Offline
Trump, by executive order (remember how Obama was harshly criticized for "using his pen"?), is attempting to revive the building of this pipeline. His claim that the pipeline will create 28,000 permanent American jobs and use all U.S. steel is pure bunk. The 28,000 jobs are a reach that stretches beyond jobs on the pipeline in the construction phase and will diminish to about 35 permenant jobs after construction. Since the main entity behind the pipeline is a Canadian corporation, who they hire and what steel they use will be at their discretion. The pipeline is a duplication of an already existing pipeline and its purpose is to carry tar sands oil from Canadian fracking operations to Gulf coast refineries. The refined oil will be exported for overseas sales. There is also great concern about leaking oil transport lines, almost every oil pipeline ever constructed has leaked, will pollute water sources for millions of people.
But, our new president, citing only the alternative facts about 28,000 permanent American jobs and American steel, has decided to push this project despite the many concerns. Luckily, he recently had his beach team storm the EPA and shut down their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech in order to prevent any criticism of his executive action.
Here are the facts relating to jobs:
Trump claims the Keystone XL pipeline will create 7 times more construction jobs than it actually will
Dana Varinsky
Donald Trump executive order Keystone XL pipeline Donald Trump signs an executive order to advance construction of the Keystone XL pipeline Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
As Donald Trump signed an executive order to advance construction on the Keystone XL Pipeline on January 24, he said the measure would create a "lot of jobs, 28,000 jobs, great construction jobs.”
But, like many of the numbers the administration has thrown out in its early days, it’s unclear how the president arrived at that estimate.
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the project, which was published by the State Department in January 2014, lays out a projected overview of economic activities related to the construction and operation of the pipeline. The project would create approximately 3,900 construction jobs in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas during the one or two years it takes to build the pipeline, the report suggests.
That number is seven times less than the one Trump suggested earlier today, though it’s possible the president was including other types of jobs the pipeline construction could create. In total, the report estimates that the firms that get awarded contracts for goods and services (including the construction) would add 16,100 jobs. Those people in turn could create another 26,000 jobs depending on how they spend their wages — a phenomenon the report calls “indirect and induced spending.”
However, none of those numbers match the one Trump used, and the report defines the term "job" as one position that is filled for one year.
The number of permanent employees the pipeline would require after construction ends is dismally low: just 35.
After a wave of protests from environmentalists, who pointed out the severe environmental damage the Keystone XL Pipeline could cause, Barack Obama rejected the proposal for the pipeline in 2015, saying the project would not serve the long-term interests of the United States because of its negative impact on the environment.
However, since Trump signed the executive order to proceed with the project this morning, TransCanada, the Alberta-based company behind the pipeline, has said it intends to reapply for approval.
Environmental activists are gearing up to fight that pipeline, as well as the Dakota Access Pipeline, which Trump’s new executive orders also aim to advance.
Offline
Personally I don't give a big rip about the Keystone Pipeline one way or another. We have pipelines crisscrossing the US sending oil and gas products already. The environment IS a concern, but I do believe we can with minimal impact construct a pipeline and monitor it safely IF we invest in technology and keep it updated (crucial) as needed and not let it decay.
That said, for people thinking it will drastically reduce oil prices or any other major savings (the jobs will be fleeting) they are being duped big time by big oil. The oil companies will be the biggest gainers in all of this pure and simple. I am not opposed to them making all they can make, but don't confuse the real beneficiaries of this.
Offline
The pipeline is so long I don't know why they can't go around the Indian reservation water supply and thereby avoid all the controversy.
Offline
Tim15856 wrote:
The pipeline is so long I don't know why they can't go around the Indian reservation water supply and thereby avoid all the controversy.
Maybe suggest that to the current Administration.
Offline
tennyson wrote:
Personally I don't give a big rip about the Keystone Pipeline one way or another. We have pipelines crisscrossing the US sending oil and gas products already. The environment IS a concern, but I do believe we can with minimal impact construct a pipeline and monitor it safely IF we invest in technology and keep it updated (crucial) as needed and not let it decay.
That said, for people thinking it will drastically reduce oil prices or any other major savings (the jobs will be fleeting) they are being duped big time by big oil. The oil companies will be the biggest gainers in all of this pure and simple. I am not opposed to them making all they can make, but don't confuse the real beneficiaries of this.
I think that it would be fair to say that the pipeline is more symbolic than substantive on both sides.
It really doesn't create many long term jobs, and will not bring about an era of cheap energy.
And it's environmental impact is likely much less than foes of the pipeline believe.
Offline
Tim15856 wrote:
The pipeline is so long I don't know why they can't go around the Indian reservation water supply and thereby avoid all the controversy.
That's the Dakota pipeline that is infringing on purported tribal lands. The
Offline
tennyson wrote:
Tim15856 wrote:
The pipeline is so long I don't know why they can't go around the Indian reservation water supply and thereby avoid all the controversy.
Maybe suggest that to the current Administration.
AFAIK, all Trump has done so far is give the green light to get it started again and allow new bids. Don't know where they are at with the direction it takes.
Offline
Tim15856 wrote:
tennyson wrote:
Tim15856 wrote:
The pipeline is so long I don't know why they can't go around the Indian reservation water supply and thereby avoid all the controversy.
Maybe suggest that to the current Administration.
AFAIK, all Trump has done so far is give the green light to get it started again and allow new bids. Don't know where they are at with the direction it takes.
Conflating two pipelines.