The Truth About The Keystone Pipeline That Whirlway Will Not Accept

Those in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline project, which the State Department rejected on Wednesday, have made two grand claims: (1) The pipeline will create jobs. (2) It will lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, especially from unsavory regimes like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Advertisements by ExxonMobil, for instance, push “energy security and economic growth.” Energy Secretary Steven Chu has also suggested that petroleum from oil sands would help in that regard. “It’s certainly true that having Canada as a supplier for our oil is much more comforting than to have other countries supply our oil,” he said in an interview with EnergyNow.com.

Increasingly, however, skeptics came to question these assertions. In a September 2011 report, Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, the Cornell University Global Labor Institute wrote, “It is our assessment—based on the publicly available data—that the construction of [Keystone XL] will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates.” Job estimates, the report says, are based on flawed or inflated numbers supplied by the oil industry. The Cornell report also says that Keystone XL would “almost certainly be constructed by temporary labor working with steel made in Canada and India.”

The difference in jobs forecasts is staggering. An article at FoxNews.com recalls Keystone’s initial estimate, from 2008, of “‘a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel’ in temporary jobs building the pipeline.” By 2011, TransCanada’s estimate had expanded to 20,000 jobs: 13,000 in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing. Or had it? The “20,000 jobs” figure cited is highly misleading. TransCanada was measuring not jobs as we know them but “person-years” of employment—a person-year is defined as an amount of work that would employ one person for one year. A further report commissioned by TransCanada said that Keystone XL would create 118,000 person-years of work factoring in “spin-off” employment—employment that crops up around the building of the pipeline, say, restaurants and services. This figure again was wrongly simplified as 118,000 jobs or spin-off jobs, and was widely used in official responses to Tuesday’s announcement. For some, though, 118,000 jobs wasn’t enough—an expanded estimate of 250,000 jobs (is that jobs, or person-years? Does it matter at this point?) was publicized, and repeated.

(These are just the broad strokes on the number-fudging—for more detail, read the breakdowns at the Washington Post and Huffington Post.)

When you compare that number to the State Department’s estimate of 5,000 to 6,000 two-year jobs (which isn’t in disagreement with TransCanada’s earlier estimates), it’s hard to imagine that the numbers could keep growing without any basis in fact. And yet they do: A post at the industry-sponsored Energy Tomorrow blog touts “20,000 [jobs] in the pipeline’s construction phase and up to a half-million more over time.” (Emphasis added.)

As for U.S. energy security, The New York Times is similarly dubious about methodology: “What pipeline advocates…fail to mention is that much of the tar sands oil that would be refined on the Gulf Coast is destined for export,” said an October 2 editorial. “Six companies have already contracted for three quarters of the oil. Five are foreign, and the business model of the one American company—Valero—is geared toward export.”

And the export market, as we’ve reported before, is the growing market. Indeed, though conventional wisdom has long held that U.S. demand for imported oil will always rise, figures indicate it has been declining for the past two years—and will continue to do so. There is currently a glut of oil at the massive tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma (a terminus of the existing Keystone pipeline) and the refined products that would be made from that oil—gasoline, diesel and jet fuel—fetch better prices overseas.

So while there may be much money in oil sands, those profits would be measured more in Canadian dollars and Euros than U.S. greenbacks.

Given the United States’ problems with oil, it is tempting to see Canada as a friendly neighbor and Canadian oil as an ethical solution. But that just isn’t the case. Oil from the Alberta Tar Sands is a valuable substance that, understandably, oil companies would like to refine and sell to the highest bidder. It’s easy to see how the Keystone XL pipeline would be in Canada’s national interest, or in the interest of the six companies that wish to refine tar sands crude in the Gulf (in tax-free trade zones, no less). But peer through the smokescreens of jobs and energy security, and it’s hard to see how Keystone XL, in enabling Canada to sell its oil to the rest of the world, is in the national interest of the United States.

Read more:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...security-60041

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...#ixzz1k3IaLAWZ

What is it that liberals always say.... if it only creates one job then it's worth it. Seriously, Obama has been spending roughly a million dollars for every job that he claims he created. This will cost us so much less.

Another thing they will never admit is ALL oil is sold on the world market.

Big Louie balogna.....no doubt hired consultants can be found on each side of the Keystone project; but the overwhelming third party opinions show the pipeline to be a net producer of both short term (construction) and permanent (manufacturing) employment.

Keystone doesn't fit into Obama's socialist utopian construct of a Green World, so he killed the project - simple as that!

In essence, saying "Screw You American" workers.

; but the overwhelming third party opinions show the pipeline to be a net producer of both short term (construction) and permanent (manufacturing) employment.

. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

How many workers?

6500 over a two year period? Wow!

We are not building more refineries here in the Gulf Coast. So what new jobs is that creating?

How many permanent jobs will it create?

Look, I am not wholly aganist it. In fact if a company wants to spend money on construction, I'm all for it but why didn't they plan to go around the Ned. hurdle?

Let's be real here....there is no huge influx of jobs. This is just a oversized political football. Take away the hyperbole and it is much ado about nothing.

I am amussed how Americans have been bombarded by the Obama administration demanding money for infrastructure and jobs; but when delivered (on a silver platter) an opportunity by the private sector to do so; Obama punts !

Obama is a false prophet my dear Obamazombies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And how when somebody comes with free pie they are rejected because "the pie isn't big enough!" And when a big pie of taxpayers dollars is thrown in the trash they say "Oh, Well!"

How many workers?

6500 over a two year period? Wow!

We are not building more refineries here in the Gulf Coast. So what new jobs is that creating?

How many permanent jobs will it create?

Look, I am not wholly aganist it. In fact if a company wants to spend money on construction, I'm all for it but why didn't they plan to go around the Ned. hurdle?

Let's be real here....there is no huge influx of jobs. This is just a oversized political football. Take away the hyperbole and it is much ado about nothing. Originally Posted by WTF

This is your monthly "Paterno Post." Jobs are jobs. 6 Billion is 6 Billion. Its money and jobs on a silver platter. The whole aquifer thing is a non-issue. Only the ecofacists are concerned about it. If it wasn't the Democratic strategists wouldn't be saying Obama is going to reconsider it after the election. Here's a hint: if TransCanada said we're going around the aquifer the EPA and the other govt agencies would say "We need another 3 years of study and hearings to approve the new route."

WTF: 6 Billion dollars...nothing to see here!

I am amussed how Americans have been bombarded by the Obama administration demanding money for infrastructure and jobs; but when delivered (on a silver platter) an opportunity by the private sector to do so; Obama punts !

Obama is a false prophet my dear Obamazombies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I think Obama is a lot smarter than you are.
And you are an idiot.

"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Geez, Wave. Are you channeling Marshall's evil liberal twin?

Here COG, something to watch:

http://www.redtube.com/119055

Those in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline project, which the State Department rejected on Wednesday, have made two grand claims: (1) The pipeline will create jobs. (2) It will lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, especially from unsavory regimes like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Advertisements by ExxonMobil, for instance, push “energy security and economic growth.” Energy Secretary Steven Chu has also suggested that petroleum from oil sands would help in that regard. “It’s certainly true that having Canada as a supplier for our oil is much more comforting than to have other countries supply our oil,” he said in an interview with EnergyNow.com.

Increasingly, however, skeptics came to question these assertions. In a September 2011 report, Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, the Cornell University Global Labor Institute wrote, “It is our assessment—based on the publicly available data—that the construction of [Keystone XL] will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates.” Job estimates, the report says, are based on flawed or inflated numbers supplied by the oil industry. The Cornell report also says that Keystone XL would “almost certainly be constructed by temporary labor working with steel made in Canada and India.”

The difference in jobs forecasts is staggering. An article at FoxNews.com recalls Keystone’s initial estimate, from 2008, of “‘a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel’ in temporary jobs building the pipeline.” By 2011, TransCanada’s estimate had expanded to 20,000 jobs: 13,000 in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing. Or had it? The “20,000 jobs” figure cited is highly misleading. TransCanada was measuring not jobs as we know them but “person-years” of employment—a person-year is defined as an amount of work that would employ one person for one year. A further report commissioned by TransCanada said that Keystone XL would create 118,000 person-years of work factoring in “spin-off” employment—employment that crops up around the building of the pipeline, say, restaurants and services. This figure again was wrongly simplified as 118,000 jobs or spin-off jobs, and was widely used in official responses to Tuesday’s announcement. For some, though, 118,000 jobs wasn’t enough—an expanded estimate of 250,000 jobs (is that jobs, or person-years? Does it matter at this point?) was publicized, and repeated.

(These are just the broad strokes on the number-fudging—for more detail, read the breakdowns at the Washington Post and Huffington Post.)

When you compare that number to the State Department’s estimate of 5,000 to 6,000 two-year jobs (which isn’t in disagreement with TransCanada’s earlier estimates), it’s hard to imagine that the numbers could keep growing without any basis in fact. And yet they do: A post at the industry-sponsored Energy Tomorrow blog touts “20,000 [jobs] in the pipeline’s construction phase and up to a half-million more over time.” (Emphasis added.)

As for U.S. energy security, The New York Times is similarly dubious about methodology: “What pipeline advocates…fail to mention is that much of the tar sands oil that would be refined on the Gulf Coast is destined for export,” said an October 2 editorial. “Six companies have already contracted for three quarters of the oil. Five are foreign, and the business model of the one American company—Valero—is geared toward export.”

And the export market, as we’ve reported before, is the growing market. Indeed, though conventional wisdom has long held that U.S. demand for imported oil will always rise, figures indicate it has been declining for the past two years—and will continue to do so. There is currently a glut of oil at the massive tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma (a terminus of the existing Keystone pipeline) and the refined products that would be made from that oil—gasoline, diesel and jet fuel—fetch better prices overseas.

So while there may be much money in oil sands, those profits would be measured more in Canadian dollars and Euros than U.S. greenbacks.

Given the United States’ problems with oil, it is tempting to see Canada as a friendly neighbor and Canadian oil as an ethical solution. But that just isn’t the case. Oil from the Alberta Tar Sands is a valuable substance that, understandably, oil companies would like to refine and sell to the highest bidder. It’s easy to see how the Keystone XL pipeline would be in Canada’s national interest, or in the interest of the six companies that wish to refine tar sands crude in the Gulf (in tax-free trade zones, no less). But peer through the smokescreens of jobs and energy security, and it’s hard to see how Keystone XL, in enabling Canada to sell its oil to the rest of the world, is in the national interest of the United States.

Read more:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...security-60041

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...#ixzz1k3IaLAWZ Originally Posted by BigLouie

An intelligent, well-researched post like this begets THE FOLLOWING TRIPE:

What is it that liberals always say.... if it only creates one job then it's worth it. Seriously, Obama has been spending roughly a million dollars for every job that he claims he created. This will cost us so much less. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And how when somebody comes with free pie they are rejected because "the pie isn't big enough!" And when a big pie of taxpayers dollars is thrown in the trash they say "Oh, Well!" Originally Posted by gnadfly

Geez, Wave. Are you channeling Marshall's evil liberal twin? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

PROVING the following TRUTHS:

I think Obama is a lot smarter than you are.

"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." Originally Posted by waverunner234

Nice posts, Big Louie and Waverunner!

I think I'm borrowing this very timely and relevant answer from Wave to post when those IDIOTS post more tripe!

Why argue facts with people who either cannot comprehend them or who refuse to do so because they would have to admit their own error-filled stances?

Intelligent and well researched? He cut and pasted from one source, which I have never heard of. Stevie, you're losing it, man.

A 100 years from now, will there still be enough oil? Or did China and India and the US use it all?
There will be enough Wind Power though.
And Solar Energy.
And Hydro Electric Power.
All local, no dependence on foreign countries.

And most of those foreign countries hate Americans anyway.
Because Americans try to police the world.
Always looking out for another war, another country to fool.

If people would live on the moon, I'm sure America would find a way to fight them. All in the name of "Progress."

Intelligent and well researched? He cut and pasted from one source, which I have never heard of. Stevie, you're losing it, man. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The fact that you've never heard of it makes it all the more trustworthy. Disqualification of copies and pastes? You're back on that wagon, now? Bye-bye, COG. You're disqualifying your stock and trade.