No Excuses: Keystone XL Pipeline Clears Major Hurdle

[OnePercenter]

Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL
A report by Cornell University global labor institute

Main Findings

The main points in this briefing paper can be summarized as follows:

» The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs.

» The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department.

» The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

» There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.

» The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.

» KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate, and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it is now.

» KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

» Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars worth of damage in the United States.

» Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase both the risk and costs of further climate instability.

» By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_012312_FIN.pdf

Cornell...Yes a bastion of liberalism is the ONLY credible source for this kind of info.
Of course this study is totally independent and nary a word of anti fossil fuel bias was on the minds of the people doing the study.
Sure.

Cornell is liberal? Ivy league liberal?

 

[thereisnospoon]

2.5x more private sector jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

Bullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.....................................SHIT

It's not bullshit.

It's math.

More Jobs Created Under Obama Than Bush, Nonpartisan Report Finds - Careers Articles
Surprise! Obama Is Creating More New Jobs Than George W. Bush - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you factor in that GW Bush had lots of spending to employ federal/state/city workers and Obama lost that spending and those jobs..Obama's record looks that much better.

Hmmmm. then why is there such a desperate need to suddenly extend unemployment benefits?
See, when something doesn't make sense, such as the stuff in your links, it means it usually isn't true.
I guess the other thing one must ask is what constitutes a "job"..
One more thing. While the U-3 rate keeps mysteriously falling every time Obama's approval ratings are reported, U-6, the actual participatory and hence the "true" rate of unemployment, holds steady at 13.1%...BTW,
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
Anorther stat which belies your claim.....The total number of persons aged 16 and up categorized as "not in the labor force" is over 90 million...
A breakdown shows that roughly 35% of whites and a whopping 47% of blacks eligible to be in the workforce, are not.
Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age

 

[Vandalshandle]

Oktex
(quote)What difference does it make exactly how many permanent jobs are created as long as it is a net positive and adds to our economy? Are you so fucking bent on being right on petty shit that you could care less about the positive impact on the country? We have thousands of miles of petroleum pipe running all over this country they have proven to be safe and efficient. " (end of quote)

I'll handle this one, folks!

The reason why it makes a difference as to how many jobs are created by this pipeline is that the title of the thread is:

"The Keystone Pipline would create 500,000 permenate jobs, why does obama reject it? "

Which is 616 times the number of employees who keep the Alaska pipleine operating, which means that the entire premise of the OP is flat out absurd.

Now, if you want to start a thread about the pipeline being more efficent than other means of transport, you stand a good chance of not being laughed off the board!

 

[OKTexas]

Oktex
(quote)What difference does it make exactly how many permanent jobs are created as long as it is a net positive and adds to our economy? Are you so fucking bent on being right on petty shit that you could care less about the positive impact on the country? We have thousands of miles of petroleum pipe running all over this country they have proven to be safe and efficient. " (end of quote)

I'll handle this one, folks!

The reason why it makes a difference as to how many jobs are created by this pipeline is that the title of the thread is:

"The Keystone Pipline would create 500,000 permenate jobs, why does obama reject it? "

Which is 616 times the number of employees who keep the Alaska pipleine operating, which means that the entire premise of the OP is flat out absurd.

Now, if you want to start a thread about the pipeline being more efficent than other means of transport, you stand a good chance of not being laughed off the board!

So you think the only jobs that will be created will be the jobs to operate the pipeline, can you say YOU"RE WRONG? By your illogical logic an auto manufacturing plant that employed 1,000 people wouldn't create even 1 job outside that plant and anyone with a brain knows that's not true. I know in the military it took about 7 support personnel to keep 1 on the front lines.

And as far as my stating that pipelines are more efficient and safer than other forms of transportation, it's true. Are you aware the even the US military have petroleum pipeline units to move fuels over distances in secure areas because its faster and safer than ground transportation. They were deployed in Desert Storm and the Iraq wars. So the preference of pipeline delivery system is indisputable, think about it, how do you get your water and natural gas in you home?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oktex
(quote)What difference does it make exactly how many permanent jobs are created as long as it is a net positive and adds to our economy? Are you so fucking bent on being right on petty shit that you could care less about the positive impact on the country? We have thousands of miles of petroleum pipe running all over this country they have proven to be safe and efficient. " (end of quote)

I'll handle this one, folks!

The reason why it makes a difference as to how many jobs are created by this pipeline is that the title of the thread is:

"The Keystone Pipline would create 500,000 permenate jobs, why does obama reject it? "

Which is 616 times the number of employees who keep the Alaska pipleine operating, which means that the entire premise of the OP is flat out absurd.

Now, if you want to start a thread about the pipeline being more efficent than other means of transport, you stand a good chance of not being laughed off the board!

Still waiting for you to present a defense to your claims.
The laughter you hear is your nervousness over the fact that you have no rebuttal of ant substance..

 

[thereisnospoon]

Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL
A report by Cornell University global labor institute

Main Findings

The main points in this briefing paper can be summarized as follows:

» The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs.

» The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department.

» The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

» There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.

» The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.

» KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate, and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it is now.

» KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

» Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars worth of damage in the United States.

» Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase both the risk and costs of further climate instability.

» By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_012312_FIN.pdf

Cornell...Yes a bastion of liberalism is the ONLY credible source for this kind of info.
Of course this study is totally independent and nary a word of anti fossil fuel bias was on the minds of the people doing the study.
Sure.

Cornell is liberal? Ivy league liberal?

Absolutely....Yer kidding, right?
Where the fuck do you think the president and his wifey went to school? Both are Ivy League

 

[KNB]

Humans are born Liberal if you bother to think about it. Human nature is to be inquisitive. We are always asking questions and seeking new information to obtain answers. Our path is always forward without our choice because of the natural progression of time. As we progress, we learn from past mistakes and apply new knowledge toward creating a better future. What are Conservatives clinging to? The "good old days" when America was strong and prosperous and free?

Here's a job from the good old days that doesn't require any fossil fuels:

Reports from all over the world conclude that Cannabis Sativa is a viable renewable outdoor crop for producing transportation fuel. Even the US Federal government has accepted this fact, but Cannabis production still remains illegal under Federal law.

The feasibility of converting Cannabis sat... [Bioresour Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
UConn Biofuel Consortium
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8415/1/prade_t_111102.pdf

It is time to legalize "Marihuana" again to make America more independent of foreign imports.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngc0_mQ5tjE]Hemp For Victory (1942) U.S. Department of Agriculture - YouTube[/ame]

And Cannabis can treat and possibly cure cancer.
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

We won't have any need for tar sands or the pipeline if we legalize Cannabis Sativa again, and growing hemp will provide local jobs during every growing cycle, year-round in every state.

 

[healthmyths]

Humans are born Liberal if you bother to think about it. Human nature is to be inquisitive. We are always asking questions and seeking new information to obtain answers. Our path is always forward without our choice because of the natural progression of time. As we progress, we learn from past mistakes and apply new knowledge toward creating a better future. What are Conservatives clinging to? The "good old days" when America was strong and prosperous and free?

Here's a job from the good old days that doesn't require any fossil fuels:

Reports from all over the world conclude that Cannabis Sativa is a viable renewable outdoor crop for producing transportation fuel. Even the US Federal government has accepted this fact, but Cannabis production still remains illegal under Federal law.

The feasibility of converting Cannabis sat... [Bioresour Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
UConn Biofuel Consortium
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8415/1/prade_t_111102.pdf

It is time to legalize "Marihuana" again to make America more independent of foreign imports.

Hemp For Victory (1942) U.S. Department of Agriculture - YouTube

And Cannabis can treat and possibly cure cancer.
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

We won't have any need for tar sands or the pipeline if we legalize Cannabis Sativa again, and growing hemp will provide local jobs during every growing cycle, year-round in every state.

Osburn figured for the worst farmland. In fact, if we apply a realistic estimate of average yield—3.5 tons of usable biomass per acre—and suppose that hemp were to be grown on every single acre of arable cropland in the U. S. (421 million acres), we would only produce about 1.5 billion tons of hemp biomass per year. This probably sounds like a lot. However, according to the U.S. government (DOE, 2011) we used 6.8 billion barrels of petroleum and almost exactly 1 billion tons of coal in 2009; this amounts to 66 billion gigajoules of energy. If we burned all of that hemp biomass, it would optimistically yield 23 billion gigajoules (ORNL, 2011). In other words, even if we grew hemp on all the farmland in the country, it would only replace 35% of our combined coal and oil use—and this doesn’t even take natural gas into account. Obviously, hemp couldn’t even come close to replacing our fossil fuels.
Hemp as a Biofuel « Hemp Hoax

 

[OnePercenter]

Cornell...Yes a bastion of liberalism is the ONLY credible source for this kind of info.
Of course this study is totally independent and nary a word of anti fossil fuel bias was on the minds of the people doing the study.
Sure.

Cornell is liberal? Ivy league liberal?

Absolutely....Yer kidding, right?
Where the fuck do you think the president and his wifey went to school? Both are Ivy League

As did the skull and crossbone friends of George Bush, and we all know how liberal they are.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Oktex
(quote)What difference does it make exactly how many permanent jobs are created as long as it is a net positive and adds to our economy? Are you so fucking bent on being right on petty shit that you could care less about the positive impact on the country? We have thousands of miles of petroleum pipe running all over this country they have proven to be safe and efficient. " (end of quote)

I'll handle this one, folks!

The reason why it makes a difference as to how many jobs are created by this pipeline is that the title of the thread is:

"The Keystone Pipline would create 500,000 permenate jobs, why does obama reject it? "

Which is 616 times the number of employees who keep the Alaska pipleine operating, which means that the entire premise of the OP is flat out absurd.

Now, if you want to start a thread about the pipeline being more efficent than other means of transport, you stand a good chance of not being laughed off the board!

So you think the only jobs that will be created will be the jobs to operate the pipeline, can you say YOU"RE WRONG? By your illogical logic an auto manufacturing plant that employed 1,000 people wouldn't create even 1 job outside that plant and anyone with a brain knows that's not true. I know in the military it took about 7 support personnel to keep 1 on the front lines.

And as far as my stating that pipelines are more efficient and safer than other forms of transportation, it's true. Are you aware the even the US military have petroleum pipeline units to move fuels over distances in secure areas because its faster and safer than ground transportation. They were deployed in Desert Storm and the Iraq wars. So the preference of pipeline delivery system is indisputable, think about it, how do you get your water and natural gas in you home?

Sorry, Tex, but I am not going to respond to your contention that 1 person geting a wage would generate the need and economy to create 615 other jobs. In order to find support on that issue, you need to take a jump down the rabbit hole and visit with the Mad Hatter... Based on your argument, the pipeline in Alaska has created 625,000 jobs, which is 91% of the entire state's population!

 

[Shaarona]

The guys who build pipelines are temporary employees and move along the route of the pipeline.

Monitoring pipelines doesn't require that many permanent employees either.

Nerve Center for Saudi ARAMCO.. monitoring in real time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Humans are born Liberal if you bother to think about it. Human nature is to be inquisitive. We are always asking questions and seeking new information to obtain answers. Our path is always forward without our choice because of the natural progression of time. As we progress, we learn from past mistakes and apply new knowledge toward creating a better future. What are Conservatives clinging to? The "good old days" when America was strong and prosperous and free?

Here's a job from the good old days that doesn't require any fossil fuels:

Reports from all over the world conclude that Cannabis Sativa is a viable renewable outdoor crop for producing transportation fuel. Even the US Federal government has accepted this fact, but Cannabis production still remains illegal under Federal law.

The feasibility of converting Cannabis sat... [Bioresour Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
UConn Biofuel Consortium
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8415/1/prade_t_111102.pdf

It is time to legalize "Marihuana" again to make America more independent of foreign imports.

Hemp For Victory (1942) U.S. Department of Agriculture - YouTube

And Cannabis can treat and possibly cure cancer.
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

We won't have any need for tar sands or the pipeline if we legalize Cannabis Sativa again, and growing hemp will provide local jobs during every growing cycle, year-round in every state.

In the sense of classic liberalism, you are correct.
However, modern liberalism is nothing more than socialism or even communism "lite".
Until someone figures out how to run our vehicles and aircraft on bio-fuel that performs as well as fossil fuel, pollutes less than fossil fuel, is as readily available as fossil fuel and can be purchased for the same price or lower, we will continue to use what we have that meets all of the above conditions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No one ever stated the pipeline itself would require 500,000 workers. The number represents the actual pipeline workers during construction, administration, engineering, logistics, etc.

And how is that any different?

Also counted should be all ancillary employment in the form of housing, retail, services, support, transportation logistics( warehousing) medical care. The list is very long.

Oh come on, this is weak.

Of course all you people can see is "oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Carbon Dioxide!!!!!!!"....STFU

You really should take a tour through the Environment section before you make a claim like this.

The environment section?....have you nothing better to do with your time than wring your hands over what might happen?
I suppose you've bought into this climate change thing and swallowed the hook.

 

[thereisnospoon]

OK...You are being called out to defend and support those claims with FACTS.

First of all, the person who started this thread is the one who made the claim of 500,000 jobs. That is what needs to be supported with facts.

Second, if you had bothered to pay attention to the thread, you'd see that what I have said has already been demonstrated, from a study done by Cornell University.

Off to bed with you.

No....You posted several items in which you implied were true that were in your mind valid reasons to not build the pipeline.
I challenged you and still challenge you to support those claims with facts.
I am not letting this go. You will provide the facts. Otherwise your claims are nonsense.

 

[OKTexas]

Oktex
(quote)What difference does it make exactly how many permanent jobs are created as long as it is a net positive and adds to our economy? Are you so fucking bent on being right on petty shit that you could care less about the positive impact on the country? We have thousands of miles of petroleum pipe running all over this country they have proven to be safe and efficient. " (end of quote)

I'll handle this one, folks!

The reason why it makes a difference as to how many jobs are created by this pipeline is that the title of the thread is:

"The Keystone Pipline would create 500,000 permenate jobs, why does obama reject it? "

Which is 616 times the number of employees who keep the Alaska pipleine operating, which means that the entire premise of the OP is flat out absurd.

Now, if you want to start a thread about the pipeline being more efficent than other means of transport, you stand a good chance of not being laughed off the board!

So you think the only jobs that will be created will be the jobs to operate the pipeline, can you say YOU"RE WRONG? By your illogical logic an auto manufacturing plant that employed 1,000 people wouldn't create even 1 job outside that plant and anyone with a brain knows that's not true. I know in the military it took about 7 support personnel to keep 1 on the front lines.

And as far as my stating that pipelines are more efficient and safer than other forms of transportation, it's true. Are you aware the even the US military have petroleum pipeline units to move fuels over distances in secure areas because its faster and safer than ground transportation. They were deployed in Desert Storm and the Iraq wars. So the preference of pipeline delivery system is indisputable, think about it, how do you get your water and natural gas in you home?

Sorry, Tex, but I am not going to respond to your contention that 1 person geting a wage would generate the need and economy to create 615 other jobs. In order to find support on that issue, you need to take a jump down the rabbit hole and visit with the Mad Hatter... Based on your argument, the pipeline in Alaska has created 625,000 jobs, which is 91% of the entire state's population!

Who's building the parts that are being used to keep the Alaska pipeline operating, the gas turbine engines, the light bulbs, the control systems, the computers and hundreds of thousands of other components in that line that require maintenance and replacement. 1 job creates parts of thousands of jobs. Just look around your house and pick one item and think of the number of people it takes to create it, from obtaining the raw material all the way through to it getting in your door. The ripple of one job goes a long way in the economy, especially the kind of jobs created in the operation of a petroleum pipeline, those are the folks that can afford the nice toys in life so they create more jobs than the average Joe.

 

[OnePercenter]

So you think the only jobs that will be created will be the jobs to operate the pipeline, can you say YOU"RE WRONG? By your illogical logic an auto manufacturing plant that employed 1,000 people wouldn't create even 1 job outside that plant and anyone with a brain knows that's not true. I know in the military it took about 7 support personnel to keep 1 on the front lines.

And as far as my stating that pipelines are more efficient and safer than other forms of transportation, it's true. Are you aware the even the US military have petroleum pipeline units to move fuels over distances in secure areas because its faster and safer than ground transportation. They were deployed in Desert Storm and the Iraq wars. So the preference of pipeline delivery system is indisputable, think about it, how do you get your water and natural gas in you home?

Sorry, Tex, but I am not going to respond to your contention that 1 person geting a wage would generate the need and economy to create 615 other jobs. In order to find support on that issue, you need to take a jump down the rabbit hole and visit with the Mad Hatter... Based on your argument, the pipeline in Alaska has created 625,000 jobs, which is 91% of the entire state's population!

Who's building the parts that are being used to keep the Alaska pipeline operating, the gas turbine engines, the light bulbs, the control systems, the computers and hundreds of thousands of other components in that line that require maintenance and replacement. 1 job creates parts of thousands of jobs. Just look around your house and pick one item and think of the number of people it takes to create it, from obtaining the raw material all the way through to it getting in your door. The ripple of one job goes a long way in the economy, especially the kind of jobs created in the operation of a petroleum pipeline, those are the folks that can afford the nice toys in life so they create more jobs than the average Joe.

With the exception of light bulbs (unless they're LED), how many times do these other components need replacing?

Wouldn't the providers of these components provide the warranty repairs of their products from existing employees?

 

[SwimExpert]

No one ever stated the pipeline itself would require 500,000 workers. The number represents the actual pipeline workers during construction, administration, engineering, logistics, etc.

And how is that any different?



Oh come on, this is weak.

Of course all you people can see is "oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Carbon Dioxide!!!!!!!"....STFU

You really should take a tour through the Environment section before you make a claim like this.

The environment section?....have you nothing better to do with your time than wring your hands over what might happen?
I suppose you've bought into this climate change thing and swallowed the hook.

You are making a damned fool out of yourself. Go over and take a look and see for yourself how much of a fool you're making yourself out to be.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And how is that any different?



Oh come on, this is weak.





You really should take a tour through the Environment section before you make a claim like this.

The environment section?....have you nothing better to do with your time than wring your hands over what might happen?
I suppose you've bought into this climate change thing and swallowed the hook.

You are making a damned fool out of yourself. Go over and take a look and see for yourself how much of a fool you're making yourself out to be.

Now why would I want to read a bunch of left wing conspiracy theories?
Please...
With your idea of progress, we'd be sharing bicycles to get around.
Now, if you want to get into a battle of name calling, let me know. I debate issues.
If you want a bar room brawl be prepared to read things that will make your ancestors cringe. Because you start this shit and I don't give a rat's ass about forum rules.
So, if you wish to discuss, let's do so. If you want a battle of insults, it's your call.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sorry, Tex, but I am not going to respond to your contention that 1 person geting a wage would generate the need and economy to create 615 other jobs. In order to find support on that issue, you need to take a jump down the rabbit hole and visit with the Mad Hatter... Based on your argument, the pipeline in Alaska has created 625,000 jobs, which is 91% of the entire state's population!

Who's building the parts that are being used to keep the Alaska pipeline operating, the gas turbine engines, the light bulbs, the control systems, the computers and hundreds of thousands of other components in that line that require maintenance and replacement. 1 job creates parts of thousands of jobs. Just look around your house and pick one item and think of the number of people it takes to create it, from obtaining the raw material all the way through to it getting in your door. The ripple of one job goes a long way in the economy, especially the kind of jobs created in the operation of a petroleum pipeline, those are the folks that can afford the nice toys in life so they create more jobs than the average Joe.

With the exception of light bulbs (unless they're LED), how many times do these other components need replacing?

Wouldn't the providers of these components provide the warranty repairs of their products from existing employees?

look, you are treading into what is for you, uncharted territory. You have idea what it is you are talking about. You have no idea what is involved in the maintenance and administration of such a large project.
Just admit the fact that you oppose Keystone XL because Obama is opposed to it.
When one peels back the layers of the onion, that is the ONLY reason.

 

[OKTexas]

Sorry, Tex, but I am not going to respond to your contention that 1 person geting a wage would generate the need and economy to create 615 other jobs. In order to find support on that issue, you need to take a jump down the rabbit hole and visit with the Mad Hatter... Based on your argument, the pipeline in Alaska has created 625,000 jobs, which is 91% of the entire state's population!

Who's building the parts that are being used to keep the Alaska pipeline operating, the gas turbine engines, the light bulbs, the control systems, the computers and hundreds of thousands of other components in that line that require maintenance and replacement. 1 job creates parts of thousands of jobs. Just look around your house and pick one item and think of the number of people it takes to create it, from obtaining the raw material all the way through to it getting in your door. The ripple of one job goes a long way in the economy, especially the kind of jobs created in the operation of a petroleum pipeline, those are the folks that can afford the nice toys in life so they create more jobs than the average Joe.

With the exception of light bulbs (unless they're LED), how many times do these other components need replacing?

Wouldn't the providers of these components provide the warranty repairs of their products from existing employees?

Just by asking that question it's obvious you have no experience with manufacturing or an industrial setting. There are literally tens of thousands of components in a pipeline pumping station, from a wiring connector costing a few cents to high powered engines and pumps costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Everything in there is monitored just like the systems in your car except a pumping station has redundant monitoring and control systems kind of like they do in space craft and airplanes. Every component has a different service life and maintenance schedule, there will be a brief honeymoon period when there is very little to do, but normally that doesn't last long in a continuous service setting. How long do you think your car would last if it ran 24/7/365, year after year?