State Department to reject Keystone XL application

[carlfense]

The numbers in that energy tomorrow blog are such total BS. 20,000 new jobs? No.

 

17 spreads, 500 workers per spread - This is to presume that no workers will move from spread to spread. My wife's uncle has many years' experience constructing pipelines. His experience is that people tend to move down the line as the pipeline is created. These are not unique jobs, created for 8,500 people. There is a massive amount of overlap in that 8,500 number. It's total BS.

 

7,000 jobs in manufacturing the materials that will be used in the project - This is also to presume that the people involved in the manufacture of the parts and pieces are all to be hired specifically for this purpose. This is a false assumption. The contracts to make these parts and pieces are not going to be granted to companies who do not already have the capacity to produce the parts. We are not giving contracts to companies hoping they can hire qualified workers to fulfill those contracts. No company does this, and I would be aghast if the Keystone people did. It's stupid business.

 

That's just two very easy holes to poke into this "20,000" jobs number. It's total crap. Pretending that this pipeline is a jobs creator is political nonsense at its finest.

I read a blog post yesterday that claimed that Keystone would create 120,000 new jobs. The 20,000 number is ridiculous enough . . . but this person pretty obviously just threw a "1" in front of the number and expected to be taken seriously.

 

Those manufacturing numbers are doubly ridiculous because TransCanada used sub-standard steel imported from India in the earlier Keystone pipeline. I'm glad that Energy Tomorrow and TransCanada are citing jobs in India as a boon to the US.

 

What a joke.

[walksalone]

Do we really even need the pipeline with the oil extraction going on in the Bakken Basin and the preliminary studies done in NW South Dakota. There's projected to be enough oil to equal whats in the national reserves in the Bakken alone.

[VectorVictor]

 

Those manufacturing numbers are doubly ridiculous because TransCanada used sub-standard steel imported from India in the earlier Keystone pipeline. I'm glad that Energy Tomorrow and TransCanada are citing jobs in India as a boon to the US.

 

What a joke.

 

Not to mention the potential environmental impact from using sub-standard materials...

 

And you should give the Cornel report a good read--excellent information, sourced out, and it uses TransCanada's and KXL's own info against them.

[gobiggergoredder]

I'm not going to be like the rest you out here and post an opinion article as fact. It's clear that in this forum if you agree with pipeline, someone will find 15 sources (all saying a different thing) but used for the same argument. This forum is a microcosm of what is going on in the country. Passionantely following issues that we nothing about. I'll be the first one to tell you that I don't know what to believe about this one. Each side is spoonfeeding misinformation to their masses. Like everything else, I imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

I don't know what is the right the thing to do, but I know the need for oil is not going to diminish. We all need to get over gas prices because oil is in everything! You all need to start looking at how much plastic is in everything or even reading labels on the products you use.

 

Enviromental impact of sub standard oil? Are you serious? So what do you think is going to happen to that oil Captain Planet? It's still going to get used. They will find a way for it to be used. And it will hurt the enviroment even more as those massive tanker ships go across the pacific on their way to China.

 

The jobs critism is also something I don't get. Let's say it is 10K instead of 20K. Wouldn't there still be crews having lunch at a local resturant, stopping at a convience store to buy goods, staying the night in a hotel, drinking a beer at the watering hole?

 

Washington Post Opinion Column

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rejecting-the-keystone-pipeline-is-an-act-of-insanity/2012/01/19/gIQAowG6AQ_story.html

 

The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There’s no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil’s natural market is the United States.

[carlfense]

I'm not going to be like the rest you out here and post an opinion article as fact. It's clear that in this forum if you agree with pipeline, someone will find 15 sources (all saying a different thing) but used for the same argument. This forum is a microcosm of what is going on in the country. Passionantely following issues that we nothing about. I'll be the first one to tell you that I don't know what to believe about this one. Each side is spoonfeeding misinformation to their masses. Like everything else, I imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

Who has done that? I said "take this with a grain of salt" regarding the opinion piece I posted. m_g posted a Cornell study. I guess you're talking about Comish.

I don't know what is the right the thing to do, but I know the need for oil is not going to diminish. We all need to get over gas prices because oil is in everything! You all need to start looking at how much plastic is in everything or even reading labels on the products you use.

 

How does this argument support the building of the pipeline?

 

Enviromental impact of sub standard oil? Are you serious? So what do you think is going to happen to that oil Captain Planet? It's still going to get used. They will find a way for it to be used. And it will hurt the enviroment even more as those massive tanker ships go across the pacific on their way to China.

Who said anything about sub standard oil? Are you making things up again, Captain Dishonest?

 

Any guesses as to why the pipeline was going to end at a port? I'm sure it has nothing to do with those massive tanker ships that you apparently agree are bad for the environment.

The jobs critism is also something I don't get. Let's say it is 10K instead of 20K. Wouldn't there still be crews having lunch at a local resturant, stopping at a convience store to buy goods, staying the night in a hotel, drinking a beer at the watering hole?

Actually, you're still grossly inflating the jobs numbers. According to that study they are closer to 2,500-4,650. So rather than saying that it is 10,000 let's speak honestly and say it's 2,500-4,650. Do you think that those people aren't eating lunch today? I'm sure they haven't eaten lunch in years . . . but if they built this pipeline they'll be having prime rib for lunch each day. At best, you could argue that they will be spending their lunch dollars in different areas. Unless of course you want to argue that the Keystone XL will create people as well as jobs. I'm surprised TransCanada hasn't tried that angle.

 

Washington Post Opinion Column

http://www.washingto...G6AQ_story.html

 

The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There’s no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil’s natural market is the United States.

 

The Chinese were getting this oil either way. I think we have been over this.

[gobiggergoredder]

Carlfense,

I will do my best through the formatting

.

Opinion vs Fact

It's a collective lob as much as it is a comment to this message board. Search Keystone XL via google any there a ton of legitimate looking websites that are clearly set up by front groups. This is a difficult topic to research becuase their is too much passion around the subject.

 

Example of misinformation (A little off the subject and you didn't ask for it)

I was at work the other day and one of my employees brought up this issue. They were talking about how Robots were going to weld the beads that connected the pipes sections together and they couldn't support that. They said a human would be far better welding these pipe connections.

I don't know whether the Robot welding is part of the deal or not, but I will tell you that I will take a robot weld over a human weld any day. I have been around welding my entire life are there is no way that a human can weld as consistently and effectively as a robot. This individual had rooted their decision on the pipeline on something that was terribly inaccurate.

 

Demand for oil vs need for pipeline

The oil is another source and we need to figure out how to use it.

 

Substandard oil

This was a misread and mistake on my part

 

Jobs

No different than the opinion vs fact. You can find different numbers depending on the source. I'm going to step out on the limb and say this will create more jobs than Solyndra.

 

Chinese Oil

Unforetunately, you are probably right on this one.

[carlfense]

Carlfense,

I will do my best through the formatting

.

Opinion vs Fact

It's a collective lob as much as it is a comment to this message board. Search Keystone XL via google any there a ton of legitimate looking websites that are clearly set up by front groups. This is a difficult topic to research becuase their is too much passion around the subject.

 

Example of misinformation (A little off the subject and you didn't ask for it)

I was at work the other day and one of my employees brought up this issue. They were talking about how Robots were going to weld the beads that connected the pipes sections together and they couldn't support that. They said a human would be far better welding these pipe connections.

I don't know whether the Robot welding is part of the deal or not, but I will tell you that I will take a robot weld over a human weld any day. I have been around welding my entire life are there is no way that a human can weld as consistently and effectively as a robot. This individual had rooted their decision on the pipeline on something that was terribly inaccurate.

 

Demand for oil vs need for pipeline

The oil is another source and we need to figure out how to use it.

 

Substandard oil

This was a misread and mistake on my part

 

Jobs

No different than the opinion vs fact. You can find different numbers depending on the source. I'm going to step out on the limb and say this will create more jobs than Solyndra.

 

Chinese Oil

Unforetunately, you are probably right on this one.

Opinion vs. Fact

The Cornell piece is footnoted, subject to peer review, and not published by TransCanada. That's probably as close to a factual assessment as you will find on this issue.

 

Demand for Oil vs. Need for Pipeline

You apparently agree that the oil will reach the world marketplace regardless of whether the pipeline is built. Why then should we put our own land and waters at risk? For a handful of temporary jobs?

 

Jobs

Again. Just because there are different numbers doesn't mean that you have to give each number equal credibility. Look at who is providing those numbers and why they are doing so. Is it in TransCanada's interest to grossly inflate jobs numbers? Yep.

[gobiggergoredder]

Opinion vs. Fact

The Cornell piece is footnoted, subject to peer review, and not published by TransCanada. That's probably as close to a factual assessment as you will find on this issue.

 

Demand for Oil vs. Need for Pipeline

You apparently agree that the oil will reach the world marketplace regardless of whether the pipeline is built. Why then should we put our own land and waters at risk? For a handful of temporary jobs?

 

Jobs

Again. Just because there are different numbers doesn't mean that you have to give each number equal credibility. Look at who is providing those numbers and why they are doing so. Is it in TransCanada's interest to grossly inflate jobs numbers? Yep.

 

Opinion vs. Fact

I have not read the Cornell link, but I will.

 

Demand for Oil vs. Need for Pipeline

I think the risk question is relevant, but it gets back to my entire point. What is the real risk? I argue that we don't know. Bitumen by itself doesn't appear to be anything that could do a lot of damage given a reasonable response. That being said, I have no idea what the hydrocarbons are that are mixed with the Bitumen allow it to be transported via a pipeline. What are the interlocks and failsafes of a pipeline built in 2012 and beyond...I don't know.

 

Being involved in manufacturing, I will tell you that accidents do happen and I will not minimize the risks assoiciated with this project. Is anyone even talking about the worst oil disaster in US history (that just happened) anymore?

 

Jobs

You are clearly taking the side that the number of jobs is being overstated. I don't disagree with you. The problem is, I would venture to say that the other side is grossly understating the economic (jobs) impact of such a project. Jobs reach far beyond those that just work on the pipeline. That is why when a large facility closes in a small town, the town dies. You don't need a restaurant, gas station or shoe store if there are no other jobs.

 

This is the primary reason why I get so bent out of shape about the lose of manufacturing jobs in America. Because those 200 manufacturing jobs employ another 20+ (I'm making up my own numbers here) in other industries.

[carlfense]

I guess I'm just surprised at the number of self-professed "small government conservatives" who want the U.S. government to order private landowners/ranchers/farmers/etc. to give up their property rights to benefit a Canadian corporation.

 

Any reconciliation of those positions would be appreciated.

[carlfense]

Opinion vs. Fact

The Cornell piece is footnoted, subject to peer review, and not published by TransCanada. That's probably as close to a factual assessment as you will find on this issue.

 

Demand for Oil vs. Need for Pipeline

You apparently agree that the oil will reach the world marketplace regardless of whether the pipeline is built. Why then should we put our own land and waters at risk? For a handful of temporary jobs?

 

Jobs

Again. Just because there are different numbers doesn't mean that you have to give each number equal credibility. Look at who is providing those numbers and why they are doing so. Is it in TransCanada's interest to grossly inflate jobs numbers? Yep.

 

Opinion vs. Fact

I have not read the Cornell link, but I will.

 

Demand for Oil vs. Need for Pipeline

I think the risk question is relevant, but it gets back to my entire point. What is the real risk? I argue that we don't know. Bitumen by itself doesn't appear to be anything that could do a lot of damage given a reasonable response. That being said, I have no idea what the hydrocarbons are that are mixed with the Bitumen allow it to be transported via a pipeline. What are the interlocks and failsafes of a pipeline built in 2012 and beyond...I don't know.

 

Being involved in manufacturing, I will tell you that accidents do happen and I will not minimize the risks assoiciated with this project. Is anyone even talking about the worst oil disaster in US history (that just happened) anymore?

 

Jobs

You are clearly taking the side that the number of jobs is being overstated. I don't disagree with you. The problem is, I would venture to say that the other side is grossly understating the economic (jobs) impact of such a project. Jobs reach far beyond those that just work on the pipeline. That is why when a large facility closes in a small town, the town dies. You don't need a restaurant, gas station or shoe store if there are no other jobs.

 

This is the primary reason why I get so bent out of shape about the lose of manufacturing jobs in America. Because those 200 manufacturing jobs employ another 20+ (I'm making up my own numbers here) in other industries.

Demand for Oil vs. Need for Pipeline

We agree that we don't know the real risk. I believe the State Department was in the process of assessing that risk when they were told to give an answer without adequate investigation.

 

As far as I know, oil sands are no more or less dangerous than any other oil. I'd be more concerned about benzene than the bitumen itself. TransCanda has a history of leaky pipelines. I'm not sure why we should expect anything different from XL.

 

Jobs

I wonder why some people think these <5,000 jobs are so significant and then downplay the ~3 million private sector jobs created under Pres. Obama's watch. I suppose it's all in the perspective.

[walksalone]

I guess I'm a bit dumb to this whole situation. Are we that dire need of oil that we need to build a pipeline, when the Bakken Basin is going to pump out as much oil as there is in the National Reserve? I mean, jobs are being created right now up there.

[Comish]

I wonder why some people think these <5,000 jobs are so significant and then downplay the ~3 million private sector jobs created under Pres. Obama's watch. I suppose it's all in the perspective.

 

 

Government CREATES private sector jobs...........?? I could see the argument that a government (thru regulation and/or deregulation) INHIBITS or ALLOWS the private sector to create jobs, but not that they are the creator.

[carlfense]

Oh, I get it.

 

Private sector sheds jobs? Blame Obama.

 

Private sector gains jobs? It's in spite of Obama.

 

 

 

Heads the GOP wins. Tails Obama loses. How fair and balanced of you.

[gobiggergoredder]

I wonder why some people think these <5,000 jobs are so significant and then downplay the ~3 million private sector jobs created under Pres. Obama's watch. I suppose it's all in the perspective.

 

 

Government CREATES private sector jobs...........?? I could see the argument that a government (thru regulation and/or deregulation) INHIBITS or ALLOWS the private sector to create jobs, but not that they are the creator.

 

I'm sure if you wanted to dig enough, those saying Obama has created jobs probably are saying Rick Perry didn't create any in Texas.

[Comish]

I wonder why some people think these <5,000 jobs are so significant and then downplay the ~3 million private sector jobs created under Pres. Obama's watch. I suppose it's all in the perspective.

 

 

Government CREATES private sector jobs...........?? I could see the argument that a government (thru regulation and/or deregulation) INHIBITS or ALLOWS the private sector to create jobs, but not that they are the creator.

 

I'm sure if you wanted to dig enough, those saying Obama has created jobs probably are saying Rick Perry didn't create any in Texas.

 

You are correct. At any level, the government can create or inhibit the regulatory climate, but not actually create jobs............even though all administrators take credit for it.

 

But on the reverse side (like B.O. and his mandate in the Gulf after BP to shut everything down and, in effect, force the platforms to leave for other countries) it's probably easier to calculate the jobs lost.