General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts) Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:30 PM Mar 2013

Keystone: 35 permanent jobs?

<...>

The State Department will allow for a 45-day comment period and will hold a public meeting in Nebraska probably toward the middle of the comment period, Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones said. From there, State will make any final changes to the draft if necessary, release a final document, then receive feedback from other federal agencies while it determines whether the project would be in the national interest.

That could easily push the timeline until summer. Secretary of State John Kerry would ultimately make a recommendation to Obama, who makes the final decision.

Jones said the department was not endorsing or opposing the pipeline.

“This paper does not come out one way or the other and make a decision about what should happen with this project,” she said, adding: “We want to make sure we serve the best interests of our country, so we are really taking a very thorough look.”

The report said the pipeline’s construction would support 42,100 indirect jobs and 3,900 direct jobs during the one- to two-year construction period, which would bring in wages of about $2.05 billion, as well as another $3.3 billion in other spending. But once up and running, the operation of the pipeline would only support 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs, mostly for inspections, maintenance and repairs.

- more -

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/state-dept-keystone-report-plays-down-climate-fears-88313_Page3.html

How the hell is 35 jobs worth the environmental risk? Republicans are always screaming about job creation in trying to pressure the Obama adminstration to approve the pipeline...for 35 permanent jobs?

In September 2011, Republicans blocked the American Jobs Act and up to 2 million jobs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021294027

The Jobs Program That Wasn’t

Macroeconomic Advisers on the American Jobs Act, proposed a year ago:

We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

-The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
-Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
-Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline

<...>

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/the-jobs-program-that-wasnt/

Here is Kerry addressing real job creation related to a clean energy bill.

Kerry comes out strong for clean energy in nomination hearing
http://grist.org/news/kerry-comes-out-strong-for-clean-energy-in-nomination-hearing/

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Keystone: 35 permanent jobs? (Original Post) ProSense Mar 2013 OP

Hillary's deal - it will go through, and JK, no doubt, knew he was tapped to take the fall. blm Mar 2013 #1

No doubt that this was in the works last year, but ProSense Mar 2013 #2

Wish I could see it that way, Pro, but, that deal was done. The 'approval' is dog and pony show blm Mar 2013 #8

35 jobs? ProSense Mar 2013 #11

More, on the climate impact: ProSense Mar 2013 #3

interesting n/t politicasista Mar 2013 #4

This seems like the study REQUIRES the assumption that Canada will process the tarsands regardless - karynnj Mar 2013 #6

That's exactly how I interpret it. ProSense Mar 2013 #9

They forgot to mention the hundreds that will be responding to accidents NightWatcher Mar 2013 #5

If the pipeline is not built, presumably the oil will be transported by sea. Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #7

Well, ProSense Mar 2013 #10

It is all about the refineries. DollarBillHines Mar 2013 #12

Kick! n/t ProSense Mar 2013 #13

blm

(112,997 posts)

1. Hillary's deal - it will go through, and JK, no doubt, knew he was tapped to take the fall.

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:34 PM

Mar 2013

All to smooth the road for Hillary's primary campaign.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

2. No doubt that this was in the works last year, but

Reply to blm (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:38 PM

Mar 2013

"it will go through, and JK, no doubt, knew he was tapped to take the fall."

...the project has not been approved.

State Department:

State Department Releases Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline

Today, the U.S. Department of State released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in response to TransCanada’s May 2012 application for the Keystone XL pipeline that would run from Canada to Nebraska. The document is a draft technical review of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project, including: impacts from construction, impacts from potential spills, impacts related to climate change, and economic impacts. The Draft SEIS is available at: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/draftseis/index.htm.

A 45-day public comment period will begin when EPA posts the Draft SEIS on its website, a process that generally takes about one week following today’s submission of the document to that agency. Specific instructions about how to submit comments will be provided via the Federal Register and on the State Department Keystone XL website.

After the end of the public comment period, the Department will consider comments received and prepare a Final SEIS. The National Interest Determination period will begin following the release of the Final SEIS, during which time the Department will obtain the views of other agencies about whether to grant or deny the permit.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/03/205548.htm

<...>

After the end of the public comment period, the Department will prepare a Final SEIS.

Ultimately, a determination will be made on whether this project serves the national interest. The national interest determination will involve consideration of many factors, including: energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations. As directed by Executive Order 13337, before making such a decision, the Department will also request the views of several agencies and officials, including: the Departments of Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205558.pdf

I don't buy that Kerry has to "take the fall." He needs to reject this pathetic project.

blm

(112,997 posts)

8. Wish I could see it that way, Pro, but, that deal was done. The 'approval' is dog and pony show

Reply to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:22 PM

Mar 2013

at this point, and has been since BEFORE this 'assessment' was done. Hillary chose a firm that she KNEW to be friendly to Keystone deal to perform the 'assessment' for her.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

11. 35 jobs?

Reply to blm (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:11 PM

Mar 2013

For dirty oil that will be exported?

This is like putting the Americans and the environment at risk so an oil company can make money. The entire thing makes no sense, not economically, not environmentally.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

3. More, on the climate impact:

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:35 PM

Mar 2013

<...>

The new impact statement says that extracting, shipping, refining and burning oil from the tar sands produces more climate-altering greenhouse gases than most conventional oil, but less than many of the project’s critics claim. The State Department study says that tar sands oil produces 5 percent to 19 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than other crude, depending on what oil was compared and who performed the calculations.

It predicts that Canada and its oil industry partners will probably continue to develop the oil sands even if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built. It states that building or not building the pipeline will have no significant impact on demand for heavy crude in the United States.

And it says that alternate means of transporting the oil — rail, truck and barge — also have significant environmental and economic impacts, including higher costs, noise, traffic, air pollution and the possibility of spills. The study does not say that one method is better for the environment than another. It does say that a spill is more likely for rail transport, although the report says that the volume of oil spilled from a pipeline is likely to be greater.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/us/us-report-sees-no-environmental-bar-to-keystone-pipeline.html

It's like straining to equalize the impact, and not at all believable.

politicasista

(14,128 posts)

4. interesting n/t

Reply to ProSense (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:48 PM

Mar 2013

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

karynnj

(59,494 posts)

6. This seems like the study REQUIRES the assumption that Canada will process the tarsands regardless -

Reply to ProSense (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:20 PM

Mar 2013

or it has a very real negative impact. It also seems that sentence is pretty inconclusive " will probably" is not that strong - and, from the first paragraph, IF Canada doesn't process the tar sands or processes less of it without the pipeline, this becomes an argument that doing this facilitates the production of oil 5 to 19 % higher than OTHER CRUDE. (Ie it is dirtier than regular crude, which is dirtier than natural gas and all the alternative technologies.

However, if the cost to get the oil to where it has to go is significantly higher with the other measures, it would seem that the resultant oil would be higher priced. The question I have is whether the assumption that AS MUCH of the dirty tar sands oil would be produced in that case. It would seem that as the cost of extracting addition oil increases, a point is reached where it is not profitable to do so. If the distribution cost increases, that point comes earlier.

(Caveat - I know nothing about oil production other than what I have read about some areas not be cost effective to drill. )

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

9. That's exactly how I interpret it.

Reply to karynnj (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:48 PM

Mar 2013

"This seems like the study REQUIRES the assumption that Canada will process the tarsands regardless -
or it has a very real negative impact. It also seems that sentence is pretty inconclusive " will probably" is not that strong - and, from the first paragraph, IF Canada doesn't process the tar sands or processes less of it without the pipeline, this becomes an argument that doing this facilitates the production of oil 5 to 19 % higher than OTHER CRUDE. (Ie it is dirtier than regular crude, which is dirtier than natural gas and all the alternative technologies."

Agree. It seems like a series of jumping through hoops to minimize the downsides without really addressing the actual environmental impact.

"It would seem that as the cost of extracting addition oil increases, a point is reached where it is not profitable to do so. If the distribution cost increases, that point comes earlier. "

Yup, but the emphasis seems to be on the either or (rail or pipeline) scenarios when it's clear that if rail is more cost effective and safe (the report admits less spillage likely by rail), no one would be having this debate.

<...>

The State Department considered two scenarios. First, if the Keystone pipeline is blocked, and other proposed pipelines go forward, tar sands production in Alberta “could decrease by approximately 0.4 to 0.6 percent” by 2030. A fairly small drop.

Alternatively, if Keystone XL was blocked and all of the proposed pipeline capacity out of Alberta were restricted, then tar sands production would drop by 2 to 4 percent by 2030.

That’s a real dip, albeit a small one. In that second scenario, we would see a decrease of somewhere between 0.07 to 5.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030. At the high end, that would be like taking one million cars off the road. But that’s also equivalent to just 0.07 percent of current U.S. emissions.

Environmentalists, for their part, are hotly disputing this section of the review. The Natural Resources Defense Council, for one, has argued (pdf) the climate impact of Keystone could be at least six times as large as the State Department’s estimate.

Other groups are skeptical that the oil will flow no matter what if Keystone is blocked. “Canadian tar sands exports are blocked to the west by tribes that won’t sell out their natural resources to Big Oil, and blocked to the east by the European Union’s declaration that it won’t buy dirty tar sands oil,” said Jim Lyon of the National Wildlife Federation. “Without access to major U.S. export terminals from Keystone XL and other routes, tar sands production will be substantially slowed.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/01/state-department-keystone-xl-likely-to-have-small-impact-on-climate-tar-sands/

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)

5. They forgot to mention the hundreds that will be responding to accidents

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:04 PM

Mar 2013

When the pipeline ruptures at a bad weld and nasty shit starts getting into the groundwater and threatening aquifers, think of all the workers that will be used to clean up the toxic mess.

Plus think of the boom to the bottled water industry when the drinking water for millions becomes contaminated and unfit to drink.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)

7. If the pipeline is not built, presumably the oil will be transported by sea.

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:22 PM

Mar 2013

Is that not also an environmental risk?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

10. Well,

Reply to Nye Bevan (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:52 PM

Mar 2013

"If the pipeline is not built, presumably the oil will be transported by sea. Is that not also an environmental risk?"

...the first step is recognizing that it is an "environmental risk."

DollarBillHines

(1,922 posts)

12. It is all about the refineries.

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:44 PM

Mar 2013

Those refineries (all two of them) are tooled for sour (high sulfur) crude, which is in low supply these days

Every bit of that refined product will be sold overseas.

These fucking people are playing politics with this, but the windfall will go to the owners of the refineries (who I believe are Exxon/Mobil and Chevron).

Hell, let's throw in the Kochs for good measure.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

13. Kick! n/t

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 03:08 PM

Mar 2013

Reply to this discussion