Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In the States or Canada?

In the States.

Here's the only independent study I've found evaluating the jobs impact of KXL. The highest end estimate of jobs is about 2000 temporary two-year construction jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallab..._Reportpdf.pdf

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

What does Obama have to do with SOPA? White House is against the bill that has mostly GOP sponsorship in the house and Senate but whatever...

My mistake. I thought the White House was for it as well.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Northern Gateway wont break ground by 2016. Litigation will see to that.

I personally don't see it happening at all. The economic benefit of the pipeline disproportionately goes to Alberta whereas the environmental liability of the project disproportionately goes to British Columbia.

Plus the groups most heavily opposed aren't really about 'having their concerns catered to' but rather they are not open to anything other than killing the project.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How much money did they pay the first time.

The tempting thought is to tell them to pound sand and go West.

Pretty tough to do though when TCPL has already invested so much $$ in the project.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

In the States.

Here's the only independent study I've found evaluating the jobs impact of KXL. The highest end estimate of jobs is about 2000 temporary two-year construction jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallab..._Reportpdf.pdf

Ahh, the rub...It has always been about removing the spread b/w brent and WTI.

KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying 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. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other

spending and will therefore cost jobs.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I personally don't see it happening at all. The economic benefit of the pipeline disproportionately goes to Alberta whereas the environmental liability of the project disproportionately goes to British Columbia.

Plus the groups most heavily opposed aren't really about 'having their concerns catered to' but rather they are not open to anything other than killing the project.

I'm in agreement except for the fact that both provincial governments and the federal government are so invested in the project. We haven't really seen this amount of multi-jurisdictional backing on a project since the transcanada highways. They will try to ram this through. And the court's haven't been particularly kind of First Nations rights of land. That really is the only sticking point.

Now that could change with a change in government over the next year in BC which is looking likely. Gateway will undoubtedly be a key campaign issue in that election and if the NDP wins then we'll see a fundamental shift in the dynamic.

But relying on FN rights and title to hold up the project is not a slam dunk at all.

[burn_this_city]

Isn't it prudent to get the best price for your goods?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

In the States.

Here's the only independent study I've found evaluating the jobs impact of KXL. The highest end estimate of jobs is about 2000 temporary two-year construction jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallab..._Reportpdf.pdf

Just thought I would peel out a piece of this study where is brings up the presumption that this project doesn't create as many jobs as advertised because it would threaten green jobs.

Keystone XL’s Impact on the Green Economy
and Green Jobs

It is also important to consider the jobs that may not be created as a result of KXL. Many believe its approval will likely have a chilling effect on those in the private sector and in public policy who have positioned themselves on the cutting edge of the green economy. Small business organizations such as the Green Chamber of Commerce and the Green Business Network (representing more than 5,000 enterprises) agree that
KXL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal.

100 The level of green investments is also influenced by the degree of political will to reduce global warming pollution. The approval of KXL and an acceleration in the use of Tar Sands oil sends a clear and disturbing message: not only is Canada not serious about reaching its
(already unachievable) Kyoto targets, but the US Administration is reneging on its stated commitment to provide leadership in the global effort to combat climate change.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Isn't it prudent to get the best price for your goods?

Of course, profit motive reigns supreme but O&G spins that this is about job creation and getting oil from "friendly" nations rather than the ME. It doesn't work that way.

I still think Obama or, of course, a GOP administration is going to push it through but in 2013 which was always going to be the case.

[flamingreen]

When they talk about the number of jobs that this project will create they are talking about "person years". So, if a person works two years on this project that is two jobs created. The projected numbers are all pretty dubious.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Just thought I would peel out a piece of this study where is brings up the presumption that this project doesn't create as many jobs as advertised because it would threaten green jobs.

Yes but they don't quantify that impact or attempt to estimate a net effect. The job numbers they describe are based on the actual project outlays and the likely broader macro economic impacts, of which I don't see much issue with. Seems like a solid framework.

Conclusion still remains, minimal job impact of approving or cancelling the project.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

Of course, profit motive reigns supreme but O&G spins that this is about job creation and getting oil from "friendly" nations rather than the ME. It doesn't work that way.

I still think Obama or, of course, a GOP administration is going to push it through but in 2013 which was always going to be the case.

I think the benefits are two-fold. Breakdown the WTI-Brent spread, and increase the overall capacity by a fair amount which should decrease the US reliance on unfriendly oil.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I think the benefits are two-fold. Breakdown the WTI-Brent spread, and increase the overall capacity by a fair amount which should decrease the US reliance on unfriendly oil.

Ah yes, the U.S. will be buying more ethical organic and artisinal bitumen.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I think the benefits are two-fold. Breakdown the WTI-Brent spread, and increase the overall capacity by a fair amount which should decrease the US reliance on unfriendly oil.

While I would argue that cutting the WTI-Brent spread is really a Canadian benefit more than anything, I cannot see how this pipeline doesn't give the US more choices when it comes to where they get their oil if that matters at all.

And let's face it, if this is about shaking a finger at GHG emissions, and where the US and Canada stands on these things then why doens't the administration come out and admit it's that and not the routing through Nebraska issue.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

In the States.

Here's the only independent study I've found evaluating the jobs impact of KXL. The highest end estimate of jobs is about 2000 temporary two-year construction jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallab..._Reportpdf.pdf

The Cornell Institute is hardly an independant study group.

The GLI is part of Cornell University’s
School for Industrial and Labor
Relations (ILR), the leading U.S.
university program specializing in labor
relations. Through research, education
and training and policy development,
the GLI works with trade unions in
the U.S. and internationally to develop
solutions to major social, economic
and environmental challenges. The
goal of the Institute is to help union
officers, staff and activists gain a deeper
understanding of the policies and
institutions that shape today’s world,
assist in bringing unionists based in
different countries into contact with
each other for meaningful discussion
on strategy and policy, and facilitate
dialogue between unions, civil society
organizations and movements

committed to global justice.

They're about as slanted as the other side is.

[Tinordi]

Oddly I think the most plausible alternative to pipeline Alberta's oil is out east, which is the least desired option among industry.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

In the States.

Here's the only independent study I've found evaluating the jobs impact of KXL. The highest end estimate of jobs is about 2000 temporary two-year construction jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallab..._Reportpdf.pdf

That's gotta be one of the most terribly biased reports I've ever seen. They don't even try to hide it.

[CaptainCrunch]

I agree we should be sending pipeline oil out east in greater quantities, it will provent the environmental impact of all of those tankers coming from the middle east that environmental groups are b1tching about enough.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Cornell Institute is hardly an independant study group.



They're about as slanted as the other side is.

Independent in that they were paid by a party for or against the project to evaluate its merits. But please, show me where you think their conclusions are suspect to bias or fallacious. I haven't read all the way through it.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Oddly I think the most plausible alternative to pipeline Alberta's oil is out east, which is the least desired option among industry.

Only because it would be a waste of money when the infrastructure already exists south of the border.