So whats not credible about others who have done "studies"... You can play Westsider games if you want.. Lets just say the real facts lie somewhere in the middle.. Do you discount studies that say what YOU don't want to hear??

 

I've already stated why there is the perception that the study you and others referenced is viewed as "bought and paid for." Surely, we can agree that fact poses credibility problems, right?

 

After my previous post I went to the website of the group that I referenced as the only one not tied to the pipeline owner looking to see if there was a conflict on their side.

 

Mission statement:

 

The Cornell Global Labor Institute was established in 2005 to work with trade unions in the U.S. and internationally to help them and their civil society partners develop solutions to major social, economic and environmental challenges.

 

 

So they work with unions and yet they said the claim that 13k unions jobs would be created is false. I'm struggling to find a conflict but am open to your challenges to that assertion.

 

Why do you say "somewhere in between?"

 

If you want to say it's nothing more than a "hunch" that's fine. I'm just pointing out that the "facts" as presented are being questioned.

 

You say what?

I'm saying BOTH studies lean slightly to suit their customers.. The Cornell Labor Inst. receives millions to do their studies from the state dept. Their study also fails to mention the thousands of satellite jobs that would be created to supply the project... Not just workers on the pipeline.. Studies are like polls. Change the claim 13k UNION jobs to 13k JOBS and you get different results..

Again, the people saying this will add thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenue were funded by the company who wins if there is a pipeline.

 

Credible?

 

Far more credible than what Obama promised and we have hind site to see that his program was a failure.

Projections are just that, they may wind up being higher or lower than first predicted. At least here if things do not pan out, the taxpayer is not left holding the bag.

With all the world needing oil, my projection is that if the pipeline is built jobs will be created and tax revenues will be collected. And not at the expense of the taxpayer.

Sadly, there are those who think the only entity that can spend money efficiently is the government.

Also with Obama not allowing Boeing to open its plant in SC, calling Americans soft and American businesses lazy, it just shows that Obama has no idea what it takes to run a business.

I'm saying BOTH studies lean slightly to suit their customers.. The Cornell Labor Inst. receives millions to do their studies from the state dept. Their study also fails to mention the thousands of satellite jobs that would be created to supply the project... Not just workers on the pipeline.. Studies are like polls. Change the claim 13k UNION jobs to 13k JOBS and you get different results..

 

I was unaware , and cannot find any info, that the group is supported by the State Dept. Where did you see that?

The 13k construction jobs bantered about it also misleading. We all assume that means 13k individuals would be employed in construction for who knows how long. Incorrect.

 

From the CEO of the company:

 

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.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-pipeline-debate-heats-up/2011/11/04/gIQA824rpM_story.html

 

6,500 isn't anything to sneeze at and is still disputed by some but if we're going to debate the sensibility of a project like this let's make sure we understand the numbers.

A construction project lasts for a certain period of time to complete the job. I do not believe any one thought they would be life long jobs. That is no different than the "shovel ready jobs" Obama promised, which he later quipped that maybe there were not as many "shovel ready jobs" as he once thought.

And this project is paid for by a private company, not by the government with my tax money.

There will long term jobs created and profits generated by the oil production that will provide revenue to the governments at all levels.

Maybe it will not be the level of jobs and taxes projected, but it could be more. Again, it is a private effort and not a government job that has lots of waste and bureauracy. The government spends nothing, but benefits from taxable income.

A construction project lasts for a certain period of time to complete the job. I do not believe any one thought they would be life long jobs. That is no different than the "shovel ready jobs" Obama promised, which he later quipped that maybe there were not as many "shovel ready jobs" as he once thought.

And this project is paid for by a private company, not by the government with my tax money.

There will long term jobs created and profits generated by the oil production that will provide revenue to the governments at all levels.

Maybe it will not be the level of jobs and taxes projected, but it could be more. Again, it is a private effort and not a government job that has lots of waste and bureauracy. The government spends nothing, but benefits from taxable income.

 

1. No argument about the concept of a construction job. However, you must admit the 13k figure is misleading .

2. You realize that just because a project is going to be paid for by a private company that there are still checks and balances and decisions that have to be weighed, right?

3. I assume you have no concerns about the potential impact on the environment? If so, why?

1. No argument about the concept of a construction job. However, you must admit the 13k figure is misleading .

2. You realize that just because a project is going to be paid for by a private company that there are still checks and balances and decisions that have to be weighed, right?

3. I assume you have no concerns about the potential impact on the environment? If so, why?

 

What checks and balances? If a company wants to gamble their money on a project, that is their business. Maybe you are talking about environmental concerns. By the time they get to actually building the pipeline that will be taken care. I have seen so much in the way of overblown concerns in many different areas, I put little stock in the world is coming to an end ideas. Please do not take that as I do not care, but if all precautions are included in the planning of the project then I believe there is little to worry about.

I heard of how the Alaskan Pipeline was going to destroy the wildlife and environment and it did not happen. But the oil companies did have to make some adjustments in their plans to help safeguard the environment. I am sure that can be accomplished with pipeline as well.

What checks and balances? If a company wants to gamble their money on a project, that is their business. .

 

So we have no laws, rules, or regulations that businesses must follow?

So we have no laws, rules, or regulations that businesses must follow?

 

They will not start to build until they have met all requirements and gotten all the needed permits. To me that is just a given, part of the process.

It is not like when my wife and I built our house in Pedleton Co. We needed no permits, but that changed in the last few years.

Gettting the needed paperwork is just part of the process.

To think of it, I believe that is something Obama does not understand. The cost of meeting government regulations that have become burdsonsome. There is a balance of government working with people and businesses, as oppossed to government that causes costly obstacles to business, just because they can nitpick on anything and everthing.

This a complaint of business leaders in this country and a reason why some have headed elsewheres to do business.

TransCanada is willing to change the route of the pipeline. They said it would add 30-40 miles to the length of the line.