The XL pipeline

archer wrote: 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.

Just getting back to you about the spill risk. It turns out the State Department report looked into that as well. They estimate fewer deaths and less spills if the pipeline is built vs. using rail transportation.

Replacing the Keystone XL pipeline with oil-laden freight trains from Canada may result in an average of six additional rail-related deaths per year, according to a U.S. State Department report that is adding to pressure for President Barack Obama to approve the line.

The report also showed that carrying crude by rail, instead of by pipeline, was likely to result in a higher number of oil spills and a larger amount of leakage over time.

If Keystone XL is built as planned, according to the study, it would likely spill an average of just over 500 barrels per year, with a leak occurring once every two years. Under the most optimistic scenario involving rail, however, nearly 300 spills would occur per year, with over 1,200 barrels released in total, according to estimates provided in the report.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/03/us-keystone-rail-idUSL2N0L800920140203

pineinthegrass wrote:

archer wrote: 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.

Just getting back to you about the spill risk. It turns out the State Department report looked into that as well. They estimate fewer deaths and less spills if the pipeline is built vs. using rail transportation.

Replacing the Keystone XL pipeline with oil-laden freight trains from Canada may result in an average of six additional rail-related deaths per year, according to a U.S. State Department report that is adding to pressure for President Barack Obama to approve the line.

The report also showed that carrying crude by rail, instead of by pipeline, was likely to result in a higher number of oil spills and a larger amount of leakage over time.

If Keystone XL is built as planned, according to the study, it would likely spill an average of just over 500 barrels per year, with a leak occurring once every two years. Under the most optimistic scenario involving rail, however, nearly 300 spills would occur per year, with over 1,200 barrels released in total, according to estimates provided in the report.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/03/us-keystone-rail-idUSL2N0L800920140203

I'm sure these common sense deniers have done their own personal studies that show a different result than the State Dept's.

Looks like the State Department is also downgrading the number of jobs the pipeline will provide too.

Photo-fish wrote: Looks like the State Department is also downgrading the number of jobs the pipeline will provide too.

Exactly! If we transport it by tanker truck think of all those driver jobs we will create!

FredHayek wrote: Exactly! If we transport it by tanker truck think of all those driver jobs we will create!

Given the cost of diesel fuel these days sending smaller shipments of oil over the roads is a really "S-M-R-T" idear!

Seriously, build the damn pipeline already and get back to me with your complaints about all of the people who have been suddenly pressed in to new jobs and suffering from having to work on a regular basis.

otisptoadwater wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Exactly! If we transport it by tanker truck think of all those driver jobs we will create!

Given the cost of diesel fuel these days sending smaller shipments of oil over the roads is a really "S-M-R-T" idear!

Seriously, build the damn pipeline already and get back to me with your complaints about all of the people who have been suddenly pressed in to new jobs and suffering from having to work on a regular basis.

New jobs? What are you talking about? LJ's impeccable sources say less then 50. That's it then. End of story.

"FACT 2: Independent Assessment Found That KXL Jobs Would Create As Few As 50 Permanent Jobs"

LadyJazzer wrote:

More Lies About the Keystone Pipeline and Jobs
Five Facts And One Big Lie: A Closer Look At The Oil Lobby's Keystone XL Jobs Claims
source: http://USChamber.com " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With the 2012 presidential election rapidly approaching, the oil lobby is pushing harder than ever to frame the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL) as a "job creator." However, TransCanada (the Canadian company behind the pipeline), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have used massively inflated statistics. In fact, KXL would create few permanent jobs.
BIG LIE: KXL Will Create 20,000-465,000 Jobs

U.S. Chamber Of Commerce: KXL Will Create "Up To 250,000" Jobs. In a January 12, 2012, speech, Thomas J. Donohue, President of the U.S Chamber of Commerce, said: "Labor unions and the business community alike are urging President Obama to act in the best interests of our national security and our workers and approve the pipeline. We can put 20,000 Americans to work right away and up to 250,000 over the life of the project." [Donohue Remarks, 1/12/11, via USChamber.com]

American Petroleum Institute: KXL Will Enable "More Than A Half A Million New U.S. Jobs By 2035." In a January 4, 2012, speech API President Jack Gerard said: "We've seen it in the continued delay of the Keystone XL pipeline - the largest shovel-ready project promising 20,000 construction-related jobs over the next two years, enabling more than half a million new U.S. jobs by 2035." [Gerard Remarks, 1/4/12, via API.org]

TransCanada: KXL Will Create 20,000 Jobs In Construction And Manufacturing And 465,000 Jobs Throughout the U.S Economy. In a January 10, 2012, press release, TransCanada claimed: "The $7 billion oil pipeline is the largest infrastructure project on the books in the U.S. right now. It would create 20,000 jobs: 13,000 in construction, 7,000 in manufacturing. [...] As Keystone XL supports oil sands development, the impact on jobs in America becomes even more pronounced. The Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) predicts a $521 billion increase in the U.S. gross domestic product and the creation of 465,000 U.S. jobs." [TransCanada, 1/10/12]
FACT 1: Experts Say Those Numbers Are "Meaningless" And "Dead Wrong"

Energy Expert: The Analysis Supporting TransCanada's Claims Is "Dead Wrong." On October 27, 2011, the Council on Foreign Relations' Michael Levi wrote: "The 'economic impact study' [on which the claim of 250,000 permanent jobs is based] in question appears to be a widely cited report by The Perryman Group. ... The Perryman report has been criticized for the claim of 20,000 jobs along the pipeline route. I've seen less criticism of the far more impressive 250,000 number. ... That's a shame, since while the number is being invoked prominently, the analysis upon which it's based is dead wrong. [Council on Foreign Relations, 10/27/11]

Environmental Economist: "These Gross Employment Figures Are Meaningless." On September 9, 2011, environmental economist Andrew Leach wrote: "Sorry, TransCanada — the number which matters and on which decisions should be made is not how many people will be employed building the pipeline and supplying all of the services associated with building it, or the employment tied to the use of the oil transported. These gross employment figures are meaningless. As with GHG's, only net impacts relative to the most likely alternative matter." [Andrew Leach's blog, 9/9/11, emphasis added]

FACT 2: Independent Assessment Found That KXL Jobs Would Create As Few As 50 Permanent Jobs

FACT 3: TransCanada's Estimates Include Jobs In Other Countries

FACT 4: Even TransCanada Acknowledges That Each Construction Job Will Only Last "One Year."

FACT 5: As for the 7,000 indirect supply chain jobs, the $1.9 billion already spent by TransCanada would reduce the number of jobs that would be created in the future.

http://current.com/community/93679735_m ... d-jobs.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


As already posted:

But it will be a real benefit for the Koch Bros. who stand to make a fortune from it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... 2420110210 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Poof... So much for the lies about "jobs"... And the lies about the price-at-the-pump nonsense have already been exposed...

:Koolaid: :Koolaid:

And the numbers still stand....FACTS are a b*tch, aren't they?

It's funny that when Obama and the Dems talked about the government (taxpayer) funded stimulus, they counted all the temporary jobs the stimulus created.

But when they talk about the largely privately funded XL pipeline, the thousands of temporary jobs estimated to be created don't matter now and they only want to count the permanent jobs. Isn't the XL pipeline similar to a government funded stimulus project, other than it's mainly privately funded? Isn't it better that it is privately funded? Why are the Dems now against creating thousands of temporary jobs and why don't they count those jobs for the XL project?

Hypocrites...

pineinthegrass wrote: It's funny that when Obama and the Dems talked about the government (taxpayer) funded stimulus, they counted all the temporary jobs the stimulus created.

But when they talk about the largely privately funded XL pipeline, the thousands of temporary jobs estimated to be created don't matter now and they only want to count the permanent jobs. Isn't the XL pipeline similar to a government funded stimulus project, other than it's mainly privately funded? Isn't it better that it is privately funded? Why are the Dems now against creating thousands of temporary jobs and why don't they count those jobs for the XL project?

Hypocrites...

They need another 5 years to study it (slow learners).