Would the Keystone Pipeline be a great economic asset to the United States? Hardly.

[Billy000]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:

The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget.
However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is
dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means
fewer jobs.
»
The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.
»
The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
»
There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.
»
The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1
billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section
of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has
already been built.
»
KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at
all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate,
and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the
US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it
is now.
»
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

 

[FactFinder]

the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated.

That is funny.! Of course they are. Who the hell do you think spins the news these day?

 

[Billy000]

the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated.

That is funny.! Of course they are. Who the hell do you think spins the news these day?

Tell that to the critics of Obama on here.

 

[code1211]

the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated.

That is funny.! Of course they are. Who the hell do you think spins the news these day?

Tell that to the critics of Obama on here.

So, just to be clear, we have a job being planned that will create between 5000 jobs on the low end and 20,000 on the high end and you say skip it because you want more? Want less? Don't care? Don't accept that there's a problem with creating jobs?

I don't understand your objection.

Any job like a pipeline job will support 3 others. So we are looking at 15,000 on the low end to 60,000 on the high end.

Also, more oil coming to market will reduce the cost per gallon for gas. We were paying about $1.80 in 2008 and now we covet the $3.00 level.

Why would anyone be against any of this? More jobs, lower gas prices and more gas.

What's the downside?

 

[Billy000]

the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated.

That is funny.! Of course they are. Who the hell do you think spins the news these day?

Tell that to the critics of Obama on here.

So, just to be clear, we have a job being planned that will create between 5000 jobs on the low end and 20,000 on the high end and you say skip it because you want more? Want less? Don't care? Don't accept that there's a problem with creating jobs?

I don't understand your objection.

Any job like a pipeline job will support 3 others. So we are looking at 15,000 on the low end to 60,000 on the high end.

Also, more oil coming to market will reduce the cost per gallon for gas. We were paying about $1.80 in 2008 and now we covet the $3.00 level.

Why would anyone be against any of this? More jobs, lower gas prices and more gas.

What's the downside?

Where the hell are you getting these numbers from? Did you even read my OP?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:

The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget.
However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is
dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means
fewer jobs.
»
The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.
»
The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
»
There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.
»
The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1
billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section
of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has
already been built.
»
KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at
all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate,
and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the
US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it
is now.
»
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Ok, I'll pretend Cornell is independent and play along.

Lets see; The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650. That's an average of over 3000 people with a job, instead of Zero, which is what we got.

There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance. It's called importing. And we will have to pay people to transport the material. ooo, more jobs, which is more that Zero.



And heaven forbid we get oil from somewhere other than the ME.



Oh, and those would have been union jobs. So, why do you hate the unions?

 

[Billy000]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:

The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget.
However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is
dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means
fewer jobs.
»
The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.
»
The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
»
There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.
»
The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1
billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section
of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has
already been built.
»
KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at
all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate,
and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the
US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it
is now.
»
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Ok, I'll pretend Cornell is independent and play along.

Lets see; The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650. That's an average of over 3000 people with a job, instead of Zero, which is what we got.

There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance. It's called importing. And we will have to pay people to transport the material. ooo, more jobs, which is more that Zero.



And heaven forbid we get oil from somewhere other than the ME.



Oh, and those would have been union jobs. So, why do you hate the unions?

You aren't reading the article. These 3000 some jobs would only be temporary, and gas prices would increase. The environmentalists win this argument.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:




http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Ok, I'll pretend Cornell is independent and play along.

Lets see; The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650. That's an average of over 3000 people with a job, instead of Zero, which is what we got.

There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance. It's called importing. And we will have to pay people to transport the material. ooo, more jobs, which is more that Zero.



And heaven forbid we get oil from somewhere other than the ME.



Oh, and those would have been union jobs. So, why do you hate the unions?

You aren't reading the article. These 3000 some jobs would only be temporary, and gas prices would increase.

So you think the pipline won't need to be maintained after it's built?

and incase you have not noticed, gas prices have gone up your entire life.

 

[Stephanie]

I'd be ashamed to have posted this article and say, Obama was right..

 

[Sallow]

You gotta love this. Out of every productive project you could possibly have going, like high speed rail, developing new energy sources or infrastructure spending..the one's conservatives advocate for..is mining old technology. It's a wonderful thing too. Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions. Makes a great deal of sense. And it's from an industry that is constantly crying wolf to get it's way. Which makes this country do incredibly stupid things, like topple governments and go to war.

President Obama should tell these folks to go pound sand.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Since Papa Obama's failed policies have not been the "hot bed" of job creation

He should take any jobs he can get

 

[Sirkarl101]

Cornell study is correct. The failure to report that the pipeline will be thinner than usual and be pumping at higher pressure and will be run over areas that have had an earthquake of a magnitude of 4.0 as recent as 2002 directly over a fresh water source that supports millions of homes and tens of billions of dollars of agriculture is a huge oversight. How would they clean a major spill up from an underground water source, not to mention the soil? I would not support that much for short gains in employment. Who benefits the most?

 

[ba1614]

You gotta love this. Out of every productive project you could possibly have going, like high speed rail, developing new energy sources or infrastructure spending..the one's conservatives advocate for..is mining old technology. It's a wonderful thing too. Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions. Makes a great deal of sense. And it's from an industry that is constantly crying wolf to get it's way. Which makes this country do incredibly stupid things, like topple governments and go to war.

President Obama should tell these folks to go pound sand.

Interesting to note that the "productive projects" you advocate can't compete on their own and require government money.

 

[Sallow]

You gotta love this. Out of every productive project you could possibly have going, like high speed rail, developing new energy sources or infrastructure spending..the one's conservatives advocate for..is mining old technology. It's a wonderful thing too. Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions. Makes a great deal of sense. And it's from an industry that is constantly crying wolf to get it's way. Which makes this country do incredibly stupid things, like topple governments and go to war.

President Obama should tell these folks to go pound sand.

Interesting to note that the "productive projects" you advocate can't compete on their own and require government money.

Entirely laughable considering how much tax payer funding goes into the energy sector..including big oil.

 

[Stephanie]

Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions.

well for sure. because of all that lets just DENY ourselves and OUR COUNTRY energy, and jobs..

nothing like cutting of your nose to spite your face

amazing

 

[WillowTree]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:

The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget.
However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is
dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means
fewer jobs.
»
The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.
»
The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
»
There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.
»
The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1
billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section
of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has
already been built.
»
KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at
all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate,
and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the
US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it
is now.
»
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

so why should we believe your study over the ones that have already been done? I see no compelling reason to place the word of Cornell University over another study.. dew ewe?? except that it furthurs your hate America and we must allow no energy except Arab energy into America.. Got it?

 

[Mr. H.]

You gotta love this. Out of every productive project you could possibly have going, like high speed rail, developing new energy sources or infrastructure spending..the one's conservatives advocate for..is mining old technology. It's a wonderful thing too. Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions. Makes a great deal of sense. And it's from an industry that is constantly crying wolf to get it's way. Which makes this country do incredibly stupid things, like topple governments and go to war.

President Obama should tell these folks to go pound sand.

Interesting to note that the "productive projects" you advocate can't compete on their own and require government money.

Entirely laughable considering how much tax payer funding goes into the energy sector..including big oil.

Other than DOE research grants, can you give some examples "big oil" tax payer funding?

 

[healthmyths]

Obama had it right.

According to an independent study conducted by Cornell University Global Labor Institute, the claims of a significant economic boost to the US economy as a result of the pipeline are quite exaggerated. Here is a summary of their findings:

The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget.
However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is
dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means
fewer jobs.
»
The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.
»
The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.
»
There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material
input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.
»
The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1
billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section
of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has
already been built.
»
KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at
all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate,
and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the
US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it
is now.
»
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

OK.. so YOU are suggesting instead of being a positive affect i.e.
1) possibly more jobs but not the volume
2) possibly more economic benefit .. not the estimation right?
3) You are suggesting costs of higher gas prices will reduce those minimal benefits?

ALL that being said.. IT is MORE then it is NOW!

PLUS YOU and Cornell FORGOT the BIGGEST economic driver..
OIL SPILL chances INCREASE with tankers versus pipeline!
Each day the pipeline will carry the equivalent of a supertanker leaving Canada for
China!
Tell me what are the "possible" economic losses of a shipwrecked Exxon Valdez type?
Versus less then 3,000 barrels of the pipeline spill?

WAS that calculation included?? NOPE!!!

 

[Sallow]

Lets put pipeline pumping environmentally destructive substances through environmentally sensitive regions.

well for sure. because of all that lets just DENY ourselves and OUR COUNTRY energy, and jobs..

nothing like cutting of your nose to spite your face

amazing

Which goes back to alternative energy sources, infrastructure building/re-building and high speed rail.

All of which would create jobs, efficient uses of energy and a reduction in the need for fossil fuel.

 

[Sallow]

Interesting to note that the "productive projects" you advocate can't compete on their own and require government money.

Entirely laughable considering how much tax payer funding goes into the energy sector..including big oil.

Other than DOE research grants, can you give some examples "big oil" tax payer funding?

The Iraq war?

And just what do you think operation ajax was all about? Mosaddegh was about to nationalize the country's oil.

Sheesh.