comic

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Chilcoot
My whole point in this thread is that, while important, job creation doesn't trump every other human concern. Please find an interesting way to fault that.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Once again, my disclaimer: I am a proponent of the pipeline.

If you think the keystone pipeline is a big source of jobs then you have been misled - likely by the people trying to build it. The original estimate of 100,000 jobs was not an estimate at all but rather a number pulled out of someone's ass. The source of the number can not be found. Later that number came down to about 20K jobs...but that counted 1 job for one person for 1 year. So if one job lasted 3 years they are actually counting it as 3 jobs. The actual amount is less than 10k jobs. And, hey, every job counts...and its good for our energy security...so I am on board. But dont kid yourself that its going to put a dent in the unemployment number.

If we are talking government initiatives and jobs, the infrastructure-plan proposed by the president and rejected by the GOP would have created multiples of 10X the jobs of Keystone...and it was paid for. I supect you'll see the president talking about that much more than Keystone.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Think of all the lumberyard jobs we could have if we just chopped down all the forests!

Think of all the doctor and nurse jobs we could have if we just switched off all the traffic lights!

Think of all the bodyguard jobs we could have if we just emptied the prisons!

When weighing national policy, sometimes more than one consequence of a choice merits consideration.

This pipeline will be approved, but it needs to be done the right way. I remember how oil companies once proposed to build the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline out of wood. Wood!

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote

---

Originally posted by: marcr
Please provide a credible source for your statement that oil companies proposed building the pipeline out of wood.

---

I have personal knowledge of this. I hate talking about myself in these forums (Bagiant I'm not), but this is a fair question.

My father worked for SAPC for many years, including during construction, retired from BP Alaska even. Both my brother and I worked Prudhoe, Endicott, Kuparuk, and in Valdez. We're an oil family, have been since the late 60s. So I'm speaking from personal knowledge gleaned both personally and from family and friends.

TAPS wanted to save steel money by building the VSMs from wood as was commonly done in the Soviet Arctic: building 800 miles of anything out of steel is crazy expensive. Thankfully, this issue arose at a time when this nation was increasing its commitment to environmental safety, and that concept was abandoned. The producers did try though.

John, I believe you when you say some of the stuff I write is nonsensical to you. Also, so you understand, no one ever calls anything "aleskeyan pipeline", including the wives of men who get crushed in every election they enter.

This new pipeline will be built, But it needs to be done correctly, and that takes time.

---