to the OP who didn't diss you in any way. I'm not sure why Canada is extracting the "crude" from tar sands. Is that even profitable given the price of oil now?

But if the canadians want it shipped, it'd be in my self interest for the XL, and trains are just a pain in the ass not to mention safety.

It's just Joe tossing a bone to his Prog base.

I don't know why they would want to continue to extract tar sand oil. It is very expensive to extract. However, that is an economic question for the companies who are doing the extraction.

 

[surada]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

Gee, lets look at that notion.

If we have a single product that is being shipped in an environmentally safe manner, we run a small risk of some incident.

Now, a refinery produces:

Fuels

• butane
• diesel fuel
• fuel oil
• gasoline
• kerosene
• liquefied natural gas
• liquefied petroleum gas
• propane

Other Products

• microcrystalline wax
• napalm
• naphtha
• naphthalene
• paraffin wax
• petroleum jelly
• petroleum wax
• refined asphalt
• refined bitumen

Now we have to ship ALL OF THIS refined material

Do you feel embarrassed yet?

Ship all those products separately but have the refining process close to the source, or;

Move the raw product to the refineries that are close to the transportation infrastructure for exporting.

Gee...I wonder just how hard a decision that can be?

By shipping refined products abroad the Canadians make more profit.

The issue isn't about how much profit Canadians can make. The pipeline is shut down because of some idiotology about environmental dangers.

My reply was on the notion that it is more sensible to place the refinery close to the source based on the environmental issue, clearly, that is not the case.

Given that the 17 volatile and toxic products of oil refinement have to be shipped by rail or truck, the risk to the environment is now orders of magnitude greater.

A pipeline of the raw product is the most economical and enviromentally sound solution.

You're right on the refinery location thing, and probably the cost of a refinery is out of the question, but you could have been nicer to the OP who didn't diss you in any way. I'm not sure why Canada is extracting the "crude" from tar sands. Is that even profitable given the price of oil now?

But if the canadians want it shipped, it'd be in my self interest for the XL, and trains are just a pain in the ass not to mention safety.

It's just Joe tossing a bone to his Prog base.

I don't know why they would want to continue to extract tar sand oil. It is very expensive to extract. However, that is an economic question for the companies who are doing the extraction.

Because China has invested billions in Canadian tar sands.

 

[Darkwind]

But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?-slyhunter

Any Republican talking-point is disarmed upon more than 5 seconds of thought on the matter. For example: They don't seem to realize that screaming "Fraud" about the 2020 Election means that all the GOP Senators and Congresspeople who won also need to be kicked out of the Congress, too...since it was a fraud...

GOP: "It was FRAUD and DEAD PEOPLE voted"
-
Sane person: "Really? That's kinda interesting, so what about all the Senators and Reps who won their races?"
-
GOP: "No those people keep their seats, but the election was FRAUD"

you sure lead a rich fantasy life inside your head.

TransCanada has lied their asses off about the number of jobs? Why?

Who says they lied their asses off? Take care. Any ideologically driven source becomes nothing but a fantasy of proof.

 

[Darkwind]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

Gee, lets look at that notion.

If we have a single product that is being shipped in an environmentally safe manner, we run a small risk of some incident.

Now, a refinery produces:

Fuels

• butane
• diesel fuel
• fuel oil
• gasoline
• kerosene
• liquefied natural gas
• liquefied petroleum gas
• propane

Other Products

• microcrystalline wax
• napalm
• naphtha
• naphthalene
• paraffin wax
• petroleum jelly
• petroleum wax
• refined asphalt
• refined bitumen

Now we have to ship ALL OF THIS refined material

Do you feel embarrassed yet?

Ship all those products separately but have the refining process close to the source, or;

Move the raw product to the refineries that are close to the transportation infrastructure for exporting.

Gee...I wonder just how hard a decision that can be?

By shipping refined products abroad the Canadians make more profit.

The issue isn't about how much profit Canadians can make. The pipeline is shut down because of some idiotology about environmental dangers.

My reply was on the notion that it is more sensible to place the refinery close to the source based on the environmental issue, clearly, that is not the case.

Given that the 17 volatile and toxic products of oil refinement have to be shipped by rail or truck, the risk to the environment is now orders of magnitude greater.

A pipeline of the raw product is the most economical and enviromentally sound solution.

You're right on the refinery location thing, and probably the cost of a refinery is out of the question, but you could have been nicer to the OP who didn't diss you in any way. I'm not sure why Canada is extracting the "crude" from tar sands. Is that even profitable given the price of oil now?

But if the canadians want it shipped, it'd be in my self interest for the XL, and trains are just a pain in the ass not to mention safety.

It's just Joe tossing a bone to his Prog base.

I don't know why they would want to continue to extract tar sand oil. It is very expensive to extract. However, that is an economic question for the companies who are doing the extraction.

Because China has invested billions in Canadian tar sands.

Well good for China. I'm not addressing why the extraction is continuing. I am addressing the notion that it is better to move the refinery process to the source. Clearly, it is not, and clearly, you increase the chances of an environmental problem by almost two orders of magnitude.

 

[surada]

But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?-slyhunter

Any Republican talking-point is disarmed upon more than 5 seconds of thought on the matter. For example: They don't seem to realize that screaming "Fraud" about the 2020 Election means that all the GOP Senators and Congresspeople who won also need to be kicked out of the Congress, too...since it was a fraud...

GOP: "It was FRAUD and DEAD PEOPLE voted"
-
Sane person: "Really? That's kinda interesting, so what about all the Senators and Reps who won their races?"
-
GOP: "No those people keep their seats, but the election was FRAUD"

you sure lead a rich fantasy life inside your head.

TransCanada has lied their asses off about the number of jobs? Why?

Who says they lied their asses off? Take care. Any ideologically driven source becomes nothing but a fantasy of proof.

They are lying about the job numbers.. Ask any pipefitter.

 

[Darkwind]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

You said build refineries at the source that way you don't transport.
So how do you move the "refined" products to the consumers?
Ever think about that?

It Doesn't matter where the refineries are the end product will still need to be shipped to the consumer. There would be less of a need to ship anything anywhere if you put the manufacturer nearer to the source. Just saying.

That is incorrect. The refined products do need to be shipped, yet. But the issue here is shipping over land to an infrastructure that is already in place and vetted for safety and environmental soundness.

They are already shipping refined products from those locations. An additional infeed to the supply won't increase the risk or costs of refining.

 

[Darkwind]

But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?-slyhunter

Any Republican talking-point is disarmed upon more than 5 seconds of thought on the matter. For example: They don't seem to realize that screaming "Fraud" about the 2020 Election means that all the GOP Senators and Congresspeople who won also need to be kicked out of the Congress, too...since it was a fraud...

GOP: "It was FRAUD and DEAD PEOPLE voted"
-
Sane person: "Really? That's kinda interesting, so what about all the Senators and Reps who won their races?"
-
GOP: "No those people keep their seats, but the election was FRAUD"

you sure lead a rich fantasy life inside your head.

TransCanada has lied their asses off about the number of jobs? Why?

Who says they lied their asses off? Take care. Any ideologically driven source becomes nothing but a fantasy of proof.

They are lying about the job numbers.. Ask any pipefitter.

Yeah, that is an unbiased source.

 

[colfax_m]

I've heard they lost 1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs by stopping the pipeline. But I'm curious how many railroad jobs and trucker jobs would have been lost had it been built?
And think about it logically. It's stupid to transport the raw product to Texas to be refined, move the refineries to the source. Build them at the source so they don't have to be transported. I mean damn how dumb do you have to be to not figure that out?

I heard an estimate that over 50,000 jobs will be lost and 1500 small businesses will go out of business...this is why 23 states are suing...and from what I hear they have a very good case...Congress approved Keystone and only Congress can end it....Biden's EO was illegal....

Petty sure very little of this is true.

 

[colfax_m]

All the consumers move to the refineries! That's the ticket!!!

Or the people near the refineries already live there. I mean, Minnesotans and Wisconsin people use gas.