Did you follow the money to see who funded that study? When you have one study going against all the othes, it is usually wise to do that.
This article appeared on Forbes.com on October 20, 2011.
A recent study from researchers at Cornell University presented some curious findings on the economic impact of Keystone XL, a proposed multibillion dollar extension linking Canada’s rich supply of crude oil to major U.S. refining hubs. . . .
. . . .So what did the new study conclude? That a $7 billion investment won’t create jobs and may even cost jobs on net, and that the ability to move an additional 900,000 bpd to refineries won’t have the effect of lowering gas prices.
These claims simply defy economic logic — as well as every previous estimate of the economic impact of Keystone XL. Simply put, the study’s conclusions are specious, even absurd. . , , ,
In fact, the Keystone XL pipeline will give our country a more stable and cheaper source of fuel and create thousands of quality American jobs. And taxpayers (think Solyndra) will not risk a dime. . . .
CATO: The Keystone XL Energy Project Is Much More Than a Pipe Dream | Nebraska | Keystone XL Pipeline
Your rebuttal was funded by the Cato Institute
BTW- much of the tarsands are destined for export so the "cheaper source of fuel" fragment is somewhat dubious. The oil market is global and the Canadians want to export it to markets where the price is highest.
As to jobs, the initial estimate was 3-5K jobs. Now that the environmental impact has come into question the jobs estimate has been boosted up to @ 20K. Coincidence?
You really don't read well do you? Or don't read at all? If you had, you would have seen the quoted article is a reprint from Forbes, not CATO. And as for the Perryman Group in the cited study, they have a most impressive clientele list of those who DO fund them and there are very very few oil companies or petroleum based industries on it. See here:
The Perryman Group
You DO understand that the oil companies don't really care what the policy is all that much. They are raking in a fortune from phony green industry projects that simply drive up our costs and benefit society overall little or not at all, and they have plenty of overseas markets to make a profit from as U.S. markets become increasingly unprofitable for them. But hey, if Obama Messiah isn't addressing that and the environmentalists are promoting it as hard as they can, then it must be a good thing, yes?
The ONLY thing that is going to fix it is a business-friendly regulatory and tax policy that can still protect the environment but apply some semblancve of free market principles back into the equation.
(Somebody else explain the bigger words to those who don't get that.)
Last edited: