Canada's Oil Sands Are a Jobs Gusher

O'Grady: Canada's Oil Sands Are a Job Gusher - WSJ.com

Having spent an hour the day before with Ron Liepert, the energy minister from the Canadian province of Alberta, I found it especially disturbing to hear nothing in the speech about reversing the administration's anti-fossil-fuels agenda. Canada has recovered all the jobs it lost in the 2009 recession, and Alberta's oil sands are no small part of that. The province is on track to become the world's second-largest oil producer, after Saudi Arabia, within 10 years. Meanwhile Mr. Obama clings to his subsidies for solar panels and his religious faith in green jobs.

U.S. unemployment is high because capital is on strike. Short-term offers to coax investors into taking new risks aren't going to cut it when they have been forewarned that the president intends to pay for it all by raising taxes in the out years.

TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, if the U.S. ever issues the permit, will mean $20 billion in investment. The company says the construction phase will require 13,000 direct hires and indirect new jobs could total 118,000 in the U.S.

But Keystone XL is only a fraction of the potential that could be released if Mr. Obama changed his energy policy. In a study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute and released last week, the energy consultancy Wood MacKenzie estimates that pro-development policies could, by 2030, "support an additional 1.4 million jobs, and raise over $800 billion of cumulative additional government revenue."

Again, it's not 13k PEOPLE getting hired if Keystone is approved. It's 6500 people for 2 years.

I say that without commenting on that being good or bad. Just stating that the facts are not what they look to be. If we're going to make decisions let's make sure we know the true numbers.

Originally Posted by Clyde

Again, it's not 13k PEOPLE getting hired if Keystone is approved. It's 6500 people for 2 years.

I say that without commenting on that being good or bad. Just stating that the facts are not what they look to be. If we're going to make decisions let's make sure we know the true numbers.

According to at least 1 person on here that's still jobs created.

Originally Posted by woodsrider

According to at least 1 person on here that's still jobs created.

No question jobs are being created.

However, when you hear 13k jobs you're picturing 13k individuals getting weekly paychecks. That's not what that number represents.

Those 6500 will be thrilled.

Originally Posted by Clyde

Again, it's not 13k PEOPLE getting hired if Keystone is approved. It's 6500 people for 2 years.

I say that without commenting on that being good or bad. Just stating that the facts are not what they look to be. If we're going to make decisions let's make sure we know the true numbers.

Not saying your wrong, but where do you get that number from.

This one says direct hires. Direct hires means physical jobs created. 13,000 may be a high, but I'd guess 6500 is low.

Originally Posted by coldweatherfan

Not saying your wrong, but where do you get that number from.

This one says direct hires. Direct hires means physical jobs created. 13,000 may be a high, but I'd guess 6500 is low.

Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was “one person, one year,” meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500. That brings the company’s number closer to the State Department’s; State says the project would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs, a figure that was calculated by its contractor Cardno Entrix.

Note: Girling is the CEO.

Keystone Pipeline debate heats up - The Washington Post

Originally Posted by Clyde

Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was “one person, one year,” meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500. That brings the company’s number closer to the State Department’s; State says the project would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs, a figure that was calculated by its contractor Cardno Entrix.

Note: Girling is the CEO.

Keystone Pipeline debate heats up - The Washington Post

So not counting any indirect jobs, 6500 jobs would reduce unemployment by 1.7%. (6,500/380,000)

But that is really not the point of the article. The point of the article is that there is massive oportunity for huge job growth. Like the article says, Keystone is only a fraction of jobs that could be created.

Originally Posted by coldweatherfan

So not counting any indirect jobs, 6500 jobs would reduce unemployment by 1.7%. (6,500/380,000)

But that is really not the point of the article. The point of the article is that there is massive oportunity for huge job growth. Like the article says, Keystone is only a fraction of jobs that could be created.

Correct on the point of the article. However, those jobs numbers (all of them) are subject to debate. Wide range of estimates.

$20 billion in investment would create a lot of jobs period whether in oil exploration or renewable energy sources. It breaks my jaw to say it, but I go with BO on this one.