waldo Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Sine TransCanada has no idea how many people they need to build the pipeline.Any study that shows that small number is absolute crap. The number of spinoff jobs alone would be staggering (manufacturing, construction, service - and we're talking all kinds of service jobs, from fuel hauling to food preparation). There is no way this pipeline can be built with that small a number people, considering the number needed for much shorter construction jobs. the Cornell study link has been provided for you to critique... specifically. In terms of your reference to "spinoff jobs", the Cornell study speaks to these "spinoff type jobs" in regards to operation related expenditures (say... materials, supplies, services, electric power, property taxes, etc.), with associated job impacts in the order of around 1000 per year. This figure coupled with the ~2000 construction jobs, brings forward the estimated "~2000 to 3000" temporary jobs (spread over a two-to-three year period). Quote
Smallc Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) And why is that study any more useful than the numbers from TransCanada or estimates from the Canadian Government. Oh, that's right, it isn't. Wake me if you have an original thought. Oh, and again, those Cornell numbers are laughable. Edited January 20, 2012 by Smallc Quote
Shady Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Don't know where you are getting your information from From various news outlets. Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone PipelineBloomberg Canada will look to China to sell its oilCNN Heckuva a President you've got there. Quote
Shady Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 And why is that study any more useful than the numbers from TransCanada or estimates from the Canadian Government. Oh, that's right, it isn't. Wake me if you have an original thought. Oh, and again, those Cornell numbers are laughable. What's even more laughable is people like waldo hiding behind the job numbers as an excuse to terminate the project. They couldn't care less if it creates 2000 jobs, or 200,000 jobs. They're against it for environmental reasons. They're just afraid to come out and say it because their view is so extreme to everyday people. They'd rather have China developing these oil concerns than see North Americans developing them. They'd rather see high unemployment than people working in industries they deem "unacceptable." It's really pathetic, and borderline evil in my opinion. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Mention today of a shortened route that could later be tied to the larger pipeline. This shorter section would not need Presidential approval and the route land is all ready agreed on. I think the pipeline is ipso facto, inevitable, given our dependence on oil. The Republican's are on side. Most unions are on side. Many Democrats are on side., many voters are on side. And that's no pipe dream. National Post All-U.S. RouteTransCanada also is seeking to advance the project. Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president of energy and oil pipelines, said the company is considering an all-U.S. route that would start in Montana, which wouldn’t require State Department approval. The company would then apply later for permission to connect the pipe to the Canadian oil sands. One way or the other, Canada's oil is going to A market, count on it! Quote
waldo Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 the Cornell study link has been provided for you to critique... specifically. In terms of your reference to "spinoff jobs", the Cornell study speaks to these "spinoff type jobs" in regards to operation related expenditures (say... materials, supplies, services, electric power, property taxes, etc.), with associated job impacts in the order of around 1000 per year. This figure coupled with the ~2000 construction jobs, brings forward the estimated "~2000 to 3000" temporary jobs (spread over a two-to-three year period).And why is that study any more useful than the numbers from TransCanada or estimates from the Canadian Government. Oh, that's right, it isn't. Wake me if you have an original thought.Oh, and again, those Cornell numbers are laughable. like I said, the study link is there for you to critique, specifically... don't be afraid to actually read it, hey? as for the 'TransCanada numbers', I find it interesting you would so boldly, so emphatically, line-up around its related study... accepting the numbers of the company actually seeking the permit to build. Equally, feel free to challenge/attack the independence of the Cornell University study... if you ever decide to actually look at it. Canadian Government numbers? Say what? We're talking about the numbers of U.S. jobs associated with the KXL pipeline... you know, where the overwhelming length of the pipeline passes through the U.S. - I did not know the Canadian government actually offered a number in that regard - citation request. as for a few specifics (if you actually took the time to read the Cornell study): - the TransCanada sponsored "Perryman Study" incorrectly assumed on a $7 billion project budget; in actuality, only about $3-4 billion would have any implication on U.S. job creation. - the project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the U.S. State Department... distinct from the oft quoted Perryman study that TransCanada separately sponsored. Wait now, why did TransCanada officially apply for the permit with attachment to the much lower number? Might it be because the Perryman Study didn't bother to actually substantiate anything... any of it's numbers... which is another critique of the Cornell study (you haven't read). - the flawed TransCanada sponsored "Perryman Study" wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built..... not a part of KXL and already built! Quote
waldo Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 From various news outlets.Heckuva a President you've got there. wow! Bold engorged ShadyFonts too! Of course, the new KXL pipeline is headed for the Gulf Coast for one overwhelming reason... global (e.g. Chinese) exportation - something about that highest bidder/user thingee. Apparently you're not aware of the existing domestic targeted Keystone Pipeline (Illinois refineries, Oklahoma distribution) - go figure. I also guess you're not aware of the study that suggests MidWest U.S. gas prices will go up if the KXL is built. It's been talked around a bit in earlier MLW threads - try a search, hey? Quote
waldo Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 What's even more laughable is people like waldo hiding behind the job numbers as an excuse to terminate the project. They couldn't care less if it creates 2000 jobs, or 200,000 jobs. They're against it for environmental reasons. They're just afraid to come out and say it because their view is so extreme to everyday people. no hiding here Shady - any reference to jobs is simply to rein in all those gross job number exaggerations being touted, particularly by those with extreme Obama Derangement Syndrome. I've already, several times, expressly stated my preference would be to develop conventional sources while giving meaningful and genuine attention to proposed emission control targets... and in that context, I've previously stated several times, my preference would be to keep the tarsands where they are (in the ground) in favour of conventional source development. They'd rather have China developing these oil concerns than see North Americans developing them. They'd rather see high unemployment than people working in industries they deem "unacceptable." It's really pathetic, and borderline evil in my opinion. nonsense. Hey now, I hear tell Harper Conservatives are now touting the need for Canada to diversify... Harper's on his way to China next month! Why are you against diversification Shady? I've already danced with you over coal and my want for legitimate industry attention to CCS research/deployment, and deployment of higher-efficiency coal plants... you know, like is currently being done in... China! Equally, I also touted recent U.S. EPA regulations that, effectively, will force the upgrade and or new development of higher-efficiency U.S. coal plants - finally getting rid of those 70s era coal plants that have never operated to the levels of the 70s/90s U.S. Clean Air Act... simply because they were "grandfathered" because industry promised to get rid of them in the 70s... and never did! Although I've many times schooled you about opportunities with renewable energy, let me reacquaint you with a most recent post from earlier in this thread: ... instead, here's your opportunity to review a real independent (U.S.) analysis - from Brookings (2011) - Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment:(note: Brookings somewhat uses multiple terms, “green” or “clean” or “low-carbon economy”, under the same broad definition => defined as the sector of the economy that produces goods and services with an environmental benefit) - The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries . - Though modest in size, the clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry and bulks larger than bioscience but remains smaller than the IT-producing sectors. - The clean economy grew more slowly in aggregate than the national economy between 2003 and 2010, but newer “cleantech” segments produced explosive job gains and the clean economy outperformed the nation during the recession. - Median wages in the clean economy are 13 percent higher than median U.S. created from 2003 to 2010 congregate in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas. - The clean energy sector in particular grew by 8.3 percent between 2003 and 2010, nearly twice as fast as the overall economy Quote
Shady Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Are those industry statistics before or after several so-called clean energy companies went bankrupt? Quote
Shady Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Update on Solyndra, the failed energy company costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars Bankrupt Solyndra Caught Destroying Brand New PartsFREMONT (CBS 5) — After filing for bankruptcy last year, Fremont solar company Solyndra still owes American taxpayers half a billion dollars. But CBS 5 caught them destroying millions of dollars worth of parts. At Solyndra’s sprawling complex in Fremont, workers in white jumpsuits were unwrapping brand new glass tubes used in solar panels last week. They are the latest, most cutting-edge solar technology, and they are being thrown into dumpsters. CBS Once again, heckuva job Obama for expediting their loans and not waiting for the independant review to be finished. See, it's failed companies like these that waldo's referenced materials use to make up their statistics regarding the number of employees clean energy employs, their median wages, their economic growth and preformance. When it's all based on a house of cards, much like the housing market was, and former energy giant ENRON. Solyndra, and 4 other companies like it, have gone bankrupt in the last year. Hey waldo, what's the median income of an out of work employee? What's the growth and preformance of a bankrupt company? How many employees to these now defunct companies employ? Don't you think you should revise your numbers from your previous post? Quote
waldo Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Are those industry statistics before or after several so-called clean energy companies went bankrupt? could you be anymore vague in your question? As for your implication that these are "industry statistics"... i.e., industry generated statistics... see Brookings Institute - see the link I presented to the Brookings Institute study. Don't be afraid to actually look at the study, hey? Quote
waldo Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Update on Solyndra, the failed energy company costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollarsOnce again, heckuva job Obama for expediting their loans and not waiting for the independant review to be finished. nice... I see you're at least backing away from how you previously described the process behind Solyndra's application/review/assessment/decision - you know, that Bush admin program that narrowed the applications down to include Solyndra amongst the 'dozen or so' companies that were then processed by career civil servants as the respective Bush/Obama admin's transitioned. See, it's failed companies like these that waldo's referenced materials use to make up their statistics regarding the number of employees clean energy employs, their median wages, their economic growth and preformance. When it's all based on a house of cards, much like the housing market was, and former energy giant ENRON. Solyndra, and 4 other companies like it, have gone bankrupt in the last year. lil' buddy, just a few mere minutes ago, you're asking me (in the very immediate preceding post) to answer your question as to whether or not the "industry statistics" included, as you stated, "several (of the) so-called clean energy companies (that) went bankrupt". I see you made your assessment without even considering whatever answer I might provide... why ask the question in the first place? Hey waldo, what's the median income of an out of work employee? What's the growth and preformance of a bankrupt company? How many employees to these now defunct companies employ? Don't you think you should revise your numbers from your previous post? you've already offered your assessment, without qualification. The Brookings Institution study details precisely how it arrived at the median income figure... you've offered nothing but your standard bluster/fluster. Your opinion means nothing in the face of that Brookings Institution study. Don't hesitate to come back with an actual supporting reference to your bluster/fluster, hey? Quote
TimG Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Are those industry statistics before or after several so-called clean energy companies went bankrupt?They are phony numbers that reclassify a lot of existing jobs as 'green jobs'. e.g. bus drivers and garbage men are classed as 'green jobs' (and gawd knows what 400K 'conservation' jobs are). It is pathetic and meaningless propoganda.A real number that makes the point that waldo thinks he is making would only include jobs in subsidized industries like wind and solar and that number comes out to less than 100,000. Edited January 20, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 They are phony numbers that reclassify a lot of existing jobs as 'green jobs'. e.g. bus drivers and garbage men are classed as 'green jobs' (and gawd knows what 400K 'conservation' jobs are). It is pathetic and meaningless propoganda.A real number that makes the point that waldo thinks he is making would only include jobs in subsidized industries like wind and solar and that number comes out to less than 100,000. your opinion is simply... your (unsubstantiated) opinion. by the by, per the following quote stream, how are you doing in coming up with that latest citation request? speaking of the continuing stream of your unsubstantiated claims, in case you missed it, given your many times refusal to support your earlier assertion concerning green jobs, I declared your assertion, "null & void" ... question which you will likely refuse to answer... a question I refuse to answer! Clearly, your chutzpah is exceeded only by your own vacuous positions. in a related follow-up, based upon your repeated and ongoing refusal to answer, I hereby declare "null & void", your previous claim that, "studies looking at green jobs conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every green job created". You have been repeatedly pushed and prodded to substantiate that claim... refusing to answer. Fossil fuel subsidies (even if I include the fake subsiides you like) are less than 1% of the cost. citation request Quote
sharkman Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Apparently TransCanada is going to reapply for a permit: No surprises here. TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said today his company will re-apply for a presidential permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, and will continue its work with officials in Nebraska on an alternative route that avoids the Sand Hills region. One has got to wonder whether this whole situation might have been avoided had Congress not insisted on the 60-day deadline for a decision. TransCanada will re-apply for Keystone XL permit Not sure what Congress accomplished by pushing the issue...seems as if things are moving in the same direction they have been right along. Of course they will re-apply, but Obama has shown that those concerned must develop alternatives. These alternatives will go forward and at some point the oil executives will have to make a decision on one option. If Obama is in the Whitehouse and keeps sending mixed signals, their hand will be forced. On the other hand, Obama has signaled to the voters his views on oil from friendly nations vs oil from enemies. A strange position to take if you ask me, but there you have it. And he could have pushed through legislation allowing the new development of domestic oil supplies, but he hasn't done that either. So Joe american will have to buy his gas/oil from nations that think the US is the Great Satan, and these same nations will be enriched to forward their anti-American goals. Quote
TimG Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 If Obama is in the Whitehouse and keeps sending mixed signals, their hand will be forced.This decision really shows how venal Obama is. He was supposed to decide if the pipeline was in the US best interest. What he made the decision based on what was best for of his re-election propects. It takes a small man to put his personal ambitions ahead of the interest of the country as a whole. Quote
TimG Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) your opinion is simply... your (unsubstantiated) opinion.Yawn. And that differs from your studies how? Any study that includes "bus drivers and garbage men" as "green jobs" is not even suited to line the bottom of a bird cage.speaking of the continuing stream of your unsubstantiated claims, in case you missed it, given your many times refusal to support your earlier assertion concerning green jobs, I declared your assertion, "null & void"Too lazy to use google? The 2-to-1 ratio is well established. Here is one such study. There are many others. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Bastiat and the "broken windows fallacy" if you want to understand why "green jobs" initiatives always destroy more jobs than they create.http://wise.uwaterloo.ca/pdf/OTHER-Publications/Renewable-Energy-and-Fallacy-of-Green-Jobs.pdf To determine the employment impacts of this reduction of in-state expenditures, I calculated the average employment level per million dollars of output. With an average of 6.4 employees per million dollars of output, a $180 million reduction in expenditures translates into over 800 jobs lost per year. Then, by applying the estimated weighted average jobs multiplier of 2.78, higher electricity costs translate into over 2,300 lost jobs each year. Thus, while the RPS standard would obviously create jobs in renewable energy sectors, it would destroy them throughout the rest of the Pennsylvania economy. Edited January 21, 2012 by TimG Quote
August1991 Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Who would have thought the name of a Canadian PM would figure in a US presidential campaign?For the moment, Canada is an issue in the US presidential election. Our PM has played this card well.Let's see whether Canada will be an issue after September 2012. If Canada is given the spotlight then, how will English Canada's Left respond? Is Margaret Atwood, for example, ready for prime time? Or is she simply a CBC/BBC/Soviet creation, a creation of the State? My opinion? God help us all if Leftists/Nationalists, whether French/English defend us. Guy A. Lepage and Margaret Atwood are the creations of the State. ---- What a thread hijack. It deserves another thread about Quebec, and Harper. Avec Guy A. Lepage, Françoise David, QS et le plateau, le Québec meurt. Il n'y a pas de renouveau. Edited January 21, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 This decision really shows how venal Obama is. He was supposed to decide if the pipeline was in the US best interest. What he made the decision based on what was best for of his re-election propects. It takes a small man to put his personal ambitions ahead of the interest of the country as a whole. He is deciding if the pipeline is in the best interest of the US - the whole US, including the sensitive ecological areas it would pass through and how it would affect that state - which is part of the US. As I already stated, the plans for rerouting the pipeline are going ahead same as ever - TransCanada will just have to reapply for a permit after the plans are completed. But here's the thing. If Obama made the decision based on his re-election prospects as you say, then you must think saying no to the pipeline would get him the most votes - so if it's what most of the people want, how is that not "in the US best interest?" Quote
waldo Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 This decision really shows how venal Obama is. He was supposed to decide if the pipeline was in the US best interest. What he made the decision based on what was best for of his re-election propects. It takes a small man to put his personal ambitions ahead of the interest of the country as a whole. decision on what? TransCanada has offered an estimate of fall 2012 before it will have determined its favoured alternate route. The U.S. State Department has advised it will have the required environmental assessments completed by 'early 2013'... presuming on TransCanada's estimate and new application. Once those TransCanada and U.S. State Department requirements are completed, an Obama decision will be forthcoming. At that point you can pass judgement on the ultimate decision - until then you're just beaking-off. Surely you're not that out of touch to still be presuming on that failed/flawed initial route, application and assessment, hey? Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 Of course they will re-apply, but Obama has shown that those concerned must develop alternatives. Yes, they must develop alternatives. That's already pretty much been decided. The pipeline cannot go through sensitive ecological areas, threatening the water supply and livelihood of almost an entire state. These alternatives will go forward and at some point the oil executives will have to make a decision on one option. If Obama is in the Whitehouse and keeps sending mixed signals, their hand will be forced. His signals aren't "mixed" and TransCanada is hardly confused. They have said they are proceeding with their plans. On the other hand, Obama has signaled to the voters his views on oil from friendly nations vs oil from enemies. A strange position to take if you ask me, but there you have it. No, that's not what he has signaled to the voters. This isn't a "personal" decision regarding the oil supplier; it's a decision based on how it will affect Americans. And he could have pushed through legislation allowing the new development of domestic oil supplies, but he hasn't done that either. He is most definitely allowing TransCanada to reapply for the permit to build the pipeline along an alternate route. So Joe american will have to buy his gas/oil from nations that think the US is the Great Satan, and these same nations will be enriched to forward their anti-American goals. No. TransCanada will have to provide an alternate eco-friendly route. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 From various news outlets. I don't see anything from TransCanada in your sources. I quoted a TransCanada spokesperson who said they are moving forward with their plans for the xl pipeline. They are not now looking to China. Heckuva a President you've got there. I agree. He's earning my respect more and more these days. Quote
waldo Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 On the other hand, Obama has signaled to the voters his views on oil from friendly nations vs oil from enemies. enemies? Interesting in that Canada is, and has been for some time, the largest U.S. import source of oil... followed by Saudi Arabia, followed by Mexico, then Venezuela, then Nigeria, then Colombia... enemies??? And he could have pushed through legislation allowing the new development of domestic oil supplies, but he hasn't done that either. So Joe american will have to buy his gas/oil from nations that think the US is the Great Satan, and these same nations will be enriched to forward their anti-American goals. check your facts lately, hey? May, 2011 - Obama Shifts to Speed Oil and Gas Drilling in U.S. ... notwithstanding, "According to the US government’s Energy Information Administration, domestic oil and gas production rose 3% in 2010 to an average of 7.51 million barrels a day – its highest level since 2002". Quote
TimG Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) He is deciding if the pipeline is in the best interest of the USNonsense. The best interest of the US is getting these infrastructure projects built as expidiciously as possible. There is no way the "enviromental review" of the re-routing is going to turn up any show stoppers. The main purpose is to make sure transcanada has adequate safety and monitoring plans in place. If Obama actually cared about the best interest of the US he would have given provisional approval.If Obama made the decision based on his re-election prospects as you say, then you must think saying no to the pipeline would get him the most votes - so if it's what most of the people want, how is that not "in the US best interest?"Ah no. Obama needs to get the well moneyed environmental (big green) lobby to campaign for him. They represent a minority of americans that only have infuence because of the nature of the US system. Edited January 21, 2012 by TimG Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Nonsense. The best interest of the US is getting these infrastructure projects built as expidiciously as possible. No. That would be in the best interest of some, but not "the US." There is no way the "enviromental review" of the re-routing is going to turn up any show stoppers. The main purpose is to make sure transcanada has adequate safety and monitoring plans in place. If Obama actually cared about the best interest of the US he would have given provisional approval. Again, not true. He rejected it on the terms that were forced upon him - ie the time frame, the deadline, that Congress put upon him - and he rejected it "without prejudice," clearly saying it was open for future negotiations. Nothing has really changed, and again, TransCanada recognizes that. Ah no. Obama needs to get the well moneyed environmental (big green) lobby to campaign for him. They represent a minority of americans that only have infuence because of the nature of the US system. Again, the people of Nebraska, the state of Nebraska, is part of the US - and as such, is as important as any other state. Their water supply, their livelihood, shouldn't be sacrificed - and it's not going to be. Hence the rerouting. ...the rumours [...] of Keystone's death [have] been greatly exaggerated. Keystone XL is more delayed than dead: the move lets the White House reclaim control of the approval process after Republican lawmakers attempted to force Obama into green-lighting the politically charged project in late December. TransCanada was not surprised by the announcement, and quickly confirmed plans to submit an amended proposal. link I understand that Canada doesn't have anything to gain by a delay - ie: rerouting the pipeline - but the US does. Edited January 21, 2012 by American Woman Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.