Looks like the Tree-Huggers are trying to kill more jobs in Oregon (Portland: unemployed, buy)

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

Oil refinery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That would explain why they aren't building new refineries... and I'm curious as to what "just in time" has to do with the discussion.

Don't you think our relatively stringent rules/regulations about refinery ops are an additional argument to refine the crude oil in the US rather than it being done in a country that has much less control and regulation of the process like China where the emissions standards would be so much lower ?

[davemess10]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

And re your remark about living in the past as oil consumers, can you now set an example for all of us by heretofor "living in the future" and declare your own personal moratorium on consuming oil to include any products/biproducts thereof ? Be a leader davemess10, show us all the way.

I'm not perfect, I still own a car (though our family of two only has one small car, and I bike to work every day), and occasionally use plastic bags. But living in Portland definitely makes it easier to start to make a difference. We recently switched our trash collection to every other week, composting as well as recycling every week. We have better bike infrastructure than almost any other city in the country. We have one of the most acclaimed transit systems in the country (with buses that run on biofuel). We have an urban growth boundary that has helped prevent urban sprawl and kept more people living near the city center (where many of them work). On average we have more "car light" families than most of the US (this is families with less cars than legal drivers). Most grocery stores have banned plastic bag usage (they are trying to pass this at the state level).
I'm not saying this will solve the world's energy problems, but it's a start.

I'm not saying shut down all current oil production, I know people still need it. But oil/coal is a non-renewable energy source which will eventually be gone (unless you have a few million years to kill), so eventually we will need to find other ways to produce energy, and I don't think nixing this pipeline is a bad place to start the ball rolling.The US already pays some of the lowest gas prices in the world, to fuel inferior vehicles that get horrible gas mileage. Preventing this pipeline from happening sends a strong message that the US is actually serious about this problem (even if it costs 5,000 temporary jobs).

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

Don't you think our relatively stringent rules/regulations about refinery ops are an additional argument to refine the crude oil in the US rather than it being done in a country that has much less control and regulation of the process like China where the emissions standards would be so much lower ?

Absolutely, yes!

I agree with the concerns about making sure the water aquifer around Nebraska is safe, but that aside I say build it as soon as that it can be addressed. And who are we kidding, it will be built one way or the way or the other after the election... it's all politics, especially now.

[Nell Plotts]

I think that pipe line should be built but routed away from the aquifer. No big deal. Let the opponents make their case, sort through their arguments to find anything that makes sense. Advocating for the pipe line based on employment for relatively few people for a year or two isn't good enough either. The argument should be that a line is needed going south or west, which makes the most economic and environmental sense? Either way it must be constructed with state of the art safeguards.

My son worked for an oil company and would hear folks rant about the use of gasoline. He said he always wanted to ask them how they transported themselves to the meeting. He had no problem with making the processing cleaner, improving technology so that we use it more efficiently as it is a diminishing resource. When we find a better way to do what oil does today great! The reality is that oil company managers can be 'cowboys', they need to be held to account when the s**ew up because they have more than adequate resources to do the job safely. Having said that, accidents happen, there is nothing in this life that is fail-safe.

[ramedud]

Originally Posted by davemess10

There are quite a few arguments on the "no-pipeline side" that you are just lumping in to "tree-huggers". Sounds like you just want to argue and not really debate (ie. you already have your mind up and just want browbeat everyone into believing you).

Your blanket statements, insinuating that this is strictly a jobs issue, and people who are against it are just America-hating treehuggers is frankly insulting and very one dimensional.

I'm going to stick to what davemess10 said. Mr. Jim Baker hasn't argued or proven anything. In fact all he's done is change the subject when something is debunked.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by ramedud

I'm going to stick to what davemess10 said. Mr. Jim Baker hasn't argued or proven anything. In fact all he's done is change the subject when something is debunked.

I don't think tree-huggers are anti-American, they just probably have never been in a position where they were unemployed and needed an employment opportunity to pay the bills ? Looking at the pictures of those Keystone protestors, maybe somebody else like their parents have paid for their living expenses all their lives, or maybe they don't care about their fellow man after they have secured their own niche in life ?
Hey man I grew up on a 40 acre farm in the midwest decades ago before it was cool to be green. I love the environment, but I also gotta eat and I do understand the plight of needing a job to pay my way. I've been umemployed and its terrible ! Right now there's a lot of people wanting to find a way to put meal on the table for themselves and their family.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by davemess10

I'm not perfect, I still own a car (though our family of two only has one small car, and I bike to work every day), and occasionally use plastic bags. But living in Portland definitely makes it easier to start to make a difference. We recently switched our trash collection to every other week, composting as well as recycling every week. We have better bike infrastructure than almost any other city in the country. We have one of the most acclaimed transit systems in the country (with buses that run on biofuel). We have an urban growth boundary that has helped prevent urban sprawl and kept more people living near the city center (where many of them work). On average we have more "car light" families than most of the US (this is families with less cars than legal drivers). Most grocery stores have banned plastic bag usage (they are trying to pass this at the state level).
I'm not saying this will solve the world's energy problems, but it's a start.

I don't know too much about the composition of the Portland economy, but suspect that it's highly dependant on marine, rail, and air transportation ? It is a "port city", right ? So that's all petro that powers those components of your metro economies transportation infrastructure, which in turn provide tax revenue to probably subsidize the ops of your biofuels buses ? How 'bout your residences & commercail & industrial buildings ? How are they heated and cooled ?
would it be a big hit to your economy if you didn't have petro fuel to power the shippers in and out of your port of Portland ?
And how much money comes in from tourism ? Is that significant part of your metro's income ? Those people don't ride bicycles to Portland to spend and inject new money into your economy do they ?

[davemess10]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

I don't know too much about the composition of the Portland economy, but suspect that it's highly dependant on marine, rail, and air transportation ?

So you're seriously going to come onto this forum, admit you don't know much about Portland, after you started a thread in which you insinuate you know best for an area that you know little about? It is clear that you just wanted to argue and coming from an Oiler's state, it's also clear that you are very biased.

I'm done until you want to have a grown up conversation, instead of just continually spouting off "well everybody need oil!".

I had also never realized there are no unemployed environmentalists.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by davemess10

So you're seriously going to come onto this forum, admit you don't know much about Portland, after you started a thread in which you insinuate you know best for an area that you know little about? It is clear that you just wanted to argue and coming from an Oiler's state, it's also clear that you are very biased.

I'm done until you want to have a grown up conversation, instead of just continually spouting off "well everybody need oil!".

I had also never realized there are no unemployed environmentalists.

No I'm definitely not an expert on the economy of Portland, Or. but I know something about it and from the tone of your comment it sounds a lot like it is as I suspected and probably far more than you care to admit very dependant upon fossile fuels in large part because of its (1) isolated
geographic location, (2) the composition/nature of it's primary industries to include it's prominance as a seaport on the Pacific Coast.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

Oil refinery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That would explain why they aren't building new refineries... and I'm curious as to what "just in time" has to do with the discussion.

"Just in time" supply chains has a LOT to do with the discussion. Because every single bit of the manufacturing industry in the US (and eventually the world,) is going towards such processes.

Grocery stores pioneered the entire concept. Using forecasting data they can rotate and stock shelves within 72 hours to keep up with demand. The entire supply chain from manufacturer to consumer has been shortened. This brings prices down as stores and warehouses don't have to keep product on hand.

Memorial Day weekend? Those hot dogs were manufactured a week ago. They were shipped to a warehouse, broken down into smaller batches and are in your local store three days later.

The downside to this is that manufacturing plants can potentially have a lot of overhead wasted in idle workers and equipment. That is solved by streamlining assembly lines enough that multiple products can be produced on the same line with minimal reconfiguration time. Frequently less then an hour these days.

A lot of very large manufactures are really looking at "just in time" processes as yet another way to save money. The good news is that in the US there is the very real possibility of a large number of manufacturing jobs being onshored in the next decade. I've seen estimates of 50k to 250k in the next five years alone. They'll probably be minimum or near minimum wage positions, but it's still a step in the right direction.

The only reason the Oil industry hasn't gone this way yet is that the US has always mandated that there be a certain number of million gallons on hand either for National Defense, or emergencies. But after those minimum reserves are met, it still may make financial sense for those manufacturers to go that way.