Rejection of Keystone XL not yet secured.

whygohome

MayDay Malone wrote:

100,000 jobs.

Energy independence.

Naw... No upside here.

Im glad Obama cancelled it- something else to hammer him on in the general election...

Please find me a reputable source that states that the pipeline will produce 100,000 jobs.
If you can't find a reputable source, then please keep quiet.

Jeanwah

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16621398

The state department denied a permit for the 1,600-mile (2,700km) Keystone XL pipeline, saying it had insufficient time to review the plans.

The project has been delayed amid objections by environmental groups and the US state of Nebraska.

At the end of 2011, Republicans forced a final decision on the plan within 60 days during a legislative standoff.

US President Barack Obama said he was disappointed that the deadline set by Republicans in Congress had caused the state department to reject the project before a full study could be undertaken.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the state department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people."

But Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke to Mr Obama and expressed his "profound disappointment" with the decision, a spokesman said.

The crude oil pipeline would run from western Canada to oil refineries on the Texas coast.
Jobs at stake

The state department added that Wednesday's recommendation not to proceed with the current proposal would not preclude TransCanada, the developer, from submitting a new route for the pipeline.

Officials said that any new plan that was broadly similar to the rejected proposal could be processed more quickly, but it would take between 12 to 18 months to complete a full review.

Keystone XL has been approved by Canada and is supported by US Republicans who say it would create much-needed jobs and improve prospects for US energy independence.

The Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, criticised the Obama administration for failing to give the green light to a project that would have created "hundreds of thousands of jobs".

"The president's policies are making the economy worse, not better," he said, adding that the pipeline would be good for the country. Mr Boehner pledged that the fight was not over.

Republican Congressman Fred Upton said he has requested that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testify before a House committee.

The oil industry has estimated the project would create 20,000 jobs, although the state department and some independent studies suggest a lower figure of 6,000 jobs.

Carbon emissions

Environmental groups and the US state of Nebraska expressed concerns that the pipeline could contaminate a major aquifer on its route.

There are also concerns about carbon emissions from oil sands production in Alberta, a western Canadian province.

The legislature of Nebraska passed a measure requiring state approval of any route before TransCanada could start construction.

The pipeline would also pass through the US states of Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

The White House had tried to postpone a final decision on the project until after the 2012 presidential election.

But during a congressional impasse on a payroll tax holiday in December, Republicans forced the Obama administration to agree to make a decision on the pipeline within two months.

The US state department, however, said this would not be enough time to carry out the legally required environmental studies needed to approve the project.

gimmesometruth27

whygohome wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

100,000 jobs.

Energy independence.

Naw... No upside here.

Im glad Obama cancelled it- something else to hammer him on in the general election...

Please find me a reputable source that states that the pipeline will produce 100,000 jobs.
If you can't find a reputable source, then please keep quiet.

additionally, please provide credible evidence that a single pipeline is going to produce complete and total energy independance...

Jason P

Trans-Canada and the Canadian politics have claimed that if the project is canceled, they will send the tar-sands to China. I find that to be B.S. This project is about increasing capacity, that's all. They already have a pipeline sending the tar-sands to Illinois. The tar-sands are already heading to America, only at a lower barrel-per-day then they would like. They are not sending that oil to China. It isn't cost effective. The tar-sands will still come to the US, but just at a slower rate.

From an environmental standpoint, it's great that the Nebraska aquifer is spared, but in reality the pollution implications are just as real as if the project was approved. It will just take a little bit longer.

brianlux

Thank you, Jeanwah, for the update! I'm in the middle of moving my used book business so haven't had much time to keep up with things. I check in here to a) rest my achin' bones for a little while, b) see what kind of trouble you're all up to and, c) get the latest in up-to-the-minute news flashes from the finest news source on the internet!

(Kind of joking but really, despite all the in-fighting, AMT really does provide an interesting source of information! We should pat ourselves on the back for that. )

norm

Of this writing, TransCanada, the American Petroleum Institute, and other proponents of KXL are touting the job-creation potential of the pipeline. Jobs have thus become an important part of the case for Presidential approval of KXL. The data presented in this briefing paper should put this issue to rest. The industry’s capacity to frame the KXL decision as a jobs issue has been amply demonstrated in recent months, but decisionmakers should be absolutely clear that the industry’s job numbers are not based on reliable research; not informed by past experience; and completely fail to consider the large number of jobs that could be endangered by the construction of KXL.

To highlight some of the main points made in this paper:

» The construction of KXL will create far fewer jobs in the US than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates.
» The industry’s US job claims, and even the State Department’s analysis, 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.
» The claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the US is unsubstantiated. 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 US
» The industry’s job projections fail to consider the large number of jobs that could be lost by construction of KXL. This includes jobs lost due to consumers in the Midwest paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs ($2 to $4 billion) will suppress other spending and cost jobs. Furthermore, pipeline spills, pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions incur significant human health and economic costs, thus eliminating jobs.

Put simply, KXL’s job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project’s potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions.

As noted above, it is unfortunate that the numbers generated by TransCanada, the industry, and the Perryman study have been subject to so little scrutiny, because they clearly inflate the projections for the numbers of direct, indirect, and long-term induced jobs that KXL might expect to create. What is being offered by the proponents is advocacy to build support for KXL, rather than serious research aimed to inform public debate and responsible decision making. By repeating inflated job numbers, the supporters of KXL approval are doing an injustice to the American public in that expectations are raised for jobs that simply cannot be met. These numbers—hundreds of thousands of jobs—then get packaged as if KXL were a major jobs program capable of registering some kind of significant impact on unemployment levels and the overall economy. This is plainly untrue.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallabori ... ortpdf.pdf

RFTC

cornell study says 5k jobs, state dept says approx 6k, one other outside group said tops 10k, counting support personnel, ie. hospitality, transportation, supply chain. i think american petroleum institute and/or gop came up w/a # btwn 20-100k. :roll:

tough for me to bash it as my company would definitely profit from the project being approved. i would be lynched in Houston around certain business's if they sensed an opposition to keystone.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Not doing the pipeline will cost how many jobs?

How will it cost jobs when those jobs don't currently exist?

"President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs," a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said.

How can you destroy something that doesn't exist? :think:

brianlux

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Not doing the pipeline will cost how many jobs?

How will it cost jobs when those jobs don't currently exist?

"President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs," a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said.

How can you destroy something that doesn't exist? :think:

Besides, Byrnzie, the potential for clean energy jobs is much greater. The oil industry is a dinosaur-- well, dinosaur food anyway. Oil production has peaked, consumption is steadily rising, methods for extracting crude are becoming more and more problematic and hazardous to the environment and burning all of that oil for the last 100 years has (not is, has) changed the climate.

Jobs? Lets get working on changing over to renewable energy before its too late-- and if you study climate change you'll agree, too late is not too far away.

whygohome

brianlux wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Not doing the pipeline will cost how many jobs?

How will it cost jobs when those jobs don't currently exist?

"President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs," a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said.

How can you destroy something that doesn't exist? :think:

Besides, Byrnzie, the potential for clean energy jobs is much greater. The oil industry is a dinosaur-- well, dinosaur food anyway. Oil production has peaked, consumption is steadily rising, methods for extracting crude are becoming more and more problematic and hazardous to the environment and burning all of that oil for the last 100 years has (not is, has) changed the climate.

Jobs? Lets get working on changing over to renewable energy before its too late-- and if you study climate change you'll agree, too late is not too far away.

"Green jobs" or "clean energy jobs" are just liberal, hippie, treehugger propaganda. We all know this.**

**If a republican, say Jeff Sessions, or John Cornyn (http://thinkprogress.org/report/clean-energy-cons/) had brought green energy to the forefront of the national discussion, instead of that evil Al Gore, then I am sure the public discussion would be far different.

Let's not forget: we do not live in an educated, informed, aware society. We live in a society where the public falls prey to misinformation and clever media trickery. In the end, it is too much to ask of the people to educate themselves; to do the research necessary to acquire knowledge, instead of imprisoning themselves within the walls of their own un/misinformed, uneducated opinions. We live in a society where people not only see in black and white, but also only see--and only vote--in Rs and Ds. Oh how history will judge the oil and war generation!

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Not doing the pipeline will cost how many jobs?

How will it cost jobs when those jobs don't currently exist?

"President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs," a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said.

How can you destroy something that doesn't exist? :think:

I said it would cost jobs, and it will cost jobs, because with it, a certain number of jobs will be created. Pretty simple to figure out. AS with any project, if you do it, jobs are created. If you don't, jobs are not created. Now, if you use those same resources ($) for something else that creates more jobs...then great!!!

polaris_x

whygohome wrote:

Let's not forget: we do not live in an educated, informed, aware society. We live in a society where the public falls prey to misinformation and clever media trickery. In the end, it is too much to ask of the people to educate themselves; to do the research necessary to acquire knowledge, instead of imprisoning themselves within the walls of their own un/misinformed, uneducated opinions. We live in a society where people not only see in black and white, but also only see--and only vote--in Rs and Ds. Oh how history will judge the oil and war generation!

it's called critical thinking ... or the lack thereof ...

whygohome

polaris_x wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Let's not forget: we do not live in an educated, informed, aware society. We live in a society where the public falls prey to misinformation and clever media trickery. In the end, it is too much to ask of the people to educate themselves; to do the research necessary to acquire knowledge, instead of imprisoning themselves within the walls of their own un/misinformed, uneducated opinions. We live in a society where people not only see in black and white, but also only see--and only vote--in Rs and Ds. Oh how history will judge the oil and war generation!

it's called critical thinking ... or the lack thereof ...

....and it no longer insists...........

Jason P

One thing I should point out. Democrats are outraged that the high-speed rail project is being canceled because of all the lost jobs the project would create. Those jobs were the main selling point that Obama used to push the project.

Now, another project is being canceled that would create lots of jobs. Why the change in attitude?

Also, one project requires taxpayer money to create those jobs. The other requires private business.

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

One thing I should point out. Democrats are outraged that the high-speed rail project is being canceled because of all the lost jobs the project would create. Those jobs were the main selling point that Obama used to push the project.

Now, another project is being canceled that would create lots of jobs. Why the change in attitude?

Also, one project requires taxpayer money to create those jobs. The other requires private business.

well ... what this highlights is the absurdity of politics ... without getting into the pros/cons of each project - the answer to your question is simply that these decisions are politicized instead of being about what the project is for ... this is a key failure in not on the gov't structure but the democracy (or people) ...

whygohome

Jason P wrote:

One thing I should point out. Democrats are outraged that the high-speed rail project is being canceled because of all the lost jobs the project would create. Those jobs were the main selling point that Obama used to push the project.

Now, another project is being canceled that would create lots of jobs. Why the change in attitude?

Also, one project requires taxpayer money to create those jobs. The other requires private business.

Look at the quote by Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ail-plan/1

The House and Senate voted today to eliminate most of the $8 billion that President Obama sought next year for his vision of nationwide high-speed rail.

Republicans trumpeted what they said was the death of the president's six-year, $53 billion plan, saying the future of fast trains lies along the Northeast Corridor, The Hill writes. The funding was eliminated in a deal with Democrats on a spending bill for the Transportation Department and other agencies. The measure cleared the House by 298-121 and the Senate by 70-30 on its way to Obama's desk.

"Today's vote marks the end to President Obama's misguided high-speed rail program, but it also represents a new beginning for true intercity high-speed passenger rail service in America," Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, said in a statement.

The Associated Press points out, however, that "billions of dollars still in the pipeline will ensure work will continue on some projects. And it's still possible money from another transportation grant program can be steered to high-speed trains."

California was hoping for several billion dollars to keep its plans on track for what could be the nation's first genuine bullet-train network, with trains reaching 220 mph. Construction on the first phase, between Fresno and Bakersfield, is expected to start next year and be finished in three to five years, the San Francisco Chronicle notes. The price tag is $6 billion: $3.3 billion from Washington and $2.7 billion in state bonds.

Jason P

whygohome wrote:

Look at the quote by Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ail-plan/1

The House and Senate voted today to eliminate most of the $8 billion that President Obama sought next year for his vision of nationwide high-speed rail.

Republicans trumpeted what they said was the death of the president's six-year, $53 billion plan, saying the future of fast trains lies along the Northeast Corridor, The Hill writes. The funding was eliminated in a deal with Democrats on a spending bill for the Transportation Department and other agencies. The measure cleared the House by 298-121 and the Senate by 70-30 on its way to Obama's desk.

"Today's vote marks the end to President Obama's misguided high-speed rail program, but it also represents a new beginning for true intercity high-speed passenger rail service in America," Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, said in a statement.

The Associated Press points out, however, that "billions of dollars still in the pipeline will ensure work will continue on some projects. And it's still possible money from another transportation grant program can be steered to high-speed trains."

California was hoping for several billion dollars to keep its plans on track for what could be the nation's first genuine bullet-train network, with trains reaching 220 mph. Construction on the first phase, between Fresno and Bakersfield, is expected to start next year and be finished in three to five years, the San Francisco Chronicle notes. The price tag is $6 billion: $3.3 billion from Washington and $2.7 billion in state bonds.

Is construction proceeding or not? The last paragraph states they need the money but construction is starting in 2012. Are they starting a high speed network?

norm

Jason P wrote:

Is construction proceeding or not? The last paragraph states they need the money but construction is starting in 2012. Are they starting a high speed network?

no...i think the price went from 13 billion a few years ago to something like 40 billion

Bennyorr4

The Alberta Oilsands is the best oil on earth and they are'nt going away. Listen, if you want to keep getting the blood soaked oil from the middle east, thats your perogitive but I think that the US should stop killing for their oil and embrace Canada's oil industry. There isn't a whole lot of "conflict free" oil out there. Canada has enough to supply the whole world for hundreds of years. We have twice as much oil as the middle east and it is safer to work here as well. Shutting down the Keystone pipe line in the US only forces us to ship it to other countries. I personally prefer to send it to our "Sister" in the south than to send it to a country that we cannot fully trust in the east. remember, we all live in NORTH AMERICA which makes us family, why not co-operate and help each other. Thats my two cents. And if you believe the propaganda out there as far as "Tar Sands" being the devil, take a good look in the mirror. Canada does not kill for oil, "Just sayin" . Not to mention, a pipeline is probably the safest/greenest way to ship oil. Remember Exxon Valdez, BP off-shore rig and countless other disasters? When we involve our oceans its never good for the environment but it seems that everyone is ok with that method of shipping. Oil isnt EVER going away, it is a neccessary evil to provide energy. Yeah, sure green energy is the best energy for the environment but we should have started producing it 50-60 years ago not (what seems to be) yesterday. Sorry for the rant but once I started, I couldn't stop( I could go on and on) This just my perspective nothing more.

polaris_x

Bennyorr4 wrote:

The Alberta Oilsands is the best oil on earth and they are'nt going away. Listen, if you want to keep getting the blood soaked oil from the middle east, thats your perogitive but I think that the US should stop killing for their oil and embrace Canada's oil industry. There isn't a whole lot of "conflict free" oil out there. Canada has enough to supply the whole world for hundreds of years. We have twice as much oil as the middle east and it is safer to work here as well. Shutting down the Keystone pipe line in the US only forces us to ship it to other countries. I personally prefer to send it to our "Sister" in the south than to send it to a country that we cannot fully trust in the east. remember, we all live in NORTH AMERICA which makes us family, why not co-operate and help each other. Thats my two cents. And if you believe the propaganda out there as far as "Tar Sands" being the devil, take a good look in the mirror. Canada does not kill for oil, "Just sayin" . Not to mention, a pipeline is probably the safest/greenest way to ship oil. Remember Exxon Valdez, BP off-shore rig and countless other disasters? When we involve our oceans its never good for the environment but it seems that everyone is ok with that method of shipping. Oil isnt EVER going away, it is a neccessary evil to provide energy. Yeah, sure green energy is the best energy for the environment but we should have started producing it 50-60 years ago not (what seems to be) yesterday. Sorry for the rant but once I started, I couldn't stop( I could go on and on) This just my perspective nothing more.

i disagree wholeheartedly ... without the wars - there would be no tar sands ... the tar sands is very costly to extract not only in dollars but in resources ... it uses 3 times the amount of resources as conventional crude - for that reason, oil can only be extracted from the tar sands when the price per barrel is over $75 ... something that wars and instability in the middle east does ... without those wars - tar sands oil would not be profitable ... that along with the massive subsidies given to this evil industry ...

also, we do not need oil ... there are alternatives for almost everything ... the fact we are still consuming oil at our current rate is reflective of how much influence that industry has over gov't policy ...