Senile Biden Admits Canceling Keystone Pipeline cost almost 60,000 working class jobs in this country

Now we learn the truth. Canceling Keystone cost almost 60,000 working class jobs in this country. Not to mention our energy independence. All for the fanatical climate religion of the left

Biden admin quietly admits canceling Keystone XL Pipeline cost thousands of jobs, billions of dollars

The Biden administration published a congressionally mandated report highlighting the positive economic benefits the Keystone XL Pipeline would have had if President Biden didn't revoke its federal permits.

The report, which the Department of Energy (DOE) completed in late December without any public announcement, says the Keystone XL project would have created up to 59,000 jobs and would have had a positive economic impact of up to $9.6 billion.

Immediately after taking office in January 2021, Biden canceled the pipeline's permits, effectively shutting the project down.

"The Biden administration finally owned up to what we have known all along — killing the Keystone XL Pipeline cost good-paying jobs, hurt Montana’s economy and was the first step in the Biden administration’s war on oil and gas production in the United States," Sen. Steve Daines. R-Mont., said Thursday in a statement. "Unfortunately, the administration continues to pursue energy production anywhere but the United States."

"These policies may appeal to the woke left but hurt Montana’s working families," he continued. "I’ll keep fighting back against Biden’s anti-energy agenda and supporting Montana energy projects and jobs."

The DOE was forced to issue the report after Daines and Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, successfully inserted a bill mandating the report into the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Biden signed into law in November 2021. The agency was required to publish the report within 90 days of the bill's passage but ultimately waited more than a year before releasing it.

Biden's decision to cancel the pipeline has received widespread criticism from Republican lawmakers and energy industry representatives who have argued it would have helped keep gas prices down and ensure energy security.

Keystone XL had been slated to be completed early this year and transport an additional 830,000 barrels of crude oil from Canada to the U.S. through an existing pipeline network, according to its operator, TC Energy.

The project labor agreement that TC Energy signed in August 2020 with four labor unions promised the pipeline would create 42,000 American jobs and provide $2 billion in total wages.

TC Energy ultimately gave up on the project in June 2021 as a result of Biden's decision. Last year, a federal judge tossed a legal challenge from nearly two dozen states asking the court to reinstate the pipeline's permits.

"The Department of Energy finally admitted to the worst-kept secret about the Keystone Pipeline: President Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline sacrificed thousands of American jobs," Risch said Thursday.

"To make matters worse, his decision moved the U.S. further away from energy independence and lower gas prices at a time when inflation and gas prices are drastically impacting Americans’ pocketbooks," he added.

"The president must turn to American-made energy and jobs rather than dictators and despots to fix the energy crisis he created on his first day in office."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bid...llions-dollars

Meanwhile oil continues to slide and was at 72.00 a barrel.

The point of which is this, do we need oil and gas- yes, but the commodity has become devalued. While GOP'rs tie their wagon to a supposed lifeline of energy, they forget that no drilling will happen when prices slump. No drilling or well production will happen till that changes. In the meantime, other transit and parts of that pipeline will remain open. Keystone XL was shut down by the owners when they saw the difficulty of getting the other 90% done.

Oil is still coming here and being refined or shipped. It may just take a few extra days. I wouldn't look for any changes till prices go up.

Speaking of oil prices, Biden has been making purchases to restock the spr, at or below is original Target price of $76 per barrel. I remember a few posters on this board laughing that that would never happen. Guess what?- it's happening.

Meanwhile oil continues to slide and was at 72.00 a barrel.

The point of which is this, do we need oil and gas- yes, but the commodity has become devalued. While GOP'rs tie their wagon to a supposed lifeline of energy, they forget that no drilling will happen when prices slump. No drilling or well production will happen till that changes. In the meantime, other transit and parts of that pipeline will remain open. Keystone XL was shut down by the owners when they saw the difficulty of getting the other 90% done.

Oil is still coming here and being refined or shipped. It may just take a few extra days. I wouldn't look for any changes till prices go up.

Speaking of oil prices, Biden has been making purchases to restock the spr, at or below is original Target price of $76 per barrel. I remember a few posters on this board laughing that that would never happen. Guess what?- it's happening. Originally Posted by eyecu2

Hey eye since u brought it up.. what was the price when Trump wanted to purchase it to fill up the sor?
Hmmmmm. Good job democrats lol

Meanwhile oil continues to slide and was at 72.00 a barrel.
Originally Posted by eyecu2

Well, this thread is not about the price of oil, we have a different thread about that. This is about how Senile Biden quietly admits that when he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline. It cost America 60,000 good paying jobs and billions of dollars. Do you enjoy seeing and support Senile Biden killing 60,000 good paying American jobs?

Hey eye since u brought it up.. what was the price when Trump wanted to purchase it to fill up the sor?
Hmmmmm. Good job democrats lol Originally Posted by chizzy

Interesting context for the larger convo
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/23...energy-budget/

What you're looking for
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ed-trump-at-24

This provides additional context
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/st...-to-his-claim/

And since I know the point you're making, I'd like you to look beyond the price at the time that Trump expressed his desire to buy and also consider the peices he wanted to sell at and consider the price that Biden actually sold at.

And as a tie-back to Bx2, XL's impact on those prices have long been known as being negligible. Nor does it make you energy independent to import tar sand oil from Canada even if it helps you be a net exporter of refined products because net exporter doesn't mean energy independent. And yet we're still a worldwide leader in energy exports and have continued to build out LNG exports.

Do we want to address if any of of the LNG jobs are offsetters?

Gentlemen we are starting to get off the intended topic Let’s get the train back on the tracks

https://www.kfyrtv.com/2023/01/05/re...ancial-impact/

The report referenced in the OP actually gives a range of 16k to 59k jobs. 16,149 and 59,468 jobs to be specific. So focusing on only the 59k temporary construction jobs and then trying to round it up to 60k point towards being disingenuous clickbait rather than even-handed reporting.

Especially when the final number of permanent jobs it would have created was 50 per the above.

Not 50k.

50

Important context about the sustained economic impact and employment opportunities.

59,468 jobs to be specific Originally Posted by HDGristle

Per the OP - "Canceling Keystone cost almost 60,000 working class jobs in this country"

And typically nearly all construction jobs are what you deride as "temporary". That is the nature of construction, they move on once a project is completed to hopefully the next project. In this case, Senile Biden put almost 60,000 of them out of work

Those are the facts

No, those are top end projections in a range. Estimates aren't facts in the same way that polling isn't factual. As for the alleged derision, methinks thou doth project too much.

The OP is blatantly misleading and this is an excellent example of how the telephone game and an agenda warp a message and try to craft reality for those who don't bother to read reports themselves. I have. Here's the link.

https://www.daines.senate.gov/wp-con...sts-001245.pdf

They didn't give you the range. They pegged you high on that range. They left out material facts about the nature of the jobs. They ignored that the top end was a man-hours to jobs estimate. They left out that the top end of that range is overstated because it includes jobs that would be created outside of the U.S. (including Canada, India, Russia), They left out material facts about the number of permanent positions that would be created.

As a result the OP proves to be a pretty pisspoor piece of reporting.

How about if it’s you that losses your job and home, for purely political reasons.

To me one person losing everything they have for the likes of AOC is a disgrace.

We're all one decision by ourselves or someone else, whether it's good, bad or indifferent away from having a ticket punched on our careers, lifestyles and lives earlier than we'd like.

If you can make a case for pure politics, which is an absolute, and directly show me the person affected let's both go find that person and get them and their family a meal and see if we can find them a job with the money we plan on spending on our next hooker.

No, those are top end projections in a range. Estimates aren't facts in the same way that polling isn't factual. As for the alleged derision, methinks thou doth project too much.
Originally Posted by HDGristle

So you admit you either did not understand the nature of construction jobs or you purposely tried to mislead about them?

And you are trying to make excuses for Senile Biden killing good American jobs

Eh, just answer for me. Promise you'll make the little swish sound when you air dunk, though.

I'm still trying to figure out how you and they got to almost 60k American jobs based on that report. I can tell they skimmed it.

The remaining analysis in this report reviews the major studies evaluating the KXL pipeline, and their major findings. Key relevant points from the review of prior studies show:

1. Estimates indicate approximately 50 permanent jobs once the pipeline would be operational. Studies found there would be between 16,149 to 59,468 (15) temporary jobs supported annually during the two-year construction period of the KXL pipeline, but the high-end figure overstates jobs, coming from a study that faced significant criticism for including in its analysis project inputs from India, Russia, and Russian companies in Canada, thus including jobs outside the United States, and also including portions of the Keystone pipeline project outside the XL segment in question Originally Posted by The Actual Report

Many people have been mislead by the media before. There's no shame in it.

Nah, I am good. You proved you either did not understand the nature of construction jobs or you purposely tried to mislead about them - or both.

And that you continue to make excuses for Senile Biden killing good paying American jobs

My point is made.

Thank you, berry. I slept on it so I'm refreshed. Prepare for some Tolstoy level shit.

I appreciate that you provided us a shining example of what bad journalism looks like and a demonstration of the effect of seeding errors and poor analysis on conversations in real time. When those are used in a hyperpartisan way using similarly sensationalist clickbait points and a disregard for facts in the actual report this is how data becomes warped and weaponized into talking points.

This is how those talking points get used to seed lies. In what's actually said, glossed over, left out and in some cases, flat-out lied about to push an agenda.

And when confronted with the real data, hyperpartisans often resort to a different type of smear, supported by fallacious logic and unsupported by facts to make a point to try to save face and walk away a winner even if only in their own mind.

Steve Daines was smart enough to publish the report and to be vague on the numbers in making his point. Thomas Catenacci botched his analysis of the facts in the report and tossed errors out there that others seized on.

Were jobs lost? Yes, some actual, real jobs were lost that were actively working at the time TV pulled the plug. As for the future employment opportunities that were eliminated, it appears far less than 60k, because "almost 60k" included Canadian, Indian and Russian jobs as well as work on other parts of the pipeline that weren't the XL section or in the U.S. rather than this being legitimately 60k American jobs or even temp jobs in this country performed by non-U.S. workers

Were they temporary construction jobs? From the projections the vast majority. You should have pivoted to the 42k job labor agreement with the unions, but even that's a little fuzzy.

I haven't disclosed this before, but I have extensive experience in industries involving the types of EPC work that are done here, which is why I don't address some of your sillier questions.

The expected max duration of the construction was 2 years. You could have pointed out those jobs often run longer. Or talked about the phases each trade would be needed for. How the crews rotated through each milestone. You could have pointed towards overtime to push up the economic impact. You could have made the argument that the man-hours to jobs estimate undercount the number of actual trade workers. All reasonable points, but all arguable as well.

I don't anticipate you would have addressed the nature of the union halls, the other jobs that were available and any other projects that actually got crews together and built and/or demolished because it's easier pointing at the loss as a zero sum, as if no other work was available and the heads sat idle.

I know you didn't consider the 50 permanent jobs because he didn't mention it in his article. That's part of the sustained economic opportunity and ongoing employment that gets hidden when focused on the construction heads, and it's critical to a discussion about impact.

Let's agree to focus on the facts. Playing the binary rhetorical trap game to create a strawman and rack up "wins" cheapens the discussion, demeans the other side and does little to drive towards understanding.

Are you willing to do that?