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

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

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.

:roll:

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? :D

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!

Brosephus

December 14th, 2011
12:51 pm

Kamchak

And he still didn’t answer my question. Must be one of those paid bloggers I keep hearing about. All this crying about illegals voting and stuff and not one single conservative has refuted the point I keep bringing up. Election laws limit FEDERAL elections to citizens only. State and local laws can allow for non-citizens to vote and some places have allowed that to happen.

Logical Dude

December 14th, 2011
12:51 pm

I got it!!!!

20,000 jobs WILL be created! Because 10,000 are needed for quality control inspection of pipeline leaks, 5,000 managers of those quality leaky people, and 5,000 more to actually fix / prevent leaks.

Because an actual leak would cost a lot more than prevention of the leak.

jewcowboy

December 14th, 2011
12:52 pm

Paul Brounshirt,

Apologies…didn’t realize you were referring to the ilkies.

But you have to be much more specific. A statement like “What do you people have against America? What do you have against capitalism?” could read either way depending on what side of the strabismic diatribe you are trying to ascribe.

Joseph

December 14th, 2011
12:52 pm

I honestly don’t care if it only creates one job Jay. It won’t cost tax payers a dime!!!!! Thats the liberal logic for you though…. If it don’t fit your beliefs that the government needs to have a heavy hand in it you have to be against it….

Tommy Maddox

December 14th, 2011
12:52 pm

It would only create 13,000 jobs?

Well no way then. No wonder the Left is against it.

Don

December 14th, 2011
12:54 pm

Counting jobs is ALWAYS the wrong thing to judge any project by. The measure is “what does it cost us” vs. “what do we get” and how does it compare to the alternatives. Counting “jobs” is just political silliness.

jewcowboy

December 14th, 2011
12:54 pm

too little time,

“You tree hugger libtards have a baseless argument”

Yeah..and fast-tracking Gulf oil permits happened too. With absolutely no adverse results.

AmVet

December 14th, 2011
12:54 pm

Glenn Beck is estimating 500,000 jobs will be created…

Kamchak

December 14th, 2011
12:54 pm

Must be one of those paid bloggers I keep hearing about.

SoCo/Bro

I believe he is a regular who constantly changes his “handle.”

Town Crier

December 14th, 2011
12:54 pm

“The rest of the story: This report was produced for The Heritage Foundation. There’s your sign. Oy!”

So let me get this straight: are you saying that nothing produced by conservatives for the Heritage Foundation is accurate or truthful? Let’s get down to brass tacks: the author asserts that, in fact, more than a handful of illegal immigrants are voting. Is that true or not? If not, what evidence do you have for denying his claim? If it is true, is that not a problem in your view?

Thulsa Doom

December 14th, 2011
12:55 pm

JewCowboy,

Apples and oranges.

jewcowboy

December 14th, 2011
12:55 pm

Thulsa Doom,

“Just as someone shows me a link of where massive pipeline spills here in North America have ruined large municipal water supplies.”

An offshore oil platforms are so far out there is no way a leak on one could impact the beaches of the US.

Brosephus

December 14th, 2011
12:56 pm

Town Crier

I consider it whining when you’re bringing up a problem and not offering a solution. The whole voter law issue is nothing more than political red meat. Why enact laws when you’re gonna cut enforcement of the same law? We don’t have adequate enforcement of current laws so why go through the act of trying to enact new laws? Current laws make it illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal and/or nationwide elections. It’s up to the state and/or municipality to enact laws that dictate whether non-citizens can be eligible to vote. I see nothing wrong with that current set up because fed law dictates fed elections and does not trample on the right for states and locals to enact their own laws.

JohnnyReb

December 14th, 2011
12:57 pm

Jay, I stated facts. Obama is on the ropes on this. If he goes along, he loses the treehugger base. If he rejects it, the majority of voters will agree he truly is not for jobs or lowering energy prices.

I don’t believe I am wrong in stating you support Obama; you prove that everyday. You write an article based on one study from a bunch of college kids and believe it correct.

jewcowboy

December 14th, 2011
12:58 pm

Thulsa Doom,

“Apples and oranges.”

So you readily accept the word of one entity because the entity providing the facts are the ones “that actually does this work”, but not another? Why?

Kamchak

December 14th, 2011
12:59 pm

…are you saying that nothing produced by conservatives for the Heritage Foundation is accurate or truthful?

Thirty years of talk-radio vilifying the “liberal media” as biased, and now that it’s your ox being gored, you are crying foul?

Welcome to my world.

Jay

December 14th, 2011
12:59 pm

That’s fine, Joseph. If you and others want to advocate for the pipeline on that basis, go ahead and do so. It has the advantage of at least being honest, which this “20,000 jobs” approach is not.

Paul Brounshirt

December 14th, 2011
12:59 pm

Butch Cassidy: “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”

I know I know, that’s what I’m trying to say. All these communists want to make us forget just how good things were. It’s just wronggg.

Town Crier

December 14th, 2011
12:59 pm

“All this crying about illegals voting and stuff and not one single conservative has refuted the point I keep bringing up. Election laws limit FEDERAL elections to citizens only. State and local laws can allow for non-citizens to vote and some places have allowed that to happen.”

Why don’t YOU answer these questions: the author asserts that, in fact, more than a handful of illegal immigrants are voting. Is that true or not? If not, what evidence do you have for denying his claim? If it is true, is that not a problem in your view?

Secondly, do you not think federal elections are very important. Thirdly, just because state and local laws may allow voting by illegal immigrants, does that mean it is right (segregation was legal once, remember)? And if a state or locality decides they don’t want illegals voting, how would they accomplish that goal presently?

Paul

December 14th, 2011
1:00 pm

Always… always…. always…. question the methodology.

In this case, it’s sorely lacking.

’sides which, it’s Canadian oil… socialist oil…. you’d think Republicans would be afraid of catching the socialism. Next thing you know, they’ll want to import Canadian healthcare.

ByteMe

December 14th, 2011
1:00 pm

You want your pipeline spills data?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/09/business/energy-environment/pipeline-spills.html

More than 110 million gallons so far in the US alone.

Perspective comes with hard data.

Jimmy62

December 14th, 2011
1:01 pm

I never said the 20k number. In fact, the number will be higher, but they won’t all be direct construction jobs, they’ll be support jobs, trickle down jobs, etc. And anything that lowers our dependence on middle east oil is going to help in myriad other ways that are less easy to quantify. As far as Chinese investors… Sure, they’ll get some of the profit… But we could let Canada build the pipline to their west coast for China instead… And then the Chinese investors will not only get almost all the profit, but they’ll get the oil, too.

I know, let’s take everything of value on our continent, and ship it to China. That’ll help our economy!

That’s what Obama and Jay seem to think, anyway.

St Simons - we're on Island time

December 14th, 2011
1:01 pm

Beyond entertainment value, or conservative porn, the
Heritage foundation has no credibility among the math professions.

I’m beginning to think some on here aren’t aware of that.

ByteMe

December 14th, 2011
1:02 pm

It won’t cost tax payers a dime!!!!!

And the BP oil rig explosion didn’t cost us anything, right?

Uh…. no.

Town Crier

December 14th, 2011
1:02 pm

“Thirty years of talk-radio vilifying the “liberal media” as biased, and now that it’s your ox being gored, you are crying foul? Welcome to my world.”

Answer the questions, why don’t you?

Adam

December 14th, 2011
1:03 pm

Jimmy62: “Trickle down” jobs don’t exist, unless you’re referring to janitors cleaning up the trickle left in bathrooms.

St Simons - we're on Island time

December 14th, 2011
1:03 pm

picture Bill Orvis White or Redneck Convert doing statistics.

that’s the heritage foundation

Adam

December 14th, 2011
1:05 pm

Town Crier

December 14th, 2011
1:06 pm

“I consider it whining when you’re bringing up a problem and not offering a solution.”

I think the author has come up with some good solutions? Did you read it? If not, then why debate with me?

“Current laws make it illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal and/or nationwide elections.”

And how are they presently being enforced?

JohnnyReb

December 14th, 2011
1:07 pm

Tagging on to Joseph’s 12:52. If the pipeline is bust, it won’t cost taxpayers. And, do you really think the company would build it if they did not see a profit? If the pipeline is not build, Canada will sell the oil to China. Their prime minister has told Obama that very thing. No, delaying the pipeline is purely political backed by those who believe all oil is evil and that our salvation will be in green energy.

Kamchak

December 14th, 2011
1:08 pm

Answer the questions, why don’t you?

Because it’s not about the questions, it’s about The Heritage Foundation.

Again — this is out of the thirty-year-old conservative playbook, vilify the source.

Again — this time it is your ox being gored.

Again — welcome to my world.

NIght Train

December 14th, 2011
1:08 pm

So some group did not like the original estimates and they take a ‘part’ (large part? small part? just the name of the report?) of the original ‘important data behind the estimate’ and produce something that greatly differs from the original estimate.

Jay wrote:
“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.”

Now we have the loonily left touting the report as gospel! So with admittedly only some part of the information they came up with the whole truth and the only truth. While those with all of the important data came to the wrong conclusion.

SMH in amazement!!

Peadawg

December 14th, 2011
1:08 pm

Seriously, thanks for this column, Jay. Now I know Obama threatened to veto…yikes.

Jason

December 14th, 2011
1:09 pm

Sorry, Jay. You’re wrong. I spent the last 4 years constructing the original Keystone pipeline, and I can attest to the original 20K figure. You see, it’s not simply “construction workers” that this project employs. A pipeline is a virtual “conduit of prosperity” everywhere it travels through. You really just don’t seem to understand the scope of opportunities that are created when a line is constructed. Along with your basic construction trades, you have all the new utilities that have to be laid. Everything has to be inspected and approved. Countless checks and rechecks to ensure that 50 years from now, things will still be running smoothly. You have the new vehicles purchased for the project (usually local). You have the “service” end of the equasion. How many service jobs are created with an influx of 500-600 people moving in to work? The hardware store owner that has to stay open 16 hrs a day to meet the demand of essential construction supplies. The restraunts that now have a lunch crowd of 200 instead of 50. The tire shop that has to add employees, just to keep up with demand. The auto mechanics that have 20 trucks waiting for service. Your article sounds like you have never had the opportunity to work on one of these massive projects, mores the pity. Those of us that do this for a living know the truth about the positive growth and impact that only a project of this scale can create. Maybe you should stick with what you know best, sitting behind a desk, postulating about unimportant things. Leave the important issues to those with experience.

jewcowboy

December 14th, 2011
1:10 pm

” are you saying that nothing produced by conservatives for the Heritage Foundation is accurate or truthful?”

Right wingers readily accept what is produced by Moveon.org and the Center for American Progress all the time.

Town Crier

December 14th, 2011
1:11 pm

“Because it’s not about the questions, it’s about The Heritage Foundation.”

I asked those questions. If you decline to answer them, there is not a person here who won’t conclude (since you have time to otherwise respond) that you are evading the issue of whether or not there is a problem that needs to be solved. You can yammer on all you want about the Heritage Foundation, but you are merely throwing out a red herring.

St Simons - we're on Island time

December 14th, 2011
1:14 pm

Also, having done a few statements, let me tell you –

If Webster made up a new word and called it
“socialize the costs & privatize the profits”
and you looked up that word, the picture
beside that word would be of an oil bidness.

Pennsylvanian

December 14th, 2011
1:14 pm

Wow! A report from Cornell University Global Labor Institute, which in turn is funded by the taxpayers of New York. Any chance something called Global Labor Institute may have an agenda? I’ll bet Jay is working hard to find another college student study contradicting this one. Right?

Granny Godzilla

December 14th, 2011
1:15 pm

Jason

December 14th, 2011
1:09 pm
Sorry, Jay. You’re wrong. I spent the last 4 years constructing the original Keystone pipeline,

Former Keystone Pipeline Inspector Says Construction Shortcuts Are Tied To Leaks

Great Job there Jason.

Anybody want to hire this guy to build a house?

Kamchak

December 14th, 2011
1:16 pm

…but you are merely throwing out a red herring.

Which is the entire raison d’être for thirty years of talk-radio.

Again — welcome to my world.

Brosephus

December 14th, 2011
1:16 pm

the author asserts that, in fact, more than a handful of illegal immigrants are voting. Is that true or not? If not, what evidence do you have for denying his claim? If it is true, is that not a problem in your view?

I have no idea as I am not an election official. I have no proof that it’s true, and I have no proof that it’s false. Until there’s proof that it’s in violation of current law, it’s not a problem at all in my eyes. As I stated, some places allow for non-citizens to vote.

Secondly, do you not think federal elections are very important.

Where did I state something to suggest that? Currently, I think that all elections are nothing but a charade that allows those with money to continue to exert their control over the government. They’re all shams. Whether they’re important or not is moot as long as they don’t mean sh*t.

Thirdly, just because state and local laws may allow voting by illegal immigrants, does that mean it is right (segregation was legal once, remember)?

You presume too much. Just because state or local laws allow for non-citizens to vote, that does not automatically equate to allowing illegal immigrants to vote. You should cut back on your rhetoric intake. That will clear up confusion that you’re obviously experiencing. Allowing non-citizens to vote merely allows legal permanent residents to vote in elections that directly impact where they live. They still have to prove their status by presenting proof of legal residency i.e. form I-551, which is commonly called a green card. As far as being right, yep, I think it is right to allow permanent residents a vote in local elections because they own homes and pay property taxes. They should be allowed to vote for the jackasses that will determine how their tax dollars are spent.

And if a state or locality decides they don’t want illegals voting, how would they accomplish that goal presently?

Enact legislation to do that. All one has to do is produce evidence of citizenship OR legal permanent residence status when registering to vote. It’s not hard to do that. It’s not hard to check voter registration lists either. It gets hard to do that when you can’t afford to do so because you keep cutting taxes and giving away revenue in the hopes of attracting 10 permanent jobs.

Butch Cassidy

December 14th, 2011
1:18 pm

Jason – “Sorry, Jay. You’re wrong. I spent the last 4 years constructing the original Keystone pipeline,”

Hey Jason, I’ve spent a lot of time in the Williston Basin area and have a lot of friends in the Oil and Gas business. Where were you working on the pipeline and what were you doing?

Town Crier

December 14th, 2011
1:18 pm

“Right wingers readily accept what is produced by Moveon.org and the Center for American Progress all the time.”

I actually do read and consider stuff read on liberal sites. It simply cannot be all wrong. It is productive to hear the other side on issues. I agree that many of the laws being passed to not do a good job of solving the problem of people voting who should not be voting. But can anyone point me to Democrats who have sponsored legislation to pass good voter laws?

Brosephus

December 14th, 2011
1:18 pm

And how are they presently being enforced?

There’s instances of legal permanent residents losing their status and/or being fined for voting in fed elections. I’ve seen deportations and entry refusals based on voting records and/or registration. YOU probably have not seen or heard of such things because that gets little media attention. However, I actually work in immigration and see those things happening.

jewcowboy

December 14th, 2011
1:19 pm

Pennsylvanian,

“Any chance something called Global Labor Institute may have an agenda?”

Well from the NYT’s, “Amaya Tune, a spokeswoman for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said the labor federation had not taken a position on the pipeline legislation. But some of its affiliates — including the building and construction trades department of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the Laborers’ International Union of North America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers — strongly support the pipeline.”

And the Cornell University Global Labor Institute’s partner’s: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/sponsors/

So if anything…they have should have an agenda of supporting this pipeline’s construction.

Thulsa Doom

December 14th, 2011
1:19 pm

ByteMe

December 14th, 2011
1:00 pm
You want your pipeline spills data?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/09/business/energy-environment/pipeline-spills.html

“More than 110 million gallons so far in the US alone.

Perspective comes with hard data.”

Byte Me,

I’ll ask it again. How many municipal water supplies systems have been ruined by pipeline leaks?Sheesh.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we collectively spilt more gas at gas pumps every year then is leaked by oil pipelines. Criminy.

Misty Fyed

December 14th, 2011
1:20 pm

Never trust an oil man further than you can throw him….

I’m still waiting on the same detailed analysis on all the shovel ready jobs we were promised by Obama with the stimulus.

I probably shouldn’t hold my breath though…

Butch Cassidy

December 14th, 2011
1:22 pm

Thulsa Doom – “I wouldn’t be surprised if we collectively spilt more gas at gas pumps every year then is leaked by oil pipelines”

Perhaps, but how many gas stations have we built directly above a natural water basin?

Adam

December 14th, 2011
1:22 pm

Misty Fyed: http://www.recovery.gov/

You’re welcome.

Brosephus

December 14th, 2011
1:23 pm

As to reading the article, I breezed through it, but nowhere did I see the author mention that it is not illegal for non-citizens to register to vote in state or local elections, where it is authorized. The fact that he fails to mention that suggests that either he’s trying to push a biased opinion or he’s ignorant of actual law. I’m willing to go with the former as the paper was produced for the Heritage Foundation. I’ve read enough of their immigration stuff to know that they are NOT looking for unbiased discussion.