I know that opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline love to use the talking point that the project will only create 35 permanent jobs, all aimed at maintaining it. It strikes me as a ridiculous figure, however, and if true a major problem. The project envisions a pipeline that would traverse parts of nine states. Could it be maintained with an average of less than four people per state? The thing is going to need routine maintenance, which ought to require more than 35 people to carry out, and what about when it springs a leak? And what about the people who have to monitor the flow and the people who have to offload the tar sands? And the people who have to oversee it all. And the folks that have to worry about legal compliance issues in nine states plus with the federal government?
Whatever you think of the environmental impact of the project, it will involve the movement of very valuable materials that will sell for billions of dollars. Even if almost all the money is sucked up by foreign owners, there ought to be at least some pittance left over that would create some downstream economic activity that creates some jobs.
If the point is that the pipeline is not going to create enough jobs to make any dent in the unemployment rate (certainly not 42,000 enduring jobs) and that it isn’t worth the risks and costs, then that’s fine. But when you are using a talking point repeatedly that even makes my eyes roll, I’d suggest that you aren’t convincing anybody.
The proper counter to a ludicrous claim is not another ludicrous claim. Make the claim work for you. Try this:
“Can you believe that TransCanada only plans to hire 35 employees and fifteen contractors to protect a 2,151-mile pipeline that traverses nine states?”
“What about the terrorists? If we can’t keep Ebola out of Texas how can we expect to keep ISIS from blowing up the pipeline? Unless those contractors are Navy Seals, we’re screwed.”
In other words, the problem with the project is that it will kill us all. And not because of the environment.
I believe that talking point is a cover for the real problems of the pipeline…such as, TransCanada using eminant domain to force their way across private property…It is still in court…
also Sioux in SD are not recognizing the eminent domain from what I’ve read
Jobs? Really?
My problem with Keystone XL is that it’s stupendously irresponsible to keep investing in fossil fuels when the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing. It honestly never occurred to me that people would be arguing against it on the basis of job creation. I always figured people who take climate change seriously would take one look at the proposal and say these people are out of their minds.
We all know you’re right, but Mary Landrieu and a whole lot of voters don’t or refuse to get it. Showing them that the pipeline is not worth shit in terms of their own premises is still worth doing.
I do wonder why it’s only dirty energy projects that create jobs. Some strange quirk in the laws of the universe, apparently.
It’s also Mideast wars.
Hmm, pretty strange isn’t it. Here’s a brand-new case of the Ohio EPA literally trying to hide the existence of clean energy jobs.
yes, the two points 1- no real job creation 2- proceeds exported, not used in USA need to be emphasized because there’s been so much misinformation ppl don’t know those two points even ppl in the region
According to Ari Rabin-Havt , that figure of 50 comes from Trans-Canada’s SEC filing. Are you saying a corporation would lie to the SEC? I’m shocked. Shocked!
But why would they lie with a lower jobs number?
Yes indeed. And if it seems extreme to use their actual figure of 50, a person could also mention the temporary construction jobs.
There seems to be a question whether that is 4200 or 42,000 or 45,000. According to Ari, 4200 is the number in the filing for temporary jobs. Don’t know how to find that on line to check.
What’s important as Kilgore says is that this is the only jobs program the Republicans have. Even if you accept the 42,000 2-year jobs promised as a reasonable accomplishment, the Obama economy adds more than that in a week. And they really have nothing else.
I’ve heard that the Keystone Pipeline will transport North Dakota oil to Louisiana refineries. I’ve also heard that it transports Canadian oil to Louisiana docks for export.
Which is correct or are both?
Both.
Thanks, Boo.
The pipeline is secure, it will not spring leaks. Hence no one will be employed for that.
btw ppl really do not know that the pipeline is not about processing tar sands for fuel to use in the USA. ppl think the price of fuel will be affected (true, it will, but mainly in China).
The pipeline is secure, it will not spring leaks. Hence no one will be employed for that.
This is snark, right?
yes of course. although they certainly claim it’s secure.
Yeah. For sure. Valves, couplings and other assorted devices like those never leak or fail. Ever. The Deepwater Horizon thing was a one in a million fluke. Rush told me so.
facts are even more dire; I read somewhere the number of failures already on their pipelines. will look for the story to link
Ask the folks of Kalamazoo MI how secure their pipelines are.
NPR reported a day or so ago that 50 employees would be needed after the 2 year construction phase. It was specifically indicated that that was the benefit of pipeline useage, a low number of employees required.
Hey, what if it springs a few really major leaks? That will employ lots of people.
Kind of like the Gulf oil spill, I’m sure a lot of people were employed to clean that baby up. In fact, it must still be generating jobs, since it isn’t all cleaned up by any means. And we can be grateful to BP for all those jobs.
Anyway, it’s useful to distinguish between construction, operation and maintenance. Construction would have to employ a fair number of people, but
it’s soon over and then what?
I can’t get myself too excited over the keystone pipeline issue for several reasons. Here’s one big one: If the pipeline isn’t built, the oil from the tar sands will still be moved into the states, but mainly on railways, which are not as safe for the environment or for people living nearby.
And which railways? Mainly, the Burlington Northern, bought 3 years ago or so by Warren Buffet, a big Obama donor. Buffet is making a ton of money every day the Keystone expansion is not built. Hmm, I wonder if this has anything to do with the delay in a decision on the pipeline?
What, just give up on the tar sands? For me that’s the whole point of opposing Keystone XL. You may be right, of course, maybe we can’t stop it, but the real issue isn’t over how this stuff is being transported. It’s that it’s being transported at all.
that’s how they are pressuring for the pipeline – saying trains are unsafe. how about working on making the rail transport safe? and phasing in alternative energy?
I imagine you don’t understand the Ogallala Aquifer – it is historical water, stored up multiple ages ago, encased in rock and lying under most of the Great Plains and watering most of our ag production, in some places very close to the surface. The water flows out in springs, but it cannot be “cleaned” if the dilbit leaks into it.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ogallala+aquifer+map&id=6CF192BA9638C38B4004DCAE82867633BBD1
B7BD&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=6CF192BA9638C38B4004DCAE82867633BBD1B7BD&selectedIndex=0
“that’s how they are pressuring for the pipeline – saying trains are unsafe”
Trains ARE more unsafe for oil transport than pipelines. Derailments happen, all the time, and a tanker full of oil heated by fire is a bomb, a very big bomb. As for making trains safer, or fighting for alternate energy sources, I’m all for that. Go for it. If you want to stop excavation of the tar sands, go for that. But chasing after the pipeline is not going to do any of those things, just keep the money spigot open for Warren Buffet, and make people living along the Burlington Northern a little less safe.
It won’t get developed without the pipeline. It’ll be too expensive. That’s the point of the pipeline: to make it economical. It’s already barely economical as it is. They won’t transport it by train.
Incorrect, unfortunately. Tar sands oil is already transported by train. It won’t get developed as quickly or extensively, is all. And the difference may not be that great, depending on the future price of crude oil.
well the pipeline wouldn’t come online for a couple years; that’s two years for hiring more operators and track maintenance workers for the RRs.
The point of piping it to LA is that the refineries are built already.
actually you missed the point of my first reply – the issue is framed as trains – unsafe vs. pipelines-safe but the more accurate framing is
trains – expensive to upgrade vs pipelines – incalculably expensive because of more or less certain damage to food production
since the pipeline is marketed as “safe”, no repair personnel needed, the real issues are not on the table
You are talking about expense, I’m talking about safety. They are different things.
The expense of pipeline spills is not incalculable. The largest inland pipeline spill has cost an estimate $765M, spilling. 1 million U.S. Gallons of bitoil. That’s the amount of oil carried by 35 standard tanker cars. No injuries. Pretty bad, but calculable.
Now please calculate for me the cost of this which killed 42 people, and injured dozens, and leveled a square km of a town.
well, that’s my point. safety is a starting point for discussion not an end point. the trains are less safe now, but the trains can be made safer with more personnel, track work, etc – which they are not right now because of the expense- especially from what it seems was the cause of Lac Megantic disaster, only one guy there. pipelines, not so much. you’re not thinking through what I wrote about the Ogallala aquifer. a spill into it – and we’re talking when, not if, since there is no record of pipelines w/o spills, could not be cleaned up because of the nature of the aquifer. did you look at the map? that water is there preserved from geologic eras it’s not a coming and going flow of water
I didn’t miss your point about the aquifer, I don’t find it compelling. The state department report doesn’t think there’s much risk to it , and neither do experts with no dog in the fight: here’s one from UNL who specializes in the Ogallala, who explains why in fairly simple terms:
“Seventy-five to 80 percent of the aquifer lies west of the proposed pipeline route. The aquifer is sloped downward going east. If there were a spill, that entire section is unavailable to be harmed because water cannot move uphill. The 15 to 20 percent left, Goeke says, is in very little risk thanks to abundant fine-grain clays, sediment and sandstone separating the aquifer and potential contaminants from the pipeline.
While Goeke agrees 20 percent would be a problem, he thinks the chances of a leak reaching the aquifer are very minimal.
“It can’t get down to the water table because of the nature of the sediments in the unsaturated zone,” he said.”
Also, you keep saying that we could reduce the risk of transport by trains, like that is easy to do. Yes, we could, with work, time and money. Will that happen? No, it won’t, I guarantee it. The same dumbasses who run our train system now will be running it over the next 10 years when, at some point, an oil tanker bomb destroys an American town. And nothing will be done after that either, if I had to guess.
Now, neglecting such hypotheticals as train explosions or pipeline leaks that somehow contaminate the aquifer, the state department report also shows that train transport of oil harms the environment MORE than the pipeline would. Because trains use fuel to operate, etc etc.
well, it’s not really a debate if you close off one option by claiming something [safety improvement of train transport] won’t happen. The whole point of discussion is bringing up the pros and cons, costs and alternatives. don’t just shut out an option saying “it won’t happen”. train upgrade is expensive, but it must be done. trains use fuel, yes. but pipelines break. do we have any instances of pipelines not breaking?
btw, I’m totally opposed to the word “spill” in this regard, sounds like a teacup upset on the dining room table.
Interesting what Goeke writes, but I’m going to check with some sources and resources about his assessment.
You mean to say that you forgot that passage of the Mary Landrieu Memorial Pipeline Bill will constitute a state of war with the Rosebud band of the Great Sioux Nation, which means maybe a couple thousand potential warriors, some of whom are recent veterans?
Hopefully, the Democratic caucus in the Senate knows what to do to make life easier on the President.
And then the National Transportation Safety Board just needs to tighten its regulations on transporation of dilbit and the EPA needs to tighten its regulations on methane burnoff. Both of those are executive actions.
Diluted Bitumen. Mmmm! Sounds tasty. Actually, it sounds a lot like liquid coal. Maybe Mitch should take a bath in it and let us know.
Aren’t there big piles of it in Detroit or Chicago, sitting around waiting for transport?
There are big piles of something in Chicago, primarily in City Hall.
Petcoke…or pet Koch…depending on where you are looking.
yes, that’s what I was thinking of
Tribal leader said it’s an act of war, I guess you saw that
Yes, I did. And I think the reference to the Great Sioux Nation means that a several tribal councils in conference made an alliance on this issue. Not sure how many tribal councils that includes. But the tribal councils tend to be BIA-friendly and somewhat moderate in their actions. This could be a big deal.
Apparently the Mary Landrieu Memorial Amendment went down to defeat. Be interesting to see the roll call and the spin to see if it’s a zombie.
14 Dems for Keystone: Begich, Bennet, Carper, Casey, Donnelly, Hagan, Heitkamp, Landrieu, Manchin, McCaskill, Pryor, Tester, Walsh, Warner
Mostly Western, which makes some sense. Landrieu is a given. With a runoff coming wouldn’t make sense to vote against something that causes more export from Louisiana. OTOH, isn’t it one of the most polluted states? A friend who used to live there said the cancer rate was sky high.
Forgot that I was going to ask, “what’s Warner doing on that list?”
Southwestern Virginia, obviously.
Despite living in NoVa for seven years, I totally forgot about that. West Virgina as a coal state, yeah. But it never seemed to be of much importance in Virginia. FedGov in NoVa. StateGov in Richmond. Navy in Norfolk. UVA in Charlottesville. Apples and horse breeding in the countryside in between. Moonshine in Carrol County, the biggest per capita market in the state for yeast and sugar. But never thought about coal or oil.
How’s this for being against it.
beautiful land, yes,and where a large % of our and world food supply is produced. here’s the map of Ogallala aquifer again
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ogallala+aquifer+map&id=6CF192BA9638C38B4004DCAE82867633BBD1
B7BD&FORM=IQFRBA
OR…
The problem with the project is that it will kill us all, through the environment.
I don’t think shooting peas at this is going to persuade any one.
The problem with the pipeline is that it will increase global warming. If we’re afraid to make the case on these merits, no one will be interested in our views on the stupid thing’s maintenance requirements.
Part and parcel of the whole “Dems have no soul” issue…
Most people are far more concerned with jobs and the price of gasoline than global warming. Short-sighted, unfortunate, reckless even, but true.
You’re kidding, right? You’ve just justified this project with trickle down ideology.
This is the key quote from the Politifact link:
The pipeline is not a jobs project. It’s purpose is to move oil using as few people as possible. That keeps costs low for the oil companies and makes the resource easier to develop and export. It’s the opposite of a jobs project. If you assume, as the State Department did, that the tar sands are going to be tapped regardless, then we are talking about a net loss in the number of jobs involved. If you assume, as environmentalists do, that keeping the costs high will prevent most of the tar sands from being developed, then building the pipeline makes the climate problem worse. If you are a competitor in the energy industry, Keystone makes your own resource less valuable because it floods the market with oil. If you are a landowner along the pipeline route, you run the risk of having your property confiscated, and run the risk associated with any spills or leaks.
Keystone would be a generous gift to some very wealthy billionaires. For everyone else, it’s a net loss.