The XL pipeline

Wicked.

Inside sources were not needed to cite anything. This has been on the internet for a while.

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/do ... 221135.pdf

Gee Wicked. You mean it took the mean old oil companies 5 or more years to hatch their dastardly plan. And they got the United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs to concoct all this with them?

I got a bridge to sell you.

archer wrote: Maybe when someone can show me how this pipeline will benefit the citizens of this country beyond 50 permanent jobs I'll change my mind, so far that had not been done.

If it helps get North Dakota gas and oil to market it will help keep the fields there working and people employed. Archer in Africa they don't have the pipeline to get NG to customers so they just burn it off to get to the more easily transportable oil. Want to see that in North Dakota? And the more NG pumped and delivered the lower the cost to Americans. Or do you like higher prices on your utility bills?

archer wrote: 3900 temporary jobs for 1 year, 50 permanent jobs. Yeah, that's going to make a big impression on unemployment...... Forget the long term consequences of a major spill, I wonder how much those 50 jobs will cost us all.

I think you have an old number for the temporary jobs (the number seems to change a lot over time as you might expect, and the number varies a lot depending on the point of view of the source). The latest State Department reports says 42,100 temporary jobs will be created. And the construction is expected to last 2 years.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-31/state-department-says-keystone-pipeline-will-create-just-50-jobs

Ignoring the temporary jobs as if they don't count is hypocrisy by the Obama administration, IMO. Remember the stimulus? They counted temporary jobs there the same as if they were permanent jobs. But for Keystone they don't. Why is that? I've tried searching for how many stimulus jobs were temporary and can't even find it (not that it's not there somewhere). But since over 90% of the stimulus money has been spent, I think it's safe to assume a large proportion of the stimulus jobs were temporary.

archer wrote: Maybe when someone can show me how this pipeline will benefit the citizens of this country beyond 50 permanent jobs I'll change my mind, so far that had not been done.

Don't you think 42,100 temporary jobs for 2 years will benefit the citizens? Didn't the temporary 2% cut in the Social Security tax the Obama administration got benefit the citizens (and I believe it was 2 years as well)?

Also there are jobs created that are as a result of the construction but are not involved in the actual construction of the pipeline. You have "ancillary" jobs during construction which includes "manufacturers, service workers, engineers, surveyors, occupational health and safety professionals, managers, teamsters, etc." These would also probably be mainly temporary.

After construction you have "spin-off" jobs. "These include refining, chemical manufacturing, petroleum transportation, and “petroleum dependent manufacturing.”" Most of these would be permanent jobs.

TransCanada estimates 118,000 such jobs and a study they commissioned by the Perryman Group estimated about 250,000 to 550,000 permanent jobs created.

But as the article below points out (and I quoted from it above) you really can't predict these numbers very accurately at this time. But even if they are 10x off, that's still a lot of permanent jobs created after the pipeline is completed..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2013/05/10/pipe-dreams-how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/

The number I used, 3900 temporary and 50 permanent jobs was from the news last night,, yeah, I guess a day ago could be considered old.

archer wrote: The number I used, 3900 temporary and 50 permanent jobs was from the news last night,, yeah, I guess a day ago could be considered old.

So now that your information is current, do you support competing the pipe line?

BlazerBob wrote:

archer wrote: The number I used, 3900 temporary and 50 permanent jobs was from the news last night,, yeah, I guess a day ago could be considered old.

So now that your information is current, do you support competing the pipe line?

Honest answer? I don't know, there still seems to be so many unanswered questions. No one answered my question on whether they would want this pipeline running through Conifer and Bailey (or I missed the answer) .... Have we really investigated the ramifications of this on the people directly involved? What exactly are the economic benefits to the US? It all seems to me to be political rather than practical. So many of you, along with the Republican party, seem to support it simply because Obama doesn't. I was against it from day one, before Obama made his decision, before it became a political football, it just seemed like a gift to Canada and the oil companies with little upside for the US. But the powerful lobbies have prevailed and I expect it will be built. I hope we don't look back 20 years from now and wonder why we risked so much to get so little in return.

I looked up the 3900 vs. the 42,100 temporary workers, and I think I see where both the numbers come from.

Looks like they are both from the January State Department report. I had a link for the full report, but my computer locked up on it and I lost the link. I'll try to get it later.

I'm pretty sure the 3900 is direct construction jobs and the 42,100 includes all the other jobs created, the "ancillary" or "spin-off" jobs which I discussed and linked in my previous post.

I think the most important number is the total jobs created. Any argument against that?

Plus that is from the Obama administration's State Department. I don't trust the 550,000 permanent jobs from TransCanada's study either. It's impossible to get an accurate number at this point. The real number may be somewhere in between, but who knows?

Bottom line is both sources seem to agree there will be at least 42,100 one to two year jobs created. And possibly even more permanent jobs.

Archer, you asked for the jobs and I gave it to you. Like I said, I can probably get you the full report tomorrow when I have time to find it again.

So far as having a pipeline going through my town, of course I wouldn't care for it. Let me ask if you'd rather have a wind farm in your town near your property? At least a pipeline doesn't make noise and kill birds including eagles. And in the very tiny chance it did leak right where I live, I'm sure the bastards would have to pay for my property plus damages. At least I wouldn't have to worry about the extra coyotes from the dead birds. But I'd rather not have either within my sight.

You asked for proof of jobs and I gave you the 42,100 jobs with a link. If you don't believe it, just search for it. There are many matches. Do you agree those jobs count too?

And I pointed out the apparent hypocrisy when the Obama administration includes temporary jobs when they give stats for their stimulus, but they poo-poo those jobs when they discuss Keystone. And for them, their 2 year 2% Social Security savings are great, but a 2 year job doesn't count (even though the 2% Social Security savings are only 2% of what most people would make from their job).

You asked the wrong question..... I love wind farms and would welcome one in my neighborhood. I can't tell you why, except I have always loved windmills and think the wind farms are beautiful.also like the idea of harnessing the wind for power. I will be interested in what you find on jobs, every time I look into it I run into a lot of circular logic that brings me back to no one really knows what the jobs impact will be beyond if you are for it is a jobs bonanza and if you are against it the jobs just aren't there. I'm rarely in favor of building something in another's back yard I wouldn't welcome in my own unless there is proven benefit to the community as a whole.

archer wrote: You asked the wrong question..... I love wind farms and would welcome one in my neighborhood. I can't tell you why, except I have always loved windmills and think the wind farms are beautiful.also like the idea of harnessing the wind for power. I will be interested in what you find on jobs, every time I look into it I run into a lot of circular logic that brings me back to no one really knows what the jobs impact will be beyond if you are for it is a jobs bonanza and if you are against it the jobs just aren't there. I'm rarely in favor of building something in another's back yard I wouldn't welcome in my own unless there is proven benefit to the community as a whole.

Fine if you'd like huge towers near your home. I'll agree they look cool from afar on someone else's property. But I don't want one with the noise, bird kills, and view kills near my home. I don't want unsightly powerline towers either. But we do need electrical power.

But this is just a diversion from you Archer. I've answered your main question twice, and you still don't reply while you complain about others not answering your sideways questions.

archer wrote: Maybe when someone can show me how this pipeline will benefit the citizens of this country beyond 50 permanent jobs I'll change my mind, so far that had not been done.

I've shown you the total 42,100 jobs created from the State Department's own report. And you are still silent. How am I wrong?

Here is another source from the Washington Post, but as I said, there are tons of them...

The Keystone XL project, if built, would support 42,000 jobs over its two-year construction period. The report notes that building the pipeline would support approximately 42,100 direct and indirect jobs and contribute roughly $3.4 billion to the economy (that's about 0.02 percent of GDP).

About 3,900 of those jobs would be temporary construction jobs. After two years, once built, the pipeline would support 50 jobs.

It even includes your 3,900 number, but what's wrong with "42,100 direct and indirect jobs and contribute roughly $3.4 billion to the economy"? You asked for the contribution to the economy too, and I've provided it. And I've shown how there will be far more than just 50 permanent jobs created if you consider all the other related jobs created.

But still, you are silent. And this is the official State Department report. Do I really have to find it again when there is link after link reporting it, even from more liberal sources?

And this isn't the main topic, but you said you were worried about oil leaks. Again, from the January State department report...

Transporting oil by rail carries more environmental risks than by pipeline. The report adds that, if the pipeline gets blocked and producers are forced to ship by rail or truck instead, overall transportation emissions for the oil in question could even increase by 28 to 42 percent (see p. 34 here). That's because there would be more trains and trucks burning diesel fuel and more rail terminals using electricity.

The report also concludes that shipping oil by rail instead of via pipeline would likely result in additional accidents. Some of the rail routes studied by the State Department could result in three to eight times the volume of oil spilled, according to the models.

Dang, they have the link at that article for page 34 of the State Department report (and I guess the whole report), but now I see my Adobe reader is locking up my computer again. Go check that link if you want to see the full report. I've got a computer problem. The State Department source is probably at that link. But again, there are so many reports about this from the main media that the original report is more of a curiosity at this point.

Here is the Washington Post link...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/31/four-takeaways-from-the-state-departments-review-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/

Again, to make it clear, here was your question...

archer wrote: Maybe when someone can show me how this pipeline will benefit the citizens of this country beyond 50 permanent jobs I'll change my mind, so far that had not been done.

You still don't think I answered it (and more), even from the State Department's own report?

Look, I appreciate what you have posted, and I thought I had addressed the issue of jobs, the state department report is not the only one out there making claims about what the pipeline will, or will not, create. Direct jobs, though temporary, are quantifiable. The indirect job creation is where I am having a problem and it will take me some time to look into it. If I am silent on an issue it is because I don't know enough to comment, and this whole job thing is too convoluted in my mind to get a handle on...... The spill risk is also an area I need further info on, logic tells me that a break in a pipeline can do a lot more damage to the environment than even a train full of tank cars that derails, and tar sand crude is nasty stuff. Bear with me.... Super Bowl first, research later.