Obama Vetoes Keystone XL

[ModernGunner]

"Thousands," would imply at least 2, and "many of those" implies over 50% which would place jobs at he very least, at 1001. Needless to say, that figure is obscenely outlandish. It wouldn't come close.

Absolutely incorrect.

Of course, that would most likely come from someone who is unfamiliar with the nature of both the construction and the refinery businesses, as many such quotes are.

Just for a bit of 'insight', when BP performed it's 'upgrade' project in Whiting, IN., the project had 12,000 contractors, which didn't include the actual BP employees. And companies from around the country and around the world. Many of those contractors remain in various support roles. ALL of those (including BP employees) were and are GOOD paying jobs.

That does not include the ancillary jobs: Restaurants, retail stores, auxiliary equipment stores, medical facilities, parts manufacturers, and so forth.

That was just to build 'a new refinery within the refinery'. One 'upgrade' project at just one refinery.

The Keystone project is much larger, over a longer time period.

This 'might' come as a surprise to some, but there's much more to such a project than 'some already-made pipe and a few men to weld it together'.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is my beef with it. No doesn't mean no to these people. It's not a public use that qualifies for ED IMO. It's not a road or bridge or military base. It's a private foreign company stealing American peoples land. And making them buy insurance to cover any spills that occur, on the land.

I can't help but wonder why the GOP is in favor of this?

 

[mrjarrell]

I can't help but wonder why the GOP is in favor of this?

Crony capitalism. They're all in favour of ED when it benefits donors. And they say they're the party of smaller, less intrusive government....

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Crony capitalism. They're all in favour of ED when it benefits donors. And they say they're the party of smaller, less intrusive government....

I would expect that ED would most likely lead to less intrusiveness.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Absolutely incorrect.

Of course, that would most likely come from someone who is unfamiliar with the nature of both the construction and the refinery businesses, as many such quotes are.

Just for a bit of 'insight', when BP performed it's 'upgrade' project in Whiting, IN., the project had 12,000 contractors, which didn't include the actual BP employees. And companies from around the country and around the world. Many of those contractors remain in various support roles. ALL of those (including BP employees) were and are GOOD paying jobs.

That does not include the ancillary jobs: Restaurants, retail stores, auxiliary equipment stores, medical facilities, parts manufacturers, and so forth.

That was just to build 'a new refinery within the refinery'. One 'upgrade' project at just one refinery.

The Keystone project is much larger, over a longer time period.

This 'might' come as a surprise to some, but there's much more to such a project than 'some already-made pipe and a few men to weld it together'.

You said "long term" jobs, that's the part I was referencing. The construction phase is supposed to be a couple of years. My dad is working in San Francisco for a "couple of years," and we don't consider that "long term."

 

[mrjarrell]

I must admit that I was rather pleased to see a judge in Nebraska understood property Rights.

http://www.newsweek.com/nebraska-judge-stops-transcanada-using-eminent-domain-keystone-xl-306774

 

[mrjarrell]

You said "long term" jobs, that's the part I was referencing. The construction phase is supposed to be a couple of years. My dad is working in San Francisco for a "couple of years," and we don't consider that "long term."

The two pieces I linked to earlier supported the "thousand of jobs" contention, but those jobs are temporary construction over about 2 years. Not exactly a big boom for the economy, (local or national). Long term jobs seem to be less than a hundred, once the pipeline is done.

 

[Big Guy]

From what I've read, and heard on the subject, Obama's against the environmental impact it would have on this country, plus he wants to **** of the Republicans. At least that's what I thought, but you can be sure, it's all about money, and getting votes for 2016. The Arabs have enough money, that they can continue to drill even during times when they have huge reserves on hand, and outlast everyone on the price per barrel of oil. After it's all said and done, the pipeline will look like a foolish endeavor.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How could any American support a foreign business that attempts to kick other Americans off their OWN land?

Is that actually what's being proposed? I haven't looked in to it, but I figured it was like water utilities. They get an easement and they can dig, bury pipe, and service that pipe but you still maintain ownership of the land and aren't mandated to leave.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is that actually what's being proposed? I haven't looked in to it, but I figured it was like water utilities. They get an easement and they can dig, bury pipe, and service that pipe but you still maintain ownership of the land and aren't mandated to leave.

YES! TransCanada has been trying to strong arm these people off their land since 2011. The land they want is farmland. Which obviously would be rendered useless if it has an oil pipeline under it. The plan would require the property owners to buy insurance, for their own dang land, if there should be some mishap. And after the pipeline has exhausted it's usefulness, TransCanada isn't required to remove the pipeline; that will fall on the property owner. So yeah, given that the land in question would be rendered worthless to the owner while the pipeline exists, I'd certainly call it being "kicked off."

 

[AA&E]

According to this study, only 35 permanent jobs.

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf

Who here honestly believes an almost 1200 mile pipeline could be adequately maintained by 35 people? Not to mention day to day operations, security, etc. I've worked in security operation in all facets (corporate, utilities, government) for over 20 years. I can assure you just in security alone that pipeline will employ more then 35 people. I have managed security functions for operations of similar structures on a much smaller scale, and there is no way I believe they could accomplish everything they need with only 35 people.

When I see such studies I often question the motivations of the source. The same hold true when I see figures on the opposite end of the spectrum, both sides attempt to spin things to fit their own narrative. This was an executive summary prepared for the president in 2013. This came with a predetermined outcome upon inception. Don't believe me, look at the environmental impact section where they discuss various species of beetles being negatively impacted. If that doesn't indicate something about the authors of this 'study', I don't know what does.

That said, I do not support the forceful acquisition of land from it's rightful owners by corporate entities. Eminent domain should never be utilized for something such as this.

 

[jd4320t]

I agree. I don't know anything about pipelines but 35 people over 1200 miles doesn't seem like enough.

 

[Birds Away]

The Emperor has spoken. All hail the Emperor.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Does anyone here REALLY believe that Obama gives two rat turds about Eminent Domain? He's all about pandering.

I hope not...

If you argument is about ED , fine I see the point. But I also suggest that you take a SERIOUS look at the land it's being proposed to go through. Have you physically been on a site where a pipeline runs? I HAVE. Typically they run it through the most rural grassland and least developed area possible. And in NO WAY should affect the grazing or other similar use of the land. So an easement to run it through , and not TAKING of the land should be fine for 99% of it.. If TransCanada really is trying to TAKE the land as opposed to get a right of way then that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. So let's drop the punditry , DON'T take either side's BS as gospel and find out what's up.

 

[Thor]

The Threadless Emperor knows that the only jobs worth creating are in the government. Private sector jobs only point out his threadlessness.

 

[mrjarrell]

I agree. I don't know anything about pipelines but 35 people over 1200 miles doesn't seem like enough.

Unlike the Trans-Alaska, the Keystone will be underground for the most part and require virtually no roving maintenance. I could easily see the number being under 100. There will be very few places where the pipeline will breach the surface and a very few people will be all that's needed to see to it on an irregular basis.

 

[jd4320t]

Unlike the Trans-Alaska, the Keystone will be underground for the most part and require virtually no roving maintenance. I could easily see the number being under 100. There will be very few places where the pipeline will breach the surface and a very few people will be all that's needed to see to it on an irregular basis.

Oh, cool. So, many of the negative things said about it wouldn't be true at all. Got it.

 

[spec4]

Aren't there already thousands of miles of pipelines in the USA? Anyone know what compensation the pipeline company is offering the landowners? I would think most of those objections could be put to bed if they made the owners an offer that would more than compensate. If I've learned anything in the last six years it's that Obama and I are 180 degrees apart in our thinking.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

I'm in the minority here, but I'm GLAD he vetoed it. Keystone is only a temporary fix. Will it create jobs? Sure, but how many will it retain?

Plus, any project that has openly stated it will seize more native american property can burn for all I care

 

[jamil]

I have it on good authority; no fewer than 17! Upwards of thousands but who the **** cares as long as we have tax payers that we can keep squeezing am I right?!?!

Wow. I think you're drastically over estimating that. Because 17! is way higher than the number of people that have ever lived. Heck, it's even higher than 1/4 of our national debt.

Crony capitalism. They're all in favour of ED when it benefits donors. And they say they're the party of smaller, less intrusive government....

I have to agree with you on one point. The bill as written is croney capitalism.

Justin Amash said on his facebook, The latest #‎KXL bill combines the cronyism of previous bills—specially exempting one private company from the laws and regulations that apply to all other companies—with new, unrelated sections empowering the EPA and the federal government with respect to local energy efficiency."

I'm not opposed to the idea of the pipeline. But I am opposed to the gotchas hidden in this bill. Obama stated that the reason he vetoed the bill was essentially it limits his power. He didn't veto it for the right reason, but it needed to fail anyway.