It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Echo007 long as 20k people can have a job for a year or two.
Originally posted by masqua
Originally posted by peck420
They had to plan for 3 separate routes right from the beginning.
TransCanada offered one of the reserve routes almost immediately after Obama made the delay press release.
I hadn't heard that. The only alternate route that was mentioned by The Harper Government after the Obama hold-up, afaik, was the one to Kitimat BC, which would direct crude to the Pacific and China. I know that line has been discussed for some time now.
About that Ogallala aquifer... it's quite large, both in width and length:
Any idea how they were proposing the other two routes?
Originally posted by AzureSky
Hempfacts.org
Farming 6% of the continental U.S. acreage with biomass crops would provide all of America's energy needs. 1
Hemp is Earth's number-one biomass resource; it is capable of producing 10 tons per acre in four months. 1
Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol, or gasoline at a cost comparable to petroleum, and hemp is much better for the environment. Pyrolysis (charcoalizing), or biochemical composting are two methods of turning hemp into fuel.2
Hemp can produce 10 times more methanol than corn.
Hemp fuel burns clean. Petroleum causes acid rain due to sulfur pollution.
The use of hemp fuel does not contribute to global warming.
The point is, we have much better ways of making fuel than this disaster. As you can see above. Hemp would revolutionize the way we do things.
Originally posted by Destinyone
Though Obama would prefer to not address this now...The Keystone Pipeline Bill being passed last night, has put his back against the wall. I've included some excerpts from an article, that fairly well represent my feelings.
It means jobs, much needed jobs. Yup, that's 20,000 new jobs. And not only the kind of jobs that someone with a degree can get, for good pay.
Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said it would create "more than 100,000 American jobs."
And earlier Wednesday on the Senate floor, Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas said the project "promises 20,000 immediate jobs and 118,000 spin-off jobs."
They all appear to be getting their numbers from the same source: TransCanada Corporation, the company behind the project.
Alex Pourbaix, an executive at TransCanada, told a House subcommittee earlier this month that the project would create 13,000 construction jobs.
"On top of that there are 7,000 manufacturing jobs associated with this project," said Pourbaix. "Twenty thousand jobs in all."
What he fails to mention is that the jobs numbers are based on "person years," meaning the number of people employed could be much lower.
"That may be in some cases one person working six months and another person working six months," says Ray Perryman, president of an economic research firm based in Texas. "Or it could be if one person works two years, that's two job years."
Perryman was hired by TransCanada to look at the broader economic impact of the project. And if you're wondering where Huntsman and Hutchison got the 100,000 jobs-created figure, look no further than Perryman. He adds up all the jobs at all the contractors and manufacturers and suppliers and restaurants and hotels along the way.
"It's unsubstantiated," says Sean Sweeney, who directs Cornell University's Global Labor Institute. He co-wrote a paper that found the numbers to be exaggerated.
"I'm not sure where 20,000 comes from," adds Sweeney. "We know the direct construction jobs are nowhere near 20,000. We know the steel, or a portion of it, is not produced in the United States; so where are the jobs?"
Perryman describes the Cornell paper as "advocacy."
A recent State Department study said the construction workforce would be 5,000 to 6,000 workers. And once the construction phase ends, almost all of these jobs, however many are created, would go away.
]
Originally posted by peck420
As for the pipeline to Kitimat, that is not an alternate route. That is a separate pipeline by a separate oil company.
Kitimat is by Enbridge and is called the Nothern Gateway Pipeline, ve TransCanada and the Keystone XL.
OTTAWA — Canada could sell its oil to China and other overseas markets with or without approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in the United States, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
In a year-end television interview, Harper indicated he had doubts the $7-billion pipeline would receive political approval from U.S. President Barack Obama, and that Canada should be looking outside the United States for markets.
“I am very serious about selling our oil off this continent, selling our energy products off to Asia. I think we have to do that,” Harper said in the Monday interview with CTV National News.
Harper’s comments were released a day after the White House sent signals it might kill TransCanada’s oil sands pipeline if it is forced to make a decision on the project in 60 days, saying there wasn’t sufficient time to complete a new environmental review.
news.nationalpost.com...
Kitmat is currently on hold by communities that rely heavily on transfer payments funded by oil sands...ironic, no?
Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Indigo5
You would almost think the oil is going to refine itself...
Originally posted by peck420
And there is no economic spin offs what so ever...
Originally posted by Indigo5
No...As Reuters reported the Koch Brothers have refineries waiting for that oil already. No new refineries.
Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved
www.reuters.com...
If you give 5k Americans temporary jobs and spread them out literally the length of the USA, you might create a drop of rain in demand.
Temporary jobs, 6 months to 2 years, the steel will come from Canada or India, as will many of the employees...and that is what Keystone itself acknowledges.