• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump administration approves Keystone XL pipeline

No, that's not my point. Trump said that this project will create 28K jobs, but that's just being disingenuous. He doesn't mention the fact that only 30-50 of those jobs will actually be permanent.

The supposed "economic benefit" this is supposed to bring is not worth the risk.

But it's the same when any other politician speaks of all the "jobs" that will be created through infrastructure spending. Once you build a bridge, dam, or road, those jobs end just the same.
 
Not for nothing, Wunderkind Trudeau in Canada sees the wisdom in piplelines that carry even more oil than Keystone:

Trudeau cabinet approves Trans Mountain, Line 3 pipelines, rejects Northern Gateway - Politics - CBC News

"The decision we took today is the one that is in the best interests of Canada," Trudeau said in announcing his government's support for the two major projects. "It is a major win for Canadian workers, for Canadian families and the Canadian economy, now and into the future."
 
Eggs-actly. People are like "this'll create more jerbs!" but once the pipeline is finished, the majority of those jobs will go *poof*.

We should never build anything, because once the build is done, those jobs go "poof"
 
But it's the same when any other politician speaks of all the "jobs" that will be created through infrastructure spending. Once you build a bridge, dam, or road, those jobs end just the same.

Well, that's not why I'm behind infrastructure spending. I see more of the benefit of infrastructure coming from improving the condition and quality of our roads, railroads, bridges, water treatment plants, etc. (stuff that's beneficial to us), which would help our economy’s ability to properly function and boost productivity.
 
REF: Trump administration approves Keystone XL pipeline

americanwoman, et al,

In a thumbnail view, what does the Risk Assessment say are the most probable threats and risks? I've not seen the Risk Assessment.


Why? Temporary jobs and permanent risks are worth what to you?
(COMMENT)

Are you saying that once the Pipeline is built that:


§ There will be no real stable, long-term energy supply?
§ There will be no appreciable tax revenue generated?
§ There will be new local opportunities for investment in the maintenance?

I'm not sure what your implication is...

(I'm not trying to be a wise-ass.)

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Last edited:
Well, that's not why I'm behind infrastructure spending. I see more of the benefit of infrastructure coming from improving the condition and quality of our roads, railroads, bridges, water treatment plants, etc. (stuff that's beneficial to us), which would help our economy’s ability to properly function and boost productivity.

Maybe, but it's still sold under the pretext of "jobs," just like the pipeline, and the benefits of the pipeline extend beyond the jobs involved in constructing it as well.

All construction work ends. All construction jobs are temporary.
 
Will only American steel be used as Trump promised?
 
Eggs-actly. People are like "this'll create more jerbs!" but once the pipeline is finished, the majority of those jobs will go *poof*.

That's what all construction jobs do. In fact, that's true for most all jobs.

It'll take a long time for this pipeline to be completed.

Obama counted seasonal Christmas jobs like they were 10-year pipeline jobs. LOL
 
Yay! Putting american steelworkers back to work, right?

Um... wait a second...

Keystone pipeline won't use US steel despite Trump pledge | Fox News

Its a non-event. Perhaps the most overdebated, irrelevant issue of the past 10 years. It will provide some short term jobs (maybe 3,000 for a year), but ultimately there are about 20 permanent jobs to be added all to transport Canadian crude to port so it may be sold overseas.

But, it gives Trump another photo-op to make it look like he is doing something and mask the fact that he is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create - Jan. 27, 2017

That's what all construction jobs do. In fact, that's true for most all jobs.

It'll take a long time for this pipeline to be completed.

Obama counted seasonal Christmas jobs like they were 10-year pipeline jobs. LOL

Only if you think ONE year is a long time. Think of it as a set of extended seasonal jobs.
 
Last edited:
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration has issued a presidential permit to pipeline builder TransCanada to build the

Great news. Let's get our eonomy growing at an acceptable rate again.
 
The pipeline should have been approved years ago!


Report Opens Way to Approval for Keystone Pipeline
JAN. 31, 2014

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/us/politics/report-may-ease-way-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON —" The State Department (Obama administration) released a report on Friday concluding that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantially worsen carbon pollution, leaving an opening for President Obama to approve the politically divisive project.

The department’s long-awaited environmental impact statement appears to indicate that the project could pass the criteria Mr. Obama set forth in a speech last summer when he said he would approve the 1,700-mile pipeline if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, the report appears to indicate that if it were not built, carbon-heavy oil would still be extracted at the same rate from pristine Alberta forest and transported to refineries by rail instead."
 
Maybe, but it's still sold under the pretext of "jobs," just like the pipeline, and the benefits of the pipeline extend beyond the jobs involved in constructing it as well.

Fair enough.

All construction work ends. All construction jobs are temporary.

I'm not disputing that.
 
:lamo Xenophobic, good one. Let me know when someone wants to come and take your land your family has had for generations. I'm sure you will sign the paperwork the same day.

The pipeline right-of-way is narrow. Eminent domain is one thing, but when you cast it in terms of a foreign company you brought xenophobia into the discussion. Your contribution, not mine.

Most property owners are in fact glad to take the money.
 
REF: Trump administration approves Keystone XL pipeline

americanwoman, et al,

In a thumbnail view, what does the Risk Assessment say are the most probable threats and risks? I've not seen the Risk Assessment.



(COMMENT)

Are you saying that once the Pipeline is built that:


§ There will be no real stable, long-term energy supply?
§ There will be no appreciable tax revenue generated?
§ There will be new local opportunities for investment in the maintenance?


I'm not sure what your implication is...

(I'm not trying to be a wise-ass.)

Most Respectfully,
R


For your questions:

§ There will be no real stable, long-term energy supply?
§ There will be no appreciable tax revenue generated?
§ There will be new local opportunities for investment in the maintenance?


Yes, there would be local opportunities for investment, possible stable energy supply, and tax revenue generated, I don't deny there are benefits. However in Nebraska, even though I live in a city, we mostly rely on our agriculture and we have the Ogallala Aquifer. If there was a spill in Nebraska it's a risk to our huge agriculture economy and possibly contaminate our water. I simply don't want to take that risk. You can disagree with that but I am trying to just keep our natural resources clean.
 
You see, there is the problem right there. Eminent domain was never intended to be used to benefit business or private individuals.

So long as the taking is for a public purpose it's fine. There are multiple court decisions holding that infrastructure projects, even if in private hands, constitute a qualifying public purpose.
 
The pipeline right-of-way is narrow. Eminent domain is one thing, but when you cast it in terms of a foreign company you brought xenophobia into the discussion. Your contribution, not mine.

Most property owners are in fact glad to take the money.

Because it is a foreign company. :shrug: Many property owners might be happy to sell out but not here in Nebraska where it's actually happening to them.

Nebraska landowners revive fight against Keystone XL | Inside Energy

Crumly’s family raises cattle and corn in Holt County in north central Nebraska. To provide water for thirsty crops and livestock, they draw from the High Plains Aquifer, an underground reservoir she calls the lifeblood of their operation.

Keystone XL would run through land that lies above that water supply. The company in charge of the project, TransCanada, says pipelines are safer than hauling oil by train and that it will accept the legal responsibility to clean up any potential damage.

“Should an incident occur where there is a release of crude oil into the environment, our focus will be on remediation, repairing the pipeline, and of course restoring the environment back to its original state,” says TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha.

The company’s first Keystone pipeline, which also runs through Nebraska, has sprung leaks. A defective weld was blamed for a leak of nearly 17,000 gallons of oil from Keystone 1 in South Dakota in April 2016.

For Crumly, an oil leak like that on her land is something she can’t afford.


Now, Crumly and dozens of likeminded landowners in this farming and ranching community are reviving their resistance. They gathered at the Community Center in the Holt County seat of O’Neill, Nebraska, recently to talk strategy with other pipeline opponents.


'We hate to have to fight again': Nebraska farm couple defiant as Trump acts to advance Keystone XL, Dakota Access pipelines | Nebraska | omaha.com

If the company tries to use eminent domain to forcibly obtain right of way from Nebraska landowners, a lawsuit would be filed, Kleeb promised.

“It isn’t right for a foreign corporation to use eminent domain for private gain,” she said. At least 100 Nebraska landowners, Kleeb said, will resist selling right of way.
 
Yay! Putting american steelworkers back to work, right?

Um... wait a second...

Keystone pipeline won't use US steel despite Trump pledge | Fox News

Typical liberal...
The directive applies to new pipelines or those under repair. Sanders said it would be hard to do an about-face on Keystone because it's already under construction and the steel has been acquired.
You expect the government to just dispose of steel that's already been purchased? You should be outraged that Obama approved of the purchase of that non-American made steel and praising Trump for demanding only U.S. Steel be used in the future.
 
oil.jpg
 
So long as the taking is for a public purpose it's fine. There are multiple court decisions holding that infrastructure projects, even if in private hands, constitute a qualifying public purpose.

The phrase is public use, not public purpose. Something owned by private individuals is considered private property and thus not open to public use.
 
Back
Top Bottom