Obama Blocks Pipeline to Get Cheap Canadian Oil

#29
#29
theFallGuy said:
How are the employment numbers in question LG?
Click to expand...


Keystone XL: Liberal Histrionics Answered With Conservative Histrionics - Forbes

Proponents, however, offer arguments for the pipeline that are little better than are the objections. First, we hear incessantly about “tens of thousands” of new jobs (perhaps as many as 119,000 jobs according to an economic consulting firm hired by TransCanada, the firm that hopes to build the pipeline) for an economy in great need of new employment opportunities. Yet TransCanada itself acknowledges that only 2,500 to 4,650 workers would be required to build the pipeline. The remainder of the alleged jobs come from: adding jobs already created (or, in many cases, already come and gone) from Keytsone’s previous pipeline expansion investments to the jobs that would follow from letting the rest of the project go forward; dubious “multiplier effects” (the use of which is routinely attacked by free market analysts, at least in other contexts); and an ill-founded assumption that domestic rather than foreign firms will provide most of the raw materials and engineering work necessary for pipeline construction.

The only independent economic impact study comes from researchers at Cornell. Their review of the methodology used to produce these high end job creation estimates is, for the most part, devastating. Their review of the methodology used to produce these high end job creation estimates is devastating. Their conclusion? It’s unlikely that more than 4,650 temporary new jobs would be created and only 50 of those jobs would remain after the pipeline was completed. Big deal.
Click to expand...
 
#30
#30
That being said, playing into the enviromental vote is going to hurt Obama. He's just buying votes from votes he already had. And it's poor logic in the first place.
 
#32
#32
Weezy, those are the kinds of reports I've seen. The industry claiming 120,000 jobs and Cornell saying its less than 5,000, and all but a handful are temporary.

I can see the bias potential with the hired gun economic team, can't really see why Cornell would lie about it.

I just don't want us all to be lied to about what the project would really do and what it would really mean.
 
#34
#34
Weezy said:
That being said, playing into the enviromental vote is going to hurt Obama. He's just buying votes from votes he already had. And it's poor logic in the first place.
Click to expand...

Bezdomny said:
Good point.
Click to expand...


Is it?

If his only motivation was to secure votes from environmentalists, why block it?

Just seems to me that the issue must be more complicated than that.
 
#36
#36
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Not sure where you got the 120k number. It would be more like 20k.
Click to expand...

Was quoted in his article and I do believe I've heard that from interviews with the folks working for the pipeline proponents.

They are counting "spin-off" jobs. Like workers at the Appelbee's built to feed the pipeline guys. That seems to be a major source of skepticism.
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
Weezy, those are the kinds of reports I've seen. The industry claiming 120,000 jobs and Cornell saying its less than 5,000, and all but a handful are temporary.

I can see the bias potential with the hired gun economic team, can't really see why Cornell would lie about it.

I just don't want us all to be lied to about what the project would really do and what it would really mean.
Click to expand...

Well gee, only a meager 5,000 jobs? We can't have that. Especially not with unemployment at most likely 10% or higher.
 
#39
#39
theFallGuy said:
Well gee, only a meager 5,000 jobs? We can't have that. Especially not with unemployment at most likely 10% or higher.
Click to expand...


Would be great to have them, sure, but I'm not sure that 5,000 jobs (with 4900 of them temporary) is worth the risk caused by the pipeline.

Its a question of cost/risk and benefit. I'm seeing a whole lot of claims about both, from both sides, with the other assailing their counterpart as either a lunatic environmentalist or a greedy oil company exec.

Not sure who to believe. And things like the employment potential overclaim are alarming.
 
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
Is it?

If his only motivation was to secure votes from environmentalists, why block it?

Just seems to me that the issue must be more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

I believe the article I posted gets at some underlying issues:

1) Tar sands oil itself - it's a relatively dirty oil. Obama is clearly against dirty energy. As the article points out though his stated objection is not about that even though his accumulated comments about energy point that way.

2) Fossil vs Green energy tensions - freeing up fossil fuels weakens the case for green investments now. Again, we've seen his words and actions indicating this but he won't publicly state it for this instance.

Bottomline, I believe he wants to move us off fossil fuels faster than then general population does. He can't take this position directly so he objects to projects like this on grounds of "we need more studies" (has been studied since 2008) to avoid deciding. The coup de grace is blaming Republicans for forcing him to deny it.
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
I believe the article I posted gets at some underlying issues:

1) Tar sands oil itself - it's a relatively dirty oil. Obama is clearly against dirty energy. As the article points out though his stated objection is not about that even though his accumulated comments about energy point that way.

2) Fossil vs Green energy tensions - freeing up fossil fuels weakens the case for green investments now. Again, we've seen his words and actions indicating this but he won't publicly state it for this instance.

Bottomline, I believe he wants to move us off fossil fuels faster than then general population does. He can't take this position directly so he objects to projects like this on grounds of "we need more studies" (has been studied since 2008) to avoid deciding. The coup de grace is blaming Republicans for forcing him to deny it.
Click to expand...


Ok, well,now that is an interesting point about preventing use of fossil fuels in order to make green energy more economically viable. Will have to consider that.
 
#43
#43
VolsNSkinsFan said:
LG... Where do you want your oil to come from and how do we get it here? We import 40% of our oil btw.
Click to expand...


I know, and it sucks.

In principle I am certainly for the pipeline. I just don't think it is as easy as saying the president doesn't care about jobs and is trying to keep a handful of environmentalists in the fold. That just doesn't make sense to me.

I think there must be either some big money issues involved and influencing the politics or that there is a lot more to this policy-wise than meets the eye.
 
#44
#44
Thats the only reason I can think of. Canada is getting that oil out of the ground one way or the other, the question is who it's going to. Also, it seems like most job figures on it are overestimated.
 
#45
#45
milohimself said:
Thats the only reason I can think of. Canada is getting that oil out of the ground one way or the other, the question is who it's going to. Also, it seems like most job figures on it are overestimated.
Click to expand...


I am less inclined to allow the pipeline if it means 4,900 temp jobs and 50 permanent ones.

I'm not saying I would necessarily say no, but I'd be far less supportive based on those estimates than 120,000 jobs.

And as to impact on independence from Arab oil, I'd like to know more about that because I am absolutely 100 percent for that, but of course only if it can be done reasonably.

How much oil will the pipeline produce for US refineries and what does that translate into in terms of less dependence on foreign oil?
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
I am less inclined to allow the pipeline if it means 4,900 temp jobs and 50 permanent ones.
Click to expand...

I've noticed you keep ratcheting down the estimates of job impact. A post or 2 earlier you were at 4900 and 100.

I expect the next post to be 2000 temps and a net loss of 500...
 
#49
#49
so the oil will be refined in china with its nonexistent environmental standards/protections vs. sending it to Texas where the entire pipeline and refinery process will be monitored by the EPA
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
I am less inclined to allow the pipeline if it means 4,900 temp jobs and 50 permanent ones.

I'm not saying I would necessarily say no, but I'd be far less supportive based on those estimates than 120,000 jobs.

And as to impact on independence from Arab oil, I'd like to know more about that because I am absolutely 100 percent for that, but of course only if it can be done reasonably.

How much oil will the pipeline produce for US refineries and what does that translate into in terms of less dependence on foreign oil?
Click to expand...

I don't know how much oil the pipeline would translate into but it must be significant, otherwise, why would large oil companies care? In my opinion, any amount that reduces our dependence on Middle East oil is worth the investment.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top