The GOP’s latest job-creation lie: Stunning hypocrisy in the Keystone Pipeline crusad

[Crabtownboy]

With gas prices so low it is not even a sure thing that Canada wants the pipeline built at this time.

It was never true, for example, that Keystone would lower local gas prices, and the fact that the price of oil is now at its lowest level in a decade has rendered that myth more or less irrelevant. Meanwhile, the only way advocates could argue that the pipeline isn’t going to have a negative impact on the environment is if they truly don’t believe that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. A major study out just this week made it clear that tapping into Alberta’s oil sands would put Canada on track to blow past its remaining fossil fuel “budget.” And yet the Republican leadership remains obsessed with the idea of Keystone — because, they say, they care so much about creating jobs.

Of course, we all know that congressional Republicans aren’t really concerned about creating jobs. Because otherwise, they’d be pretty terrible at their own jobs. After all, fighting this hard for a project that would support only 42,000 temporary jobs, and create just 35 permanent ones, must be the least efficient means possible to achieve that goal. As Sen. Barbara Boxer suggested to her Republican colleagues in the Senate Thursday, a much easier approach to creating a whole lot more jobs would be to take up a federal highway bill that’s due to run out of funding in four months’ time.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/09/the...g_hypocrisy_in_the_keystone_pipeline_crusade/

 

[Baptist Believer]

The article you posted is heavily-slanted to produce a certain conclusion.

For instance, the allegation that the Keystone pipeline project will only produce about 35 jobs is ridiculous if you actually think about it for a moment. (The 35 job figure comes from Obama's State Department which is opposed to the project, so we shouldn't expect fair assessment since there is political motivation behind it.)

The 35 job figure ONLY takes into account the jobs created to service and manage the pipeline, not the jobs that will be created on both ends of the pipeline to handle the materials flowing through the pipeline. The pipeline is being built not for aesthetic reasons, but as a means of TRANSMISSION. The pipeline will require additional employees to work in the refineries to create the finished oil-based products from the oil that comes from Canada. Furthermore, there will be additional personnel and resources needed to transport the finished oil products to the various markets throughout the United States and the world. So even more jobs will be created to manage the transport, sales, and management of those resources. That's going to be many times more than 35 jobs.

 

[carpro]

The article you posted is heavily-slanted to produce a certain conclusion.

You didn't really expect anything else out of CTB, did you?

 

[InTheLight]

Baptist Believer beat me to it. Good post.

I was wondering about all the jobs that Obama created with alternative energy companies that he funded with his Stimulus program, you know, like Solyndra, Abound Energy, Fisker Automotive, and Beacon Power. Oh wait, they all went bankrupt and all employees lost their jobs and taxpayers picked up the bill for about $1 billion.

 

[just-want-peace]

Baptist Believer beat me to it. Good post.

I was wondering about all the jobs that Obama created with alternative energy companies that he funded with his Stimulus program, you know, like Solyndra, Abound Energy, Fisker Automotive, and Beacon Power. Oh wait, they all went bankrupt and all employees lost their jobs and taxpayers picked up the bill for about $1 billion.

A couple of the finer points that our resident "OBUMMERITES" seem to be unable to fully grasp; but then this is also true of them for simple basic reality. :BangHead:

 

[righteousdude2]

With gas prices so low it is not even a sure thing that Canada wants the pipeline built at this time.

Regarding your thread title. The GOP is promising 40,000 jobs. Obama promised one million shovel ready jobs with the Bailout money. One has been proven a lie, and we'll have to see if this one by the GOP is a lie, won't we? How 'bout you stop whining until the facts prove you right? Shalom!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Regarding your thread title. The GOP is promising 40,000 jobs. Obama promised one million shovel ready jobs with the Bailout money. One has been proven a lie, and we'll have to see if this one by the GOP is a lie, won't we? How 'bout you stop whining until the facts prove you right? Shalom!

Surely you do not mean 40,000 jobs on the Keystone pipeline? That is a very serious overestimation.

Note below the State Dept. estimates only 3,900 full time construction workers during the building and only 50 full time jobs once the construction is ended .... 50. Where did the 40,000 come from?

The State Department, which completed an environmental review of the project Jan. 31, has said the pipeline would create the equivalent of 3,900 full-time construction jobs if it's completed in one year, or 1,950 if it’s done in two years. Once the pipeline is finished, there will be just 50 permanent positions, including 15 for temporary contractors.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/14/in-calculating-keystone-xl-jobs-no-easy-answer

And you do realize this is for a Canadian company with Canadian oil to be shipped to foreign countries, but the American taxpayer will be stuck with the bill for any oil spills from the pipeline.

http://ecowatch.com/2013/04/02/american-taxpayers-foot-bill-tar-sands-cleanup/

 

[Baptist Believer]

And you do realize this is for a Canadian company...

That's half true. The oil flow begins in Canada as a Canadian operation. The pipeline flows to multiple US cities where American companies will refine the oil and distribute it to the US. By the way, much of the Keystone Pipeline has already been built and is in operation. The portion under debate is Phase 4 of the pipeline (from Alberta to Nebraska) to connect Canadian oil to the system.

From a business standpoint, this is beneficial for both the US and Canada.

...with Canadian oil to be shipped to foreign countries...

Oil is a commodity in a worldwide market. Excess oil can be shipped overseas, but the most likely scenario is that we will keep the oil here and reduce imports from places like the Middle East and Venezuela. (You realize that Canada already supplies much of our "foreign oil" imports, right?)

...but the American taxpayer will be stuck with the bill for any oil spills from the pipeline.

Pipelines are an incredibly safe means of transportation for fluids - much more efficient and reliable than trains or trucking. Moreover, the same hang-wringing accompanied the debates over the Trans-Alaska Pipeline back in the 1970s - I remember the arguments - that was constructed over a much more difficult and remote terrain, and few leaks have occurred. Most of those that have occurred have been the result of sabotage. Of course the alternative to the Trans-Alaska pipeline is shipping, so the pipeline reduced the need for more ships like the Exxon Valdez.

Don't you realize that there are already huge pipelines stretching all over the US (see this map for more details), including pipelines that go through roughly the same areas as the proposed Keystone XL pipeline? This would simply be another one. The difference here is that environmentalists don't want Canada to extract oil from the oil sands.

 

[poncho]

When did job creation become a function of government?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Pipelines are an incredibly safe means of transportation for fluids - much more efficient and reliable than trains or trucking. Moreover, the same hang-wringing accompanied the debates over the Trans-Alaska Pipeline back in the 1970s - I remember the arguments - that was constructed over a much more difficult and remote terrain, and few leaks have occurred. Most of those that have occurred have been the result of sabotage. Of course the alternative to the Trans-Alaska pipeline is shipping, so the pipeline reduced the need for more ships like the Exxon Valdez.

Really? I do think they are safer than other means, but they have their problems for with the American tax payer is billed, not the company.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/20/3581706/pipeline-spill-oil-louisiana-bayou/

http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/19/pipeline-spills-crude-oil-ohio/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/18/3605276/enbridge-oil-spill-canada/

http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2014/08/01/tesoros-north-dakota-oil-pipeline-spill-cleanup-photos/

http://globalnews.ca/news/1699902/alberta-pipeline-spills-60000-litres-of-crude-into-muskeg/

Don't you realize that there are already huge pipelines stretching all over the US (see this map for more details), including pipelines that go through roughly the same areas as the proposed Keystone XL pipeline? This would simply be another one. The difference here is that environmentalists don't want Canada to extract oil from the oil sands.

At the moment oil sands are too expensive to extract oil and make a profit.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-03/why-canadas-oil-sands-look-like-a-shaky-investment

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/08/22/fp-energy-aug-22-cost-cutting-fever/?__lsa=9653-1fc7

http://tarsandssolutions.org/in-the...projects-in-peril-as-collapse-in-oil-investme

Do not know about you but I would not touch any investment in shale oil companies at this point in time.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Really? I do think they are safer than other means, but they have their problems for with the American tax payer is billed, not the company.

No one has said they are completely free of problems, but compared to every other form of transport. By this way of thinking, we should outlaw passenger airlines because of a few notable failures.

Moreover, you keep talking about taxpayer money. I looked at every alarmist article you posted, and not one mentioned the taxpayers footing the bill for cleanup. That's always handled by private firms and insurance companies for those firms.

At the moment oil sands are too expensive to extract oil and make a profit.

I see you ignored everything I wrote about pipelines and are now trying to make a claim of economic viability. That is the concern of the firms building it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

No one has said they are completely free of problems, but compared to every other form of transport. By this way of thinking, we should outlaw passenger airlines because of a few notable failures.

Moreover, you keep talking about taxpayer money. I looked at every alarmist article you posted, and not one mentioned the taxpayers footing the bill for cleanup. That's always handled by private firms and insurance companies for those firms.

The American tax payer has already been tabbed for bilions to pay for cleanup of oil spills.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/27/us-oil-spill-bp-tax-idUSTRE66Q1FW20100727

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-government-i-e-taxpayers-should-help-pay-for-oil-spill

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/04...on-arkansas-oil-spill-taxpayers-cleaning.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-blocks-oil-spill-liability-bill/

The GOP protects oil companies at tax payer expense.

Red herring. Don't believe taxpayers are billed for airline crashes

I see you ignored everything I wrote about pipelines and are now trying to make a claim of economic viability. That is the concern of the firms building it.

That is why I said I would not invest in a company that continues to build the pipeline. Of course they may get help for their losses from the GOP controlled congress. We have seen how the GOP protects companies at tax payer expense.

 

[Salty]

We have seen how the GOP protects companies at tax payer expense.

You are right Crabby - it was solely the GOP who passed the Bailout for Detroit.

 

[Rolfe]

When did job creation become a function of government?

:thumbs: Absolutely.

 

[InTheLight]

Do not know about you but I would not touch any investment in shale oil companies at this point in time.

I'm looking to buy oil company's stock right now. Lot of bargains out there.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I'm looking to buy oil company's stock right now. Lot of bargains out there.

Note, I said shale oil companies ... not all oil companies. Yes there are bargains and they can be found with diligent research.

 

[just-want-peace]

We have seen how the GOP protects companies at tax payer expense.

Well, at least if the Rs do it, it saves the company; not like the many bail-outs of this admin. that have gone bankrupt!
Use some common sense Crabby!!!!!!!:sleep:

 

[Baptist Believer]

The American tax payer has already been tabbed for bilions to pay for cleanup of oil spills.

I noticed you changed the question in the middle of our discussion. You are now talking about oil spills, not the safety and dangers of oil spill pipelines.

I guess if you are demonstrably wrong in one area you move to the next to pretend that was the issue all along.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/27/us-oil-spill-bp-tax-idUSTRE66Q1FW20100727

This is not about tax payers paying for cleanup. This is about reduced tax revenues from BP because of the enormous costs of cleanup. When companies have significant liabilities to pay (including fines to the US government = taxpayers), they don't earn nearly as much profit. Therefore, the government does not get to collect as much tax.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-government-i-e-taxpayers-should-help-pay-for-oil-spill

This is irrelevant to our discussion. The article covers the debate about who should pay, not evidence of anything related to the question at hand.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/04...on-arkansas-oil-spill-taxpayers-cleaning.html

This rant against Republicans makes a lot of claims that don't seem to be supported in other places. For instance, there is no mention here that tax payers were footing the bill:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill

In fact, there is quite a bit about what Exxon-Mobil and local emergency responders did to mitigate and resolve the spill. However there are lawsuits pending for alleged losses regarding the spill. Apparently those have not been resolved yet, so it is too early to make a call.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-blocks-oil-spill-liability-bill/

This was a difference of opinion as to how high the the liability limit should be set, not whether or not the limit should be raised. Almost everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, believed the $75 million limit was obsolete.

Red herring. Don't believe taxpayers are billed for airline crashes.

Public employees are involved in immediate response and investigations.

Moreover, you have not demonstrated - even with all of your irrelevant links - that taxpayers are billed for general oil spills.

Why don't you just admit that you were mistaken and we can move on?

 

[InTheLight]

Note, I said shale oil companies ... not all oil companies. Yes there are bargains and they can be found with diligent research.

Name one oil company that:

1. Deals mainly with oil extraction from shale.

2. Is publicly traded.

I doubt that it's possible.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is the American tax payer that will be billed for any spills from the Keystone pipeline.

Second, the House passed a bill last week that is now heading over for a vote in the US Senate on Tuesday and the bill does NOT require TransCanada to pay for the cleanup of a leak, oil spill or explosion if one occurs. The US taxpayers get the bill. You heard that right. We have an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that TransCanada is immune from paying in to and we get to pay if there's a problem. THAT is what the House passed.

https://www.facebook.com/MattForOklahoma/posts/306891656166264

To make matters worse, TransCanada would not be liable for cleaning up the mess that Keystone XL will create. Because tar sands oil is not subject to the 8-cents-per-barrel excise tax that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, American taxpayers would likely be forced to bear any clean-up costs.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...2313-keystone-pipeline-all-risk-and-no-reward

Last week, over 80,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from an ExxonMobil pipeline in Arkansas. Twenty-two homes were evacuated and the cost of cleanup will be high. So, who will foot the bill? ExxonMobil? Taxpayers? Unfortunately, the answer looks like it will taxpayers will pay for cleanup for a reason that we should be very concerned about as discussion continues over the Keystone pipeline.

http://www.demos.org/blog/who-will-pay-arkansas-tar-sands-spill

On companies:

I would not buy EOG

Nor MRO

Just two examples. It will not be their shale business that keeps them in business in the near future.