jobs lost due to the pipeline

[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.

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.

Evidently they have more knowledge than you have. Where are your facts is is "very expensive to extract"?

 

[danielpalos]

How many jobs could be created by putting infrastructure underground? electrical infrastructure could be included along with fuels and oils. Simply having that infrastructure in place would mean more storage and help with automatic stabilization of that market segment of our economy.

 

[surada]

How many jobs could be created by putting infrastructure underground? electrical infrastructure could be included along with fuels and oils. Simply having that infrastructure in place would mean more storage and help with automatic stabilization of that market segment of our economy.

Underground pipelines also leak. TransCanada doesn't have a real good safety record.

You don't store crude oil.. It drives the price up. You want just in time inventory.

 

[healthmyths]

How many jobs could be created by putting infrastructure underground? electrical infrastructure could be included along with fuels and oils. Simply having that infrastructure in place would mean more storage and help with automatic stabilization of that market segment of our economy.

Underground pipelines also leak. TransCanada doesn't have a real good safety record.

You don't store crude oil.. It drives the price up. You want just in time inventory.

You wrote " TransCanada doesn't have a real good safety record."
Where are your facts? Is it hard to come up with some links, substantiation for your guesses?
Now for FACTS from

Keystone Pipeline Spill History | Bold Nebraska

TC Energy oil spill PR oil discharge 12-9-22 (Photo: U.S. EPA) Site of 380,000-gallon tarsands oil spill from Keystone pipeline in northeastern North Dakota on Oct. 30, 2019. (Photo: Grand Forks Herald) April 2016 Keystone pipeline spill site on farmland near Freeman, South Dakota. (Photo...

boldnebraska.org

From 5/21/10 to 10/31/19 total barrels at 55 gals/barrel: 15,212 barrels or about 1,520 barrels per year
One oil tanker spill Thirty years ago, on 24 March 1989, communities in Prince William Sound, Alaska, awoke to horrific news: the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker, had run aground and leaked 11m gallons 200,000 barrels.

Thirty years after Exxon Valdez, the response to oil spills is still all wrong | Riki Ott and Jack Siddoway

Chemicals used to clean up spills have harmed marine wildlife, response workers and coastal residents. The EPA must act

www.theguardian.com

Where are your FACTS???

 

[InspectorDetector]

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?

Stop worrying about it......1,000 pipeline jobs and 10,000 construction jobs have been lost to Americans - big deal. There are more than enough Mexicans coming in that will do those jobs for 1/3 of the pay.

After all..........it's a new day in America...................

 

[danielpalos]

How many jobs could be created by putting infrastructure underground? electrical infrastructure could be included along with fuels and oils. Simply having that infrastructure in place would mean more storage and help with automatic stabilization of that market segment of our economy.

Underground pipelines also leak. TransCanada doesn't have a real good safety record.

You don't store crude oil.. It drives the price up. You want just in time inventory.

Hypothetically, underground pipes failing could lead to only the containment conduit needing to be cleaned up after any failure of any particular pipe with any specific product. A public sector private sector partnership could help deliver energy more efficiently while conserving greenspace for local use.

 

[hadit]

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?

It's virtually impossible to build new refineries.

 

[Vrenn]

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?

The Oil Sands crude is such a low grade that it can only be used for a few of those on your list. And there are cheaper methods in the US where we use better grade crude. Even our Heavy Crude is many times more pure than that sludge. So the intent for the pipeline was never to bring it to the Texas refineries. It was always the intent to bring to the harbor and load it onto oil cargo ships and send it to countries that could not purchase the better grades. The reason behind that is so that two major stockholders in the Keystone Oil Sands can make a profit using US Government Resources and those two major stockholders are the Canadian Government and Koch Industries. While even the heavy crude is going for about 39 to 49 bucks a barrel, the Keystone Oil Sands is going for less than 29 and not purchased in Canada nor the US.

The cost to refine that sludge is too high unless you remove ALL regulations and don't give a damned about killing off your own population.

 

[Vrenn]

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

What's the difference? The sludge is piped down to the gulf and then loaded onto oil tankers and shipped from there. The only thing done is the shifting of the pollution from Canada to that of the US. Koch Industries has the absolute worst record of safety with the existing pipelines. It's cheaper to pay the fines than fix the problems so the pipes won't burst from time to time.

If Canada wants to export that oil (one of the two major stockholders in Keystone is the Canadian Government) force them to either shut the originating project down or build their own short pipeline to their own coast and construct their own ports. But they won't because they can shift the dangers to the US where the Congress Critters and an Ex President has been bought and paid for.

 

[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

What's the difference? The sludge is piped down to the gulf and then loaded onto oil tankers and shipped from there. The only thing done is the shifting of the pollution from Canada to that of the US. Koch Industries has the absolute worst record of safety with the existing pipelines. It's cheaper to pay the fines than fix the problems so the pipes won't burst from time to time.

If Canada wants to export that oil (one of the two major stockholders in Keystone is the Canadian Government) force them to either shut the originating project down or build their own short pipeline to their own coast and construct their own ports. But they won't because they can shift the dangers to the US where the Congress Critters and an Ex President has been bought and paid for.

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

Haro Strait, separating Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands in British Columbia, Canada from the San Juan Islands of
Washington state in the United States.. Haro Strait is a critical part of the route of the international ...