info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Warren Buffett & the Keystone Decision
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Joe Cooper
Nov 9, 2015, 2:04:59 PM11/9/15
to
When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
Killing the Keystone XL pipeline may help one of the world's richest men
get richer. North Dakota's booming oil fields will now grow more
dependent on a railroad the president's economic guru just bought….
As oil production ramps up in the Bakken fields of North Dakota, plans to
use the pipeline to transport it have been dashed.
As a result, North Dakota's booming oil producers will have to rely even
more on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which Buffett
just bought, to ship it to refineries.
[/Investor’s Business Daily]
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa
Fe in a deal valuing the railroad at $34 billion. Berkshire Hathaway
already owns about 22% of Burlington Northern, and will pay $100 a share
in cash and stock for the rest of the company.
When President Obama was first running for office, he publicly declared
that Warren Buffet was his prime source for economic advice. As CNBC
noted in July 2008:
Barack Obama calls on Warren Buffett, among others, as he turns his
attention to the troubled U.S. economy now that he's returned from his
international tour that featured a well-attended speech in Berlin.
In an interview with Tom Brokaw on NBC's Meet the Press over the weekend,
Obama said that today he would be "pulling together" some of his "core
economic advisers" to "examine the policies that we've already put
forward--a middle class tax cut, a second round of stimulus, a effort to
shore up the housing market in addition to the bill that was already
passed through Congress, what we need to do in terms of energy and
infrastructure."
[/CNBC]
President Obama would soon launch an endless review process that would
kick the Keystone oil can down the road until he was ready to kill it, a
non-suspicious interval of time having elapsed after economic mentor
Warren Buffet would buy the railroad that would replace Keystone XL. So
how did Buffett do on his investment and did he profit from buddy Obama’s
delaying and then killing the pipeline? Some would say handsomely. As
Forbes reported last year:
His company, Berkshire Hathaway, purchased Burlington
Northern Santa Fe for $34 billion four years ago. FORBES
estimates its value has doubled since then. Part of the
reason: hauling oil out of the Bakken formation of North
Dakota.
Doubling a $34 billion investment in just four years is huge. Warren
Buffett is a respected investor but it doesn’t hurt to have the ear of
the President as he kills off your competition in oil transport. As
Investor’s Business Daily editorialized in January:
Keystone XL would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per
day and directly create 20,000 truly shovel-ready jobs.
And it would carry not only Canadian oil, but also oil
from the Bakken shale formation of North Dakota.
Even if it carried only Canadian oil to foreign markets,
it and the Gulf Coast refineries that would process the
oil would be operated not by robots but by American
workers. Would President Obama rather live in a world
dependent on oil from North America or on oil from the
Middle East and OPEC?
[/Investor’s Business Daily]
President Obama says these would only be temporary jobs. But so are the
infrastructure jobs he favors. Building a bridge creates jobs, but are
they “temporary” because the bridge will eventually be completed? The
workers will simply move on to the next project. So will the Keystone
workers, particularly if we remove the restrictions on and animus toward
fossil fuel development?
How could it not benefit our national economic and security interest?
With a proposed linkup with the booming production in North Dakota, North
American energy independence would be assured. If we also lifted the ban
on exporting crude, the geopolitical stage would experience a seismic
shift felt from Riyadh to Moscow as North American crude and liquefied
natural gas offered countries a source immune from Middle East eruptions.
Sure, gasoline prices have fallen, but largely due to another technology
President Obama and his environmentalist base opposed, also for alleged
environmental reasons – hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”. When they go
up again, and they will, wouldn’t it be nice to keep our petrodollars
here at home? Just why is it that President Obama wants Iranian crude on
the world market, but not American?
If Warren Buffett is shedding any tears over the demise of Keystone XL,
he’s crying all the way to the bank.
Source: http://bit.ly/20HAmPZ
Related: Shipping Crude Oil by Rail: A Victim of its Own Success?
http://bit.ly/1NFg3gH
Are Pipeline Spills A Foregone Conclusion?
http://bit.ly/1OzONll
Rail v. Pipelines: No Safe Bet for Oil
http://bit.ly/1QedL9P
--
The Leading Cause of Poverty Are Progressives - Help Raise the Poor:
Promote Capitalism
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
Killing the Keystone XL pipeline may help one of the world's richest men
get richer. North Dakota's booming oil fields will now grow more
dependent on a railroad the president's economic guru just bought….
As oil production ramps up in the Bakken fields of North Dakota, plans to
use the pipeline to transport it have been dashed.
As a result, North Dakota's booming oil producers will have to rely even
more on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which Buffett
just bought, to ship it to refineries.
[/Investor’s Business Daily]
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa
Fe in a deal valuing the railroad at $34 billion. Berkshire Hathaway
already owns about 22% of Burlington Northern, and will pay $100 a share
in cash and stock for the rest of the company.
When President Obama was first running for office, he publicly declared
that Warren Buffet was his prime source for economic advice. As CNBC
noted in July 2008:
Barack Obama calls on Warren Buffett, among others, as he turns his
attention to the troubled U.S. economy now that he's returned from his
international tour that featured a well-attended speech in Berlin.
In an interview with Tom Brokaw on NBC's Meet the Press over the weekend,
Obama said that today he would be "pulling together" some of his "core
economic advisers" to "examine the policies that we've already put
forward--a middle class tax cut, a second round of stimulus, a effort to
shore up the housing market in addition to the bill that was already
passed through Congress, what we need to do in terms of energy and
infrastructure."
[/CNBC]
President Obama would soon launch an endless review process that would
kick the Keystone oil can down the road until he was ready to kill it, a
non-suspicious interval of time having elapsed after economic mentor
Warren Buffet would buy the railroad that would replace Keystone XL. So
how did Buffett do on his investment and did he profit from buddy Obama’s
delaying and then killing the pipeline? Some would say handsomely. As
Forbes reported last year:
His company, Berkshire Hathaway, purchased Burlington
Northern Santa Fe for $34 billion four years ago. FORBES
estimates its value has doubled since then. Part of the
reason: hauling oil out of the Bakken formation of North
Dakota.
Doubling a $34 billion investment in just four years is huge. Warren
Buffett is a respected investor but it doesn’t hurt to have the ear of
the President as he kills off your competition in oil transport. As
Investor’s Business Daily editorialized in January:
Keystone XL would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per
day and directly create 20,000 truly shovel-ready jobs.
And it would carry not only Canadian oil, but also oil
from the Bakken shale formation of North Dakota.
Even if it carried only Canadian oil to foreign markets,
it and the Gulf Coast refineries that would process the
oil would be operated not by robots but by American
workers. Would President Obama rather live in a world
dependent on oil from North America or on oil from the
Middle East and OPEC?
[/Investor’s Business Daily]
President Obama says these would only be temporary jobs. But so are the
infrastructure jobs he favors. Building a bridge creates jobs, but are
they “temporary” because the bridge will eventually be completed? The
workers will simply move on to the next project. So will the Keystone
workers, particularly if we remove the restrictions on and animus toward
fossil fuel development?
How could it not benefit our national economic and security interest?
With a proposed linkup with the booming production in North Dakota, North
American energy independence would be assured. If we also lifted the ban
on exporting crude, the geopolitical stage would experience a seismic
shift felt from Riyadh to Moscow as North American crude and liquefied
natural gas offered countries a source immune from Middle East eruptions.
Sure, gasoline prices have fallen, but largely due to another technology
President Obama and his environmentalist base opposed, also for alleged
environmental reasons – hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”. When they go
up again, and they will, wouldn’t it be nice to keep our petrodollars
here at home? Just why is it that President Obama wants Iranian crude on
the world market, but not American?
If Warren Buffett is shedding any tears over the demise of Keystone XL,
he’s crying all the way to the bank.
Source: http://bit.ly/20HAmPZ
Related: Shipping Crude Oil by Rail: A Victim of its Own Success?
http://bit.ly/1NFg3gH
Are Pipeline Spills A Foregone Conclusion?
http://bit.ly/1OzONll
Rail v. Pipelines: No Safe Bet for Oil
http://bit.ly/1QedL9P
--
The Leading Cause of Poverty Are Progressives - Help Raise the Poor:
Promote Capitalism
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 9, 2015, 3:47:20 PM11/9/15
to
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>United States.”
a) It wasn't OUR oil
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>United States.”
b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
d) it DID put the nation's mid-section in GRAVE DANGER from oil spills
of all kinds.
>==========================================================
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers.
Ronald Regan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).
Governor Swill
Nov 10, 2015, 7:17:15 PM11/10/15
to
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
>personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
>Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
>formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
>he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
And Obama was quite right. The pipeline would serve only Canada and
>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
>personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
>Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
>formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
>he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
the Koch brothers and their industrial colleagues.
The pipeline as planned, would have delivered tar sands crude to the
Gulf for delivery to Asia. How does that benefit the US?
Swill
--
"The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone.
Security also lies in the value of our free institutions.
A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous
press must be suffered by those in authority in order
to preserve the even greater values of freedom of
expression and the right of the people to know." - Judge Murray Gurfein on the Pentagon Papers
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 10, 2015, 7:56:15 PM11/10/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:17:18 -0500, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>
>>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>>United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
>>personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
>>Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
>>formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
>>he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
>
>And Obama was quite right. The pipeline would serve only Canada and
>the Koch brothers and their industrial colleagues.
>
>The pipeline as planned, would have delivered tar sands crude to the
>Gulf for delivery to Asia. How does that benefit the US?
The benefit was just another way to discredit obama---a plan
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>
>>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>>United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
>>personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
>>Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
>>formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
>>he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
>
>And Obama was quite right. The pipeline would serve only Canada and
>the Koch brothers and their industrial colleagues.
>
>The pipeline as planned, would have delivered tar sands crude to the
>Gulf for delivery to Asia. How does that benefit the US?
conconcted the night of the first swearing in Jan 2009
Vandar
Nov 10, 2015, 8:15:57 PM11/10/15
to
On 11/9/2015 3:47 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
> <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>> he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>> pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>> United States.”
>
> a) It wasn't OUR oil
>
> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
Billions.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
> <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>> he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>> pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>> United States.”
>
> a) It wasn't OUR oil
>
> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
> d) it DID put the nation's mid-section in GRAVE DANGER from oil spills
> of all kinds.
Find that GRAVE DANGER.
Joe Cooper
Nov 10, 2015, 9:37:21 PM11/10/15
to
Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:n1u4o3$n1d$1...@dont-email.me:
[Poor, stupid Gary wrote...]
>> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
> Billions.
>> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
> Thousands
>> d) it DID put the nation's mid-section in GRAVE DANGER from oil
>> spills of all kinds.
> http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm
> Find that GRAVE DANGER.
That's an easy one. The grave danger comes from transporting crude on
Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Railroad, rail having a far worse
record than pipelines.
Recap: Obama increases danger to environment - and profits to Buffett -
by turning Keystone down.
[Poor, stupid Gary wrote...]
>> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
> Billions.
>> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
> Thousands
>> d) it DID put the nation's mid-section in GRAVE DANGER from oil
>> spills of all kinds.
> http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm
> Find that GRAVE DANGER.
Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Railroad, rail having a far worse
record than pipelines.
Recap: Obama increases danger to environment - and profits to Buffett -
by turning Keystone down.
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 10, 2015, 10:36:02 PM11/10/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:35:03 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>That's an easy one. The grave danger comes from transporting crude on
>Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Railroad, rail having a far worse
>record than pipelines.
It ain't our oil
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>That's an easy one. The grave danger comes from transporting crude on
>Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Railroad, rail having a far worse
>record than pipelines.
It is shipped out of country
It has NO benefit to us---and all the liability when (not if) the
pipeline breaks. (see public record of "unbreakable Oil Pipelines)
>Recap: Obama increases danger to environment
danger
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 12:16:12 AM11/11/15
to
In article <uf454b9lljsivkp0i...@4ax.com>, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:17:18 -0500, Governor Swill
> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
> >
> >>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
> >>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
> >>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
> >>United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
> >>personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
> >>Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
> >>formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
> >>he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
> >
> >And Obama was quite right. The pipeline would serve only Canada and
> >the Koch brothers and their industrial colleagues.
> >
> >The pipeline as planned, would have delivered tar sands crude to the
> >Gulf for delivery to Asia. How does that benefit the US?
>
> The benefit was just another way to discredit obama---a plan
> conconcted the night of the first swearing in Jan 2009
I suspect it would be more profitable to pipe it to New Orleans than Vancouver
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:17:18 -0500, Governor Swill
> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
> >
> >>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
> >>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
> >>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
> >>United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
> >>personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
> >>Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
> >>formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
> >>he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
> >
> >And Obama was quite right. The pipeline would serve only Canada and
> >the Koch brothers and their industrial colleagues.
> >
> >The pipeline as planned, would have delivered tar sands crude to the
> >Gulf for delivery to Asia. How does that benefit the US?
>
> The benefit was just another way to discredit obama---a plan
> conconcted the night of the first swearing in Jan 2009
or their Atlantic port. You should expect a business, especially a foreign
business on a multi-decade project to pursue profits not temporary political
fights.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we
cannot prove the consistency. ~~ Morris Kline
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 12:38:06 AM11/11/15
to
In article <n1u4o3$n1d$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>
> Billions.
>
> > c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>
> Thousands
35 permanent jobs. How much of those billions do you think they would've gotten?
> > b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>
> Billions.
>
> > c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>
> Thousands
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 12:41:22 AM11/11/15
to
In article <XnsA54EBD68A83...@213.239.209.88>,
> Recap: Obama increases danger to environment - and profits to Buffett -
> by turning Keystone down.
What fraction of BNR profits will be due to transporting these tar sands?
Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
> That's an easy one. The grave danger comes from transporting crude on
> Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Railroad, rail having a far worse
> record than pipelines.
So you have the litres of spilt oil from trains vs pipelines available?
> That's an easy one. The grave danger comes from transporting crude on
> Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Railroad, rail having a far worse
> record than pipelines.
> Recap: Obama increases danger to environment - and profits to Buffett -
> by turning Keystone down.
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 11:50:41 AM11/11/15
to
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:15:57 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <uf454b9lljsivkp0i...@4ax.com>, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:17:18 -0500, Governor Swill
>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>> >
>> >>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>> >>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>> >>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>> >>United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
>> >>personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
>> >>Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
>> >>formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
>> >>he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
>> >
>> >And Obama was quite right. The pipeline would serve only Canada and
>> >the Koch brothers and their industrial colleagues.
>> >
>> >The pipeline as planned, would have delivered tar sands crude to the
>> >Gulf for delivery to Asia. How does that benefit the US?
>>
>> The benefit was just another way to discredit obama---a plan
>> conconcted the night of the first swearing in Jan 2009
>
>I suspect it would be more profitable to pipe it to New Orleans than Vancouver
>or their Atlantic port.
Not sure where you get that. A pipeline to the Pacific would be
shorter and which route to Asia is shorter for tankers? From New
Orleans or from Vancouver?
>You should expect a business, especially a foreign
>business on a multi-decade project to pursue profits not temporary political
>fights.
When the Keystone was conceived, as the world's biggest oil consumer,
it made sense to run the pipeline through the US. That would give us
first crack at Canada's oil supply.
But times have changed even if Canada's thinking hasn't. Our oil
imports are way down, our oil *use* is way down. Clearly, the future
of the oil markets is in Asia and the PacRim and just as clearly,
Canada's biggest competitor for supplying oil to Asia is not the
Middle East, it's Russia.
Canada already has at least one pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver and
one other proposed extension to the Pacific.
<https://onthevergeoftears.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/north-american-pipelines-and-refineries-network.jpg>
wrote:
>In article <uf454b9lljsivkp0i...@4ax.com>, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:17:18 -0500, Governor Swill
>> <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>> >
>> >>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>> >>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>> >>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>> >>United States.” The fact is that it would not have benefitted the
>> >>personal financial interests of friend and economic mentor, Warren
>> >>Buffett, who can rest assured that oil from Canada and the nearby Bakken
>> >>formation in North Dakota will continue to be transported by a railroad
>> >>he owns. As Investor’s Business Daily noted in a 2011 editorial:
>> >
>> >And Obama was quite right. The pipeline would serve only Canada and
>> >the Koch brothers and their industrial colleagues.
>> >
>> >The pipeline as planned, would have delivered tar sands crude to the
>> >Gulf for delivery to Asia. How does that benefit the US?
>>
>> The benefit was just another way to discredit obama---a plan
>> conconcted the night of the first swearing in Jan 2009
>
>I suspect it would be more profitable to pipe it to New Orleans than Vancouver
>or their Atlantic port.
shorter and which route to Asia is shorter for tankers? From New
Orleans or from Vancouver?
>You should expect a business, especially a foreign
>business on a multi-decade project to pursue profits not temporary political
>fights.
it made sense to run the pipeline through the US. That would give us
first crack at Canada's oil supply.
But times have changed even if Canada's thinking hasn't. Our oil
imports are way down, our oil *use* is way down. Clearly, the future
of the oil markets is in Asia and the PacRim and just as clearly,
Canada's biggest competitor for supplying oil to Asia is not the
Middle East, it's Russia.
Canada already has at least one pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver and
one other proposed extension to the Pacific.
<https://onthevergeoftears.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/north-american-pipelines-and-refineries-network.jpg>
Siri Cruz
Nov 11, 2015, 12:22:23 PM11/11/15
to
> >I suspect it would be more profitable to pipe it to New Orleans than
> >Vancouver
> >or their Atlantic port.
>
> Not sure where you get that. A pipeline to the Pacific would be
> shorter and which route to Asia is shorter for tankers? From New
> Orleans or from Vancouver?
I assume Canada is pursuing maximum profits rather than screw around in US
> >Vancouver
> >or their Atlantic port.
>
> Not sure where you get that. A pipeline to the Pacific would be
> shorter and which route to Asia is shorter for tankers? From New
> Orleans or from Vancouver?
politics. A pipeline to Vancouver would have to go over the Canadian Rockies and
vertical displacement adds costs, so following on my first assumptions I assume
the planned US destination would be cheaper to reach and/or a better port.
> But times have changed even if Canada's thinking hasn't. Our oil
> imports are way down, our oil *use* is way down. Clearly, the future
> of the oil markets is in Asia and the PacRim and just as clearly,
> Canada's biggest competitor for supplying oil to Asia is not the
> Middle East, it's Russia.
Siberia which continues to China and the Siberian taiga. Manfactured goods
between China and the US and lumber from Siberia to the US. Get Canada to chip
in and include a pipeline in the Bunnel.
It's the nucleus of the future nation of Pacifica, with Siberia, Alaska, Yukon,
British Columbia, Washinton, Oregon, California, and Baja.
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 12:34:32 PM11/11/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:35:03 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>That's an easy one. The grave danger comes from transporting crude on
>Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Railroad, rail having a far worse
>record than pipelines.
>
>Recap: Obama increases danger to environment - and profits to Buffett -
>by turning Keystone down.
The collapse in oil prices has rendered the Keystone extension
>That's an easy one. The grave danger comes from transporting crude on
>Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Railroad, rail having a far worse
>record than pipelines.
>
>Recap: Obama increases danger to environment - and profits to Buffett -
>by turning Keystone down.
obsolete. It is not in our best interest to allow a pipeline through
the grain belt for transshipment to Asia.
dunno
Nov 11, 2015, 2:38:30 PM11/11/15
to
<Sn...@smack.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
> <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>> he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>> pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>> United States.”
>
> a) It wasn't OUR oil
>
> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>
> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
Hmmm. For Ukraine, the gas pipeline that goes on their territory from
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 19:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
> <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>> he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>> pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>> United States.”
>
> a) It wasn't OUR oil
>
> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>
> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
Russia to EU, is one of the major sources of revenue. Probably Ukrainians
are much better with that kind of business than Americans.
> d) it DID put the nation's mid-section in GRAVE DANGER from oil spills
> of all kinds.
>
>> ==========================================================
>
> "These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
> founding fathers.
>
> Ronald Regan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).
>
dunno
Governor Swill
Nov 11, 2015, 9:47:04 PM11/11/15
to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:22:05 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> >I suspect it would be more profitable to pipe it to New Orleans than
>> >Vancouver
>> >or their Atlantic port.
>>
>> Not sure where you get that. A pipeline to the Pacific would be
>> shorter and which route to Asia is shorter for tankers? From New
>> Orleans or from Vancouver?
>
>I assume Canada is pursuing maximum profits rather than screw around in US
>politics. A pipeline to Vancouver would have to go over the Canadian Rockies and
>vertical displacement adds costs, so following on my first assumptions I assume
>the planned US destination would be cheaper to reach and/or a better port.
Look at this map.
<https://onthevergeoftears.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/north-american-pipelines-and-refineries-network.jpg>
There's a gap in the Canadian Rockies almost due west of Athabasca and
just at the southern tip of Lake Williston. Turn southwest from there
and there's a gap in the Canadian Cascades that provides access to the
sea in the Hecate strait.
Environmentalists would have a hissy fit, but engineers could probably
build a Panamax tanker terminal at the coast and get the pipeline to
it.
Considering royalties to states the extension has to pass through, the
greater length of the extension, the bottlenecks where it intersects
existing pipelines, the greater length of sea passage and the shortage
of NOLA port facilities that can handle the new Panamax tankers, and
it's clear that the Asian market can be more profitably and
efficiently served by another pan rockies pipeline.
>> But times have changed even if Canada's thinking hasn't. Our oil
>> imports are way down, our oil *use* is way down. Clearly, the future
>> of the oil markets is in Asia and the PacRim and just as clearly,
>> Canada's biggest competitor for supplying oil to Asia is not the
>> Middle East, it's Russia.
>
>I'm fantasising about a rail Bunnel under the Bering Strait between Alaska and
>Siberia which continues to China and the Siberian taiga. Manfactured goods
>between China and the US and lumber from Siberia to the US. Get Canada to chip
>in and include a pipeline in the Bunnel.
I don't see it. Train is more expensive than ship no matter how you
slice it.
And a Canadian pipeline to the Bering would still have to cross the
rockies AND the entire width of Alaska. And the Alaskan section would
never be built anyway. Even if it did, the rights would cost Canada a
fortune. So why not use a shorter rockies crossing to Canada's own
coast and their own oil port?
>It's the nucleus of the future nation of Pacifica, with Siberia, Alaska, Yukon,
>British Columbia, Washinton, Oregon, California, and Baja.
Shipping is better. It's cheaper.
wrote:
>> >I suspect it would be more profitable to pipe it to New Orleans than
>> >Vancouver
>> >or their Atlantic port.
>>
>> Not sure where you get that. A pipeline to the Pacific would be
>> shorter and which route to Asia is shorter for tankers? From New
>> Orleans or from Vancouver?
>
>I assume Canada is pursuing maximum profits rather than screw around in US
>politics. A pipeline to Vancouver would have to go over the Canadian Rockies and
>vertical displacement adds costs, so following on my first assumptions I assume
>the planned US destination would be cheaper to reach and/or a better port.
<https://onthevergeoftears.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/north-american-pipelines-and-refineries-network.jpg>
There's a gap in the Canadian Rockies almost due west of Athabasca and
just at the southern tip of Lake Williston. Turn southwest from there
and there's a gap in the Canadian Cascades that provides access to the
sea in the Hecate strait.
Environmentalists would have a hissy fit, but engineers could probably
build a Panamax tanker terminal at the coast and get the pipeline to
it.
Considering royalties to states the extension has to pass through, the
greater length of the extension, the bottlenecks where it intersects
existing pipelines, the greater length of sea passage and the shortage
of NOLA port facilities that can handle the new Panamax tankers, and
it's clear that the Asian market can be more profitably and
efficiently served by another pan rockies pipeline.
>> But times have changed even if Canada's thinking hasn't. Our oil
>> imports are way down, our oil *use* is way down. Clearly, the future
>> of the oil markets is in Asia and the PacRim and just as clearly,
>> Canada's biggest competitor for supplying oil to Asia is not the
>> Middle East, it's Russia.
>
>I'm fantasising about a rail Bunnel under the Bering Strait between Alaska and
>Siberia which continues to China and the Siberian taiga. Manfactured goods
>between China and the US and lumber from Siberia to the US. Get Canada to chip
>in and include a pipeline in the Bunnel.
slice it.
And a Canadian pipeline to the Bering would still have to cross the
rockies AND the entire width of Alaska. And the Alaskan section would
never be built anyway. Even if it did, the rights would cost Canada a
fortune. So why not use a shorter rockies crossing to Canada's own
coast and their own oil port?
>It's the nucleus of the future nation of Pacifica, with Siberia, Alaska, Yukon,
>British Columbia, Washinton, Oregon, California, and Baja.
Siri Cruz
Nov 12, 2015, 3:14:04 AM11/12/15
to
In article <tcu74btabng0ko4q3...@4ax.com>,
better than assumptions. But I do believe Canadians are pursuing profits rather
than trying to entangle themselves in US politics. Businesses in general only
get political as ancillary to profits. (Which is different from the owners who
receive the profits getting political.)
> Environmentalists would have a hissy fit, but engineers could probably
> build a Panamax tanker terminal at the coast and get the pipeline to
> it.
US environmentalists shouldn't. Decisions in Canada should be left to Canadians
unless we have a treaty with them.
> I don't see it. Train is more expensive than ship no matter how you
> slice it.
I haven't done the math, but I'm not so sure. Trains have extremely low rolling
resistance, while ships have to push water aside. Trains can also be electrified
from non-fossil fuel generators while ships burn very dirty fuel. The only
difference I can think of is that it's expensive to change a train's elevation,
but ships at sea rarely have to sail over mountains.
> >It's the nucleus of the future nation of Pacifica, with Siberia, Alaska,
> >Yukon,
> >British Columbia, Washinton, Oregon, California, and Baja.
>
> Shipping is better. It's cheaper.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Who care about shipping! Pacifica will rule the Pacific Rim! First
the Pacific and then.....well once I've got the Pacific that's practically the
entire world anyways.
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:22:05 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >I suspect it would be more profitable to pipe it to New Orleans than
> >> >Vancouver
> >> >or their Atlantic port.
> >>
> >> Not sure where you get that. A pipeline to the Pacific would be
> >> shorter and which route to Asia is shorter for tankers? From New
> >> Orleans or from Vancouver?
> >
> >I assume Canada is pursuing maximum profits rather than screw around in US
> >politics. A pipeline to Vancouver would have to go over the Canadian Rockies
> >and
> >vertical displacement adds costs, so following on my first assumptions I
> >assume
> >the planned US destination would be cheaper to reach and/or a better port.
>
> Look at this map.
> <https://onthevergeoftears.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/north-american-pipeline
> s-and-refineries-network.jpg>
I don't know the details of the routes and ports, so I don't have anything
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:22:05 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >I suspect it would be more profitable to pipe it to New Orleans than
> >> >Vancouver
> >> >or their Atlantic port.
> >>
> >> Not sure where you get that. A pipeline to the Pacific would be
> >> shorter and which route to Asia is shorter for tankers? From New
> >> Orleans or from Vancouver?
> >
> >I assume Canada is pursuing maximum profits rather than screw around in US
> >politics. A pipeline to Vancouver would have to go over the Canadian Rockies
> >and
> >vertical displacement adds costs, so following on my first assumptions I
> >assume
> >the planned US destination would be cheaper to reach and/or a better port.
>
> Look at this map.
> <https://onthevergeoftears.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/north-american-pipeline
> s-and-refineries-network.jpg>
better than assumptions. But I do believe Canadians are pursuing profits rather
than trying to entangle themselves in US politics. Businesses in general only
get political as ancillary to profits. (Which is different from the owners who
receive the profits getting political.)
> Environmentalists would have a hissy fit, but engineers could probably
> build a Panamax tanker terminal at the coast and get the pipeline to
> it.
unless we have a treaty with them.
> I don't see it. Train is more expensive than ship no matter how you
> slice it.
resistance, while ships have to push water aside. Trains can also be electrified
from non-fossil fuel generators while ships burn very dirty fuel. The only
difference I can think of is that it's expensive to change a train's elevation,
but ships at sea rarely have to sail over mountains.
> >It's the nucleus of the future nation of Pacifica, with Siberia, Alaska,
> >Yukon,
> >British Columbia, Washinton, Oregon, California, and Baja.
>
> Shipping is better. It's cheaper.
the Pacific and then.....well once I've got the Pacific that's practically the
entire world anyways.
Joe Cooper
Nov 12, 2015, 11:30:11 AM11/12/15
to
dunno <du...@dunno.dunno> wrote in news:n205fh$ffl$1...@news.mixmin.net:
> Hmmm. For Ukraine, the gas pipeline that goes on their territory from
> Russia to EU, is one of the major sources of revenue. Probably
Ukrainians
> are much better with that kind of business than Americans.
The problem facing these brain-dead green weenies is that the oil is
already crossing the country, courtesy Warren Buffett and the Burlington
Norther Railroad.
SO the statements made by poor, stupid Gary, to wit:
When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
United States.”
a) It wasn't OUR oil
b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
must still be true...after all, poor, stupid Gary, it's the same oil.
In spite of this obvious fly in the liberal ointment, the environazis
continue to prattle the same bullshit...and Democratic Party bundler
Buffett keeps laughing all the way to the bank.
Amazing, just amazing.
> Hmmm. For Ukraine, the gas pipeline that goes on their territory from
> Russia to EU, is one of the major sources of revenue. Probably
Ukrainians
> are much better with that kind of business than Americans.
already crossing the country, courtesy Warren Buffett and the Burlington
Norther Railroad.
SO the statements made by poor, stupid Gary, to wit:
When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
United States.”
a) It wasn't OUR oil
b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
In spite of this obvious fly in the liberal ointment, the environazis
continue to prattle the same bullshit...and Democratic Party bundler
Buffett keeps laughing all the way to the bank.
Amazing, just amazing.
Vandar
Nov 12, 2015, 12:08:36 PM11/12/15
to
On 11/11/2015 12:37 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <n1u4o3$n1d$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>>
>> Billions.
>>
>>> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>>
>> Thousands
>
> 35 permanent jobs.
Thousands.
> In article <n1u4o3$n1d$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>>
>> Billions.
>>
>>> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>>
>> Thousands
>
> 35 permanent jobs.
Siri Cruz
Nov 12, 2015, 12:14:48 PM11/12/15
to
(Convincing you to cite evidence is easiest way to get evidence you're wrong.)
Vandar
Nov 12, 2015, 12:36:03 PM11/12/15
to
On 11/12/2015 12:14 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <n22gu9$hs7$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2015 12:37 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> In article <n1u4o3$n1d$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>>>>
>>>> Billions.
>>>>
>>>>> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>>>>
>>>> Thousands
>>>
>>> 35 permanent jobs.
>>
>> Thousands.
>
> Cite.
Nah. Do your own homework.
> In article <n22gu9$hs7$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2015 12:37 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> In article <n1u4o3$n1d$1...@dont-email.me>, Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>>>>
>>>> Billions.
>>>>
>>>>> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>>>>
>>>> Thousands
>>>
>>> 35 permanent jobs.
>>
>> Thousands.
>
> Cite.
The 35 number is the low-end estimate of how many people would be needed
to maintain the pipeline. It doesn't factor in the spin off jobs that
will be required. Not only maintenance of the line, but inspections,
parts, hospitality, infrastructure, and the dozens of environmental
whackjobs that will be "accepting donations" to protest it.
That's not an exhaustive list. If you knew anything about project
management, you'd know that 35 people total is absurdly low.
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 12, 2015, 12:55:56 PM11/12/15
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:27:52 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>United States.”
>
>a) It wasn't OUR oil
>b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>
>must still be true...after all, poor, stupid Gary, it's the same oil.
>
>In spite of this obvious fly in the liberal ointment, the environazis
>continue to prattle the same bullshit...and Democratic Party bundler
>Buffett keeps laughing all the way to the bank.
"Our oil" is not that worse kind, dummy
<drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>When President Obama announced he was killing the Keystone XL pipeline,
>he said he was agreeing with the State Department’s assessment that the
>pipeline from Canada “would not serve the national interests of the
>United States.”
>
>a) It wasn't OUR oil
>b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>
>must still be true...after all, poor, stupid Gary, it's the same oil.
>
>In spite of this obvious fly in the liberal ointment, the environazis
>continue to prattle the same bullshit...and Democratic Party bundler
>Buffett keeps laughing all the way to the bank.
And---the biggest problem is that (Now) Republicans control all means
to legislate regulations
And THEY aren't
Why---do you "think" that is?
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 1:17:42 PM11/12/15
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:13:42 -0800, Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com>
All the more reason for Canada to build their own pipeline.
>> Environmentalists would have a hissy fit, but engineers could probably
>> build a Panamax tanker terminal at the coast and get the pipeline to
>> it.
>
>US environmentalists shouldn't. Decisions in Canada should be left to Canadians
>unless we have a treaty with them.
I didn't specify US environmentalists except in the context of trying
to get approval to build a pipeline across Alaska.
>> I don't see it. Train is more expensive than ship no matter how you
>> slice it.
>
>I haven't done the math, but I'm not so sure. Trains have extremely low rolling
>resistance, while ships have to push water aside. Trains can also be electrified
>from non-fossil fuel generators while ships burn very dirty fuel. The only
>difference I can think of is that it's expensive to change a train's elevation,
>but ships at sea rarely have to sail over mountains.
Water has always been the cheapest method of transportation for mass
quantities of goods.
>> >It's the nucleus of the future nation of Pacifica, with Siberia, Alaska,
>> >Yukon,
>> >British Columbia, Washinton, Oregon, California, and Baja.
>>
>> Shipping is better. It's cheaper.
>
>Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Who care about shipping! Pacifica will rule the Pacific Rim! First
>the Pacific and then.....well once I've got the Pacific that's practically the
>entire world anyways.
;)
>> Environmentalists would have a hissy fit, but engineers could probably
>> build a Panamax tanker terminal at the coast and get the pipeline to
>> it.
>
>US environmentalists shouldn't. Decisions in Canada should be left to Canadians
>unless we have a treaty with them.
to get approval to build a pipeline across Alaska.
>> I don't see it. Train is more expensive than ship no matter how you
>> slice it.
>
>I haven't done the math, but I'm not so sure. Trains have extremely low rolling
>resistance, while ships have to push water aside. Trains can also be electrified
>from non-fossil fuel generators while ships burn very dirty fuel. The only
>difference I can think of is that it's expensive to change a train's elevation,
>but ships at sea rarely have to sail over mountains.
quantities of goods.
>> >It's the nucleus of the future nation of Pacifica, with Siberia, Alaska,
>> >Yukon,
>> >British Columbia, Washinton, Oregon, California, and Baja.
>>
>> Shipping is better. It's cheaper.
>
>Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Who care about shipping! Pacifica will rule the Pacific Rim! First
>the Pacific and then.....well once I've got the Pacific that's practically the
>entire world anyways.
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 7:35:19 PM11/12/15
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:08:18 -0500, Vandar wrote:
>On 11/11/2015 12:37 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>On 11/11/2015 12:37 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> Vandar wrote:
>>>> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>>> Billions.
>>>> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>>>
>>> Thousands
>>
>> 35 permanent jobs.
>
>Thousands.
She said "permanent" and I think you're both wrong. It would take
>>>> b) it provided NO revenue (or very little)
>>> Billions.
>>>> c) it provided almost no auxilliary jobs
>>>
>>> Thousands
>>
>> 35 permanent jobs.
>
>Thousands.
more than 35 workers to maintain that much pipeline, let alone process
and/or transship the oil that came out of it.
That said, the GOP claims of thousands (and even tens of thousands) of
jobs is equally bogus mostly because it depends on the agenda of who
you read.
It's like the claim that Keystone would have resulted in billions in
revenue for the govt or the states. Highly inflated and highly
dependent on specific conditions.
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 7:35:54 PM11/12/15
to
Governor Swill
Nov 12, 2015, 7:37:18 PM11/12/15
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:27:52 -0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper wrote:
>In spite of this obvious fly in the liberal ointment, the environazis
>continue to prattle the same bullshit...and Democratic Party bundler
>Buffett keeps laughing all the way to the bank.
In this sense, it's a choice between enriching this billionaire
>In spite of this obvious fly in the liberal ointment, the environazis
>continue to prattle the same bullshit...and Democratic Party bundler
>Buffett keeps laughing all the way to the bank.
(Buffett) or that billionaire (the Kochs).
Either way, the rich get richer and the rest of us pay for it.
Siri Cruz
Nov 12, 2015, 10:06:02 PM11/12/15
to
> >The 35 number is the low-end estimate of how many people would be needed
> >to maintain the pipeline. It doesn't factor in the spin off jobs that
> >will be required. Not only maintenance of the line, but inspections,
> >parts, hospitality, infrastructure, and the dozens of environmental
> >whackjobs that will be "accepting donations" to protest it.
> >That's not an exhaustive list. If you knew anything about project
> >management, you'd know that 35 people total is absurdly low.
>
> Just as "thousands" is absurdly high.
That assumes that would have been the first pipeline through the Mississippi
> >to maintain the pipeline. It doesn't factor in the spin off jobs that
> >will be required. Not only maintenance of the line, but inspections,
> >parts, hospitality, infrastructure, and the dozens of environmental
> >whackjobs that will be "accepting donations" to protest it.
> >That's not an exhaustive list. If you knew anything about project
> >management, you'd know that 35 people total is absurdly low.
>
> Just as "thousands" is absurdly high.
Valley. Unless a new pipeline is continually splitting open and requiring
repair, crews on other pipelines would be able to monitor and maintain one more
pipeline with a small incremental need for more workers.
The number from Obama was 35 as I remember it.
Governor Swill
Nov 13, 2015, 2:02:15 AM11/13/15
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:05:53 -0800, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> >The 35 number is the low-end estimate of how many people would be needed
>> >to maintain the pipeline. It doesn't factor in the spin off jobs that
>> >will be required. Not only maintenance of the line, but inspections,
>> >parts, hospitality, infrastructure, and the dozens of environmental
>> >whackjobs that will be "accepting donations" to protest it.
>> >That's not an exhaustive list. If you knew anything about project
>> >management, you'd know that 35 people total is absurdly low.
>>
>> Just as "thousands" is absurdly high.
>
>That assumes that would have been the first pipeline through the Mississippi
>Valley. Unless a new pipeline is continually splitting open and requiring
>repair, crews on other pipelines would be able to monitor and maintain one more
>pipeline with a small incremental need for more workers.
>
>The number from Obama was 35 as I remember it.
Ah, well, yes, that certifies it. 35 is clearly a partisan number and
>> >The 35 number is the low-end estimate of how many people would be needed
>> >to maintain the pipeline. It doesn't factor in the spin off jobs that
>> >will be required. Not only maintenance of the line, but inspections,
>> >parts, hospitality, infrastructure, and the dozens of environmental
>> >whackjobs that will be "accepting donations" to protest it.
>> >That's not an exhaustive list. If you knew anything about project
>> >management, you'd know that 35 people total is absurdly low.
>>
>> Just as "thousands" is absurdly high.
>
>That assumes that would have been the first pipeline through the Mississippi
>Valley. Unless a new pipeline is continually splitting open and requiring
>repair, crews on other pipelines would be able to monitor and maintain one more
>pipeline with a small incremental need for more workers.
>
>The number from Obama was 35 as I remember it.
therefore suspect. I wonder what the actual figure is?
0 new messages