The Keystone pipeline will NOT create 20,000 new jobs
“Millions of Americans are desperate for jobs, and no single project promises more of them than the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast…. As the largest shovel-ready infrastructure project in the U.S., Keystone XL was expected to create 20,000 new jobs right away.”
– U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar and
Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell
And that, of course, is false, and Lugar and McConnell have good reason to know it is false. The Keystone XL Pipeline, the centerpiece of the latest standoff in Washington, will not produce 20,000 shovel-ready jobs. Even TransCanada, the company pushing the pipeline’s construction, now acknowledges that it is false.
The number that the company likes to throw around is now 13,000 direct construction jobs, but that too is misleading. When challenged, the company acknowledges that it is counting what you might call “job years.” In other words, TransCanada believes the project will produce 6,500 jobs that last for two years.
Six thousand five hundred jobs is a far cry from 20,000. And even the 6,500-job estimate is much too high. According to an independent assessment by Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, the project would produce between 2,500 and 4,650 construction jobs, and could even end up costing the country jobs, for reasons that we’ll get to below.
TransCanada is basing its job estimates on a report that it commissioned from the Perryman Group. However, the Perryman Group has refused to release important data behind its estimate, claiming it to be proprietary information. The folks at Cornell nevertheless took what data Perryman did make available and found several major, fundamental flaws in its approach.
For example, a $1 billion portion of the Keystone XL pipeline has already been built and is up and operating. The Perryman study nonetheless pretends that section of the project is still on the drawing boards and, when built, will provide thousands of new jobs.
In addition, Keystone supporters ignore the fact that large quantities of Canadian tar-sands oil are already being imported into the United States and are being refined and used in the American Midwest. As the Cornell study points out:
“According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting major volumes of tar sands oil now supplying the 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, adding up to $5 billion to the annual US fuel bill.”
As the Cornell study concludes, those higher fuel prices for the Midwest could cost that region thousands of jobs. So while the pipeline construction would certainly help the Canadian tar-sands investors — many of them Chinese — get a higher price for their product by moving it to the Gulf, it could prove to be a wash or even a net negative in terms of jobs for American workers.
As the Cornell study concludes:
“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 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.”
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
804 comments Add your comment
Guy Incognito
December 14th, 2011
12:16 pm
Sounds like, “Jobs Created or Saved” accounting
saywhat?
December 14th, 2011
12:16 pm
but, but, OBAMA!
Normal
December 14th, 2011
12:20 pm
Anything Lugar and McConnel say are words from their owners, oil men. They cannot be trusted.
Trusslady
December 14th, 2011
12:22 pm
Aw shucks Jay – there you go ’spoutin’ facts again!
saywhat?
December 14th, 2011
12:24 pm
Just think of all the jobs that will be created if the pipeline is constructed as planned through a major aquifer,and then it leaks and destroys the drinking water for a large portion of the state. That will create lots of jobs for lawyers (to sue transcanada), movers – to get people out of their eventually valueless homes,construction workers (to tear down the old homes and then build new homes elsewhere), doctors and nurses (to care for the people sickened by drinking contaminated water), civil and environmental and hydro and geological engineers (to devise and supervise the clean-up) etc.
Welcome to the world of conservative job creation! Thanks, but no thanks.
Headley Lamar
December 14th, 2011
12:25 pm
What you wanna bet you could turn on Fox News right now and they would be telling the flock about the 20,000 + jobs this would have created etc etc.
Sad
Fly-on-the-Wall
December 14th, 2011
12:28 pm
Just follow the money. Since this will be sold on the WORLD market and not just to the good ol’ US of A they will get the higher price they want. It’s all about money and nothing to do with jobs. Screw these guys because it won’t help us or U.S. at all.
getalife
December 14th, 2011
12:28 pm
Will it kill trucker and railroad jobs?
How many full time jobs will it create after it is built? Five?
Pass the infrastructure job bill corrupt congress and end your insider trading cantor.
Headley Lamar
December 14th, 2011
12:28 pm
Plus the pipeline wold bring warmth to wildlife badly in need of it.
LOL
http://www.newsminer.com/pages/full_story/push?blog-entry-Pipeline+myth%20&id=9204767&instance=blogs_editors_desk
Aquagirl
December 14th, 2011
12:29 pm
A dim bulb over at Wingfields’ thought TransCanada’s pipeline will reduce our dependency on “foreign oil.”
That’s what we’re dealing with, folks, expect construction to start soon.
Thulsa Doom
December 14th, 2011
12:31 pm
Jobs are jobs whether its 13,000 or 20,000. And what Jay purposely left out is the sheer number of indirect jobs that will be produced or “saved” as Obama likes to say as a result of these direct pipeline jobs. For example resturant and other ancillary jobs that will be created to cater to the pipeline workers. Funny how Jay refuses to talk about indirect jobs or overall economic impact.
And oh btw I will take the word of the actual company itself that actually does this work as opposed to some study done by a university that isn’t even directly involved in the project. Sheesh.
And if we really want to know about an oil pipeline’s influence, particularly in terms of tax revenue and overall economic impact why don’t we just study economic history and look at the Alaska pipeline and its impact on Alaskans? Enjoy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System
jewcowboy
December 14th, 2011
12:34 pm
Aquagirl,
“A dim bulb over at Wingfields’ thought TransCanada’s pipeline will reduce our dependency on “foreign oil.”
Maybe they just meant from those scurrilous Arab types of foreign oil producers.
Thulsa Doom
December 14th, 2011
12:34 pm
“So while the pipeline construction would certainly help the Canadian tar-sands investors — many of them Chinese — get a higher price for their product by moving it to the Gulf, it could prove to be a wash or even a net negative in terms of jobs for American workers.”
“would certainly help investors(them evil rich people), “many of them Chinese”, it would be a wash or net negative to good ole American workers.
Aaaaah. When politics and propoganda substitutes as real discourse.
getalife
December 14th, 2011
12:34 pm
More corporate welfare and corrupt congress can inside trade on the deal.
Kill it like cantor killed the insider trading bill.
Brosephus
December 14th, 2011
12:34 pm
Yet another in the string of lies told by congressmen. I’m willing to bet that in their next election both will be soundly re-elected. Welcome to America, where jackasses are re-elected by more jackasses.
jewcowboy
December 14th, 2011
12:35 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“And oh btw I will take the word of the actual company itself that actually does this work as opposed to some study done by a university that isn’t even directly involved in the project”
Yeah…why would the company have any reason to inflate the number?
Logical Dude
December 14th, 2011
12:35 pm
but wouldn’t the pipeline help the full fuel-line infrastructure of the US? This is one of the major items that keeps the fuel prices in the US low: efficient movement of oil.
I’m for the pipeline since a failure of a single large pipeline (such as when a hurricane comes through) will cause prices to jump.
That being said, I don’t know all the details of this pipeline, and how it would actually support national oil supplies. But it still sounds like it’s needed to upgrade current distribution pipes.
Doggone/GA
December 14th, 2011
12:35 pm
“Maybe they just meant from those scurrilous Arab types of foreign oil producers”
Pity we can’t convince them it’s all been a mistake, and it’s really MEXICAN oil. Be interesting to see if they’d still say the same thing!
jewcowboy
December 14th, 2011
12:36 pm
Thulsa Doom,
I also suppose you trust Iran on their nuclear program, because, I mean they are actually doing the work.
Jay
December 14th, 2011
12:37 pm
Logical, I’m not opposed to the pipeline. I haven’t studied the environmental challenges enough to take a position one way or the other. But let’s at least be honest about what we’re dealing with here.
Paul Brounshirt
December 14th, 2011
12:37 pm
When we were expandin out West did we have these soft-spined communists whining about blowing up a few creeks and crawdad beds?
What do you people have against America? What do you have against capitalism?
Adam
December 14th, 2011
12:38 pm
OH SNAP. Where’s JohnnyReb?
jewcowboy
December 14th, 2011
12:38 pm
Logical Dude,
“I’m for the pipeline since a failure of a single large pipeline (such as when a hurricane comes through) will cause prices to jump.”
The major reason for the gas hikes/shortages in 2005 and 2008 was not lack of oil, but rather lack of refining capacity due to hurricanes shutting down refineries on the Gulf. Instead of shipping the oil to the Midwest to refine, we would be shipping it to the Gulf…where are hurricane could shut down refineries.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
December 14th, 2011
12:38 pm
Well, if we can get Canadian oil moving thru that pipeline and then sell the oil overseas, pretty soon other countries will be swimming in oil and Canada can just buy us out so we won’t need to worry about the debt. Heck, those foreign countries will have so much they’ll probly want to give it to us just to get rid of it. I can’t hardly wait till I drive my Ford F-450 up to a gas pump and get a fill-up for maybe $1.25. And who gives a flying flip if those folks in Nebraska have to pay to import water when theirs gets polluted? You got to break some eggs to get real mayonaise.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
Thulsa Doom
December 14th, 2011
12:38 pm
saywhat?
December 14th, 2011
12:24 pm
Just think of all the jobs that will be created if the pipeline is constructed as planned through a major aquifer,and then it leaks and destroys the drinking water for a large portion of the state
Huh? This could possibly, conceivably destroy the drinking waters “for a large portion of the state” BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHA. Sure buddy. Happens all the time huh. Matter of fact the Alaskans have to import water because Alaskan oil leaks have destroyed soooooo many municipal water supplies systems. Right? Of course you will read in that Alaska pipeline link I provided about 2 acres being soiled. And of course the company had to clean it up. An entire drinking water system could be destroyed? It just don’t get any more hypercrazy that that. No sir. It really don’t.
Adam
December 14th, 2011
12:39 pm
I would ask where the attention wh*re is but I’m just glad he hasn’t seen this yet and poisoned it with “You’re wrong Jay!” In an effort to get Jay to respond.
Butch Cassidy
December 14th, 2011
12:39 pm
Okay, I’ll compromise. I’ll fully support the the building of the pipeline if someone can explain to me how to clean up an underground aquifer should a leak occur in that area. Keep in mind that it’s not like cleaning up a beach, lake, river, ocean, etc… It’s undergrounf and runs for THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES linking inot other water sources. So, what’s the plan?
jewcowboy
December 14th, 2011
12:39 pm
Paul Brounshirt,
” What do you people have against America? What do you have against capitalism?”
Are you talking to Republicans?
Town Crier
December 14th, 2011
12:40 pm
I see the ACLU has filed suit in Wisconsin challenging the voting rights bill there. I’m curious – does any liberal leaning poster here want to argue that voting rights bills are unnecessary. I understand that most of the current laws don’t do what is really necessary. But is anyone here wishing to argue that illegal immigrants are not voting? According to this article, you would be wrong: http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691. Should that problem not be addressed by voter laws?
Thulsa Doom
December 14th, 2011
12:40 pm
jewcowboy,
And Iran has what relevance to my point? Exactly. None.
too little time
December 14th, 2011
12:40 pm
Thulsa Doom is right. So *maybe* 20,000 jobs is hype. This is a miniscule oversight compared to the 2 million “created or saved” bullcrap put out by the Obama admin for the stimulus. Better to be off by 14k than by 1.4 MILLION.
This pipeline WILL create long term jobs , WILL create “support” jobs, and will even create union jobs. This pipeline will go a long way to ensuring America’s energy security.
There is no reason it can’t be bundled with the payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment benefits. This was a brilliant move on the part of Republicans because it shows a willingness to compromise on their part, and that the Democrats are the party that is unwilling to compromise. This bill would create jobs, benefit unions, rural America, ALL SS paying Americans, and the unemployed. And who is holding it up? DEMOCRATS.
jewcowboy
December 14th, 2011
12:41 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHA.”
Yeah…accidents never happen. Just ask my family who live on Orange Beach and Pensacola Beach.
JohnnyReb
December 14th, 2011
12:42 pm
The Left never meets an oil project they like. Obama is on the ropes with this one and Jay trots out something to support him.
Adam
December 14th, 2011
12:43 pm
Butch: No one here knows the answer to that. In fact, I suspect the industry itself has a decades old “plan” for dealing with it that says we should save the whales and call dead people in an emergency (oh wait, that’s deep water drilling, sorry).
Brosephus
December 14th, 2011
12:44 pm
I understand that most of the current laws don’t do what is really necessary.
So, why whine about somebody challenging those laws? Does that no present the opportunity to scrap the bad law and replace it with something that does EXACTLY what’s necessary?
Logical Dude
December 14th, 2011
12:45 pm
Jay: let’s at least be honest about what we’re dealing with here.
Oh, you mean lying politicians and deceptive research results?
I thought that was a given. LOL
Adam
December 14th, 2011
12:45 pm
JohnnyReb: The Left never meets an oil project they like. Obama is on the ropes with this one and Jay trots out something to support him.
In other words, you got nothin.
No, Obama is not on the ropes on this one. I explained this to you already. The GOP has already played all their high cards. They can’t “extract” anything more from the Democrats. There is no more hostage to take. The drama TV series has been cancelled, the finale was the debt ceiling debate escalation.
Jay
December 14th, 2011
12:45 pm
Do you have anything SUBSTANTIVE to say, JohnnyReb?
Can you point out where I was wrong, or where the Cornell study was wrong? Have I misinterpreted something in your opinion?
Butch Cassidy
December 14th, 2011
12:45 pm
Paul Brounshirt – “When we were expandin out West did we have these soft-spined communists whining about blowing up a few creeks and crawdad beds?”
Exactly! We also had 6 year olds working in factories, 7 day work weeks, women forbidden to vote, “Whites Only” signs for public places and public approved lynchings of colored folks. You tell em Paul, we just need to get back to some good old fashioned American values!!!
jewcowboy
December 14th, 2011
12:45 pm
Thulsa Doom,
“And Iran has what relevance to my point? Exactly. None.”
You are the one that stated you believe the entity providing the facts over an independent review simply because the entity providing the facts are the ones “that actually does this work”. Well…Iran is providing the facts and they are the ones “that actually does this work.”
Kamchak
December 14th, 2011
12:45 pm
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691.
The rest of the story: This report was produced for The Heritage Foundation.
There’s your sign. Oy!
too little time
December 14th, 2011
12:46 pm
p.s. to all of you “endanger the aquifer” libtards, have a look at these maps:
oil pipelines:
http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/crude-pl.html
aquifers:
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es1406/es1406page10.cfm
You will see that oil pipelines have ALREADY run over MANY aquifers for decades. You tree hugger libtards have a baseless argument
Paul Brounshirt
December 14th, 2011
12:46 pm
jewcowboy: ‘Are you talking to Republicans?”
I’m talking about the socialist leader in chief and his ilk and minions out there gettin’ in the way of good honest god-fearing investors trying to provide a need to the people. These people need to get out of the way and let the market place work like it should.
Thulsa Doom
December 14th, 2011
12:47 pm
Butch Cassidy
December 14th, 2011
12:39 pm
Okay, I’ll compromise. I’ll fully support the the building of the pipeline if someone can explain to me how to clean up an underground aquifer should a leak occur in that area
I’ll compromise also. Just as someone shows me a link of where massive pipeline spills here in North America have ruined large municipal water supplies. I did read in my wiki link about 2 whole acres being polluted in an Alaskan pipeline leak.
I defer to wiki- “Pipeline networks are the most economic and safest pipeline transport for mineral oil, gases and other fluid products. As a means of long-distance transport, pipelines have to fulfill high demands of safety, reliability and efficiency.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leak_Detection
jewcowboy
December 14th, 2011
12:47 pm
too little time,
“There is no reason it can’t be bundled with the payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment benefits.”
Except maybe this, “In the Pledge to America, released by GOP leadership under much fanfare in September 2010, Republicans said they would “end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with ‘must-pass’ legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time,” they said.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70278.html#ixzz1gX5Secyp
Ayn Rant
December 14th, 2011
12:48 pm
And what’s the promotion of a Canadian-owned pipeline that brings oil from Chinese-owned tar sands in Canada to refineries in Texas got to do with extending payroll tax cuts for a hundred million working Americans and unemployment benefits for several million desperate Americans?
Why does Congress need to get involved with the project anyhow? Are they going to subsidize it? Wouldn’t we be better off fixing some of the fuel wasting bottlenecks on the interstate highways instead of promoting a pipeline to contaminate the aquifer supporting our major agricultural area?
Why not enact urgently needed legislation now, and quarrel over pipeline projects next year?
Kamchak
December 14th, 2011
12:48 pm
Don’t cry over spilled ilk.
ByteMe
December 14th, 2011
12:50 pm
Hello, Jm, how ’bout those 20000-100000 jobs you were saying were “in the paper, don’t you read?” comment!
BWAAAAAAH!
Town Crier
December 14th, 2011
12:50 pm
“So, why whine about somebody challenging those laws? Does that no present the opportunity to scrap the bad law and replace it with something that does EXACTLY what’s necessary?”
Whining? Why would you use such a cheap characterization of what I said? I think that both sides are at loggerheads on this issue and I think the practical solutions offered by the author of the cited article are very reasonable. What say you?
Adam
December 14th, 2011
12:50 pm
Paul: I’m talking about the socialist leader in chief and his ilk and minions
Wow. Just a few more Soros and Solyndra references and every single person here would get a bingo all at once!