The low figure you cited did not include the added jobs to provide materials, equipment,etc. to supply the project.. .

 

The company that owns the pipeline has already spent money on the materials and many of the jobs are already going to be filled by current employees.

What assumption did I make?

I mis-read your post

I mis-read your post

 

I did change my response because I thought you were talking to my guess about it being too high.

The way I see it is that it doesn't really create jobs, doesn't lower our dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise), it continues to pose risks to our planet in all stages of it's lifecycle from pumping, transport and consumption and it won't lower cost at the pump for American's. I don't see any advantages

 

Regardless, it creates around 5k-6k jobs..numbers from the company so jobs are created. Even if it's not 5.2 billion in property tax I would say it is safe to agree it would be still be in the billions. What is your suggestion to lower the cost at the pump?

 

What risks does this pose to our planet? How?

I did change my response because I thought you were talking to my guess about it being too high.

 

That's what I was refering to.

 

What risks does this pose to our planet? How?

 

Found this:

 

 

The crude product comes from bitumen, a material that has the consistency of asphalt that is many times more toxic and acidic than Texas crude oil. To transport bitumen, it must be diluted and moved along a pipeline at high pressures, which greatly increase the risks of leaks. Compounding the problem is the fact that TransCanada has refused to divulge the dilutents it will be using.

 

The pipeline also passes through the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer, which supplies 10-12 million Texans in sixty counties (including supplemental use in Dallas and Fort Worth) with water. An oil spill in this aquifer could potentially eliminate its safety for domestic and agricultural use. This is bad news for a state suffering the worst drought since they started keeping track 115 years ago. In addition, constructing the pipeline would require 86 million gallons of water for hydrostatic testing and drought control.

 

These high-pressure pipelines aren’t exactly spill-proof either. The current Keystone pipeline has already had 14 spills since its operations began in June, 2010. According to a recent New York Times article:

 

Since 1990, more than 5,600 incidents were reported involving land-based hazardous liquid pipelines, releasing a total of more than 110 million gallons of mostly crude and petroleum products, according to analysis of federal data. The pipeline safety agency considered more than half — at least 100 spills each year — to be “significant,” meaning they caused a fire, serious injury or fatality or released at least 2,100 gallons, among other factors.

 

Source: New York Times

http://www.progresstexas.org/blog/department-state-ignores-keystone-xl-pipeline-risks?page=3

Found this:

 

 

The crude product comes from bitumen, a material that has the consistency of asphalt that is many times more toxic and acidic than Texas crude oil. To transport bitumen, it must be diluted and moved along a pipeline at high pressures, which greatly increase the risks of leaks. Compounding the problem is the fact that TransCanada has refused to divulge the dilutents it will be using.

 

The pipeline also passes through the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer, which supplies 10-12 million Texans in sixty counties (including supplemental use in Dallas and Fort Worth) with water. An oil spill in this aquifer could potentially eliminate its safety for domestic and agricultural use. This is bad news for a state suffering the worst drought since they started keeping track 115 years ago. In addition, constructing the pipeline would require 86 million gallons of water for hydrostatic testing and drought control.

 

These high-pressure pipelines aren’t exactly spill-proof either. The current Keystone pipeline has already had 14 spills since its operations began in June, 2010. According to a recent New York Times article:

 

Since 1990, more than 5,600 incidents were reported involving land-based hazardous liquid pipelines, releasing a total of more than 110 million gallons of mostly crude and petroleum products, according to analysis of federal data. The pipeline safety agency considered more than half — at least 100 spills each year — to be “significant,” meaning they caused a fire, serious injury or fatality or released at least 2,100 gallons, among other factors.

 

Source: New York Times

http://www.progresstexas.org/blog/department-state-ignores-keystone-xl-pipeline-risks?page=3

 

But other than that, no problems

Found this:

 

 

The crude product comes from bitumen, a material that has the consistency of asphalt that is many times more toxic and acidic than Texas crude oil. To transport bitumen, it must be diluted and moved along a pipeline at high pressures, which greatly increase the risks of leaks. Compounding the problem is the fact that TransCanada has refused to divulge the dilutents it will be using.

 

The pipeline also passes through the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer, which supplies 10-12 million Texans in sixty counties (including supplemental use in Dallas and Fort Worth) with water. An oil spill in this aquifer could potentially eliminate its safety for domestic and agricultural use. This is bad news for a state suffering the worst drought since they started keeping track 115 years ago. In addition, constructing the pipeline would require 86 million gallons of water for hydrostatic testing and drought control.

 

These high-pressure pipelines aren’t exactly spill-proof either. The current Keystone pipeline has already had 14 spills since its operations began in June, 2010. According to a recent New York Times article:

 

Since 1990, more than 5,600 incidents were reported involving land-based hazardous liquid pipelines, releasing a total of more than 110 million gallons of mostly crude and petroleum products, according to analysis of federal data. The pipeline safety agency considered more than half — at least 100 spills each year — to be “significant,” meaning they caused a fire, serious injury or fatality or released at least 2,100 gallons, among other factors.

 

Source: New York Times

http://www.progresstexas.org/blog/department-state-ignores-keystone-xl-pipeline-risks?page=3

 

Thanks! I'm going to delve deeper in to this, seems extremely risky.

Thanks! I'm going to delve deeper in to this, seems extremely risky.

 

I'd say anytime you're talking about a pipeline you're talking about risk. You can't simply justify something because there are jobs attached. While the 5k people who get the jobs will be thrilled I'm not sure if it's a wise decision for the country as a whole albeit I'm working with limited understanding.

 

Add in we do not get much value out of the end product since most of it is exported so we're still dependent upon foreign oil.

 

We should never rush into this decision even when the economy is bad like it is now. This has decades and decades of impact.

Completely agreed. A few articles I've read stated over 100k spinoff jobs would be created.

 

Weighing the positives and negatives, I have to disagree with the pipeline being built.

Completely agreed. A few articles I've read stated over 100k spinoff jobs would be created.

 

.

 

Be careful. The author of the study that made the claim was hired by the company trying to get the US to approve it. In other words, there are some credibility concerns. Separate groups have said the Perryman Group (100k claims folks) used flawed science and assumptions. When pressed by groups doubting their science Perryman refused to give the data to support their models. Lastly, Perryman group was a bit dishonest. The number they came up with , even if right, is not number of new jobs. Rather the # represents "person years." In other words, if you were the only person hired by your worked 10 years the number Perryman showed would be 10. Only one guy is drawing a paycheck but the number would seem to say 10 are drawing checks.

So Canadian oil isn't foreign oil?

 

You are correct, I mixed up the US jobs with this project. I would rather work with the Canadians than those in the Middle East.

According to the Houston Chronicle

 

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a $7 billion private-funded pipeline that will carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil daily from western Canada to American refineries in Texas and elsewhere. The pipeline will create 20,000 construction jobs and approximately 118,000 related jobs, resulting in more than $20 billion in additional private sector spending and as much as $5 billion in new local, state and federal tax revenues.

 

In Texas, the pipeline would boost our state economy by an estimated $1.9 billion. For Texas' 26 oil refineries - which account for one-fourth of total U.S. oil refining capacity - the pipeline would result in 700,000 additional barrels of oil refined per day.

 

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/We-can-t-afford-indecision-on-Keystone-pipeline-2392359.php

Found this:

 

 

The crude product comes from bitumen, a material that has the consistency of asphalt that is many times more toxic and acidic than Texas crude oil. To transport bitumen, it must be diluted and moved along a pipeline at high pressures, which greatly increase the risks of leaks. Compounding the problem is the fact that TransCanada has refused to divulge the dilutents it will be using.

 

The pipeline also passes through the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer, which supplies 10-12 million Texans in sixty counties (including supplemental use in Dallas and Fort Worth) with water. An oil spill in this aquifer could potentially eliminate its safety for domestic and agricultural use. This is bad news for a state suffering the worst drought since they started keeping track 115 years ago. In addition, constructing the pipeline would require 86 million gallons of water for hydrostatic testing and drought control.

 

These high-pressure pipelines aren’t exactly spill-proof either. The current Keystone pipeline has already had 14 spills since its operations began in June, 2010. According to a recent New York Times article:

 

Since 1990, more than 5,600 incidents were reported involving land-based hazardous liquid pipelines, releasing a total of more than 110 million gallons of mostly crude and petroleum products, according to analysis of federal data. The pipeline safety agency considered more than half — at least 100 spills each year — to be “significant,” meaning they caused a fire, serious injury or fatality or released at least 2,100 gallons, among other factors.

 

Source: New York Times

http://www.progresstexas.org/blog/department-state-ignores-keystone-xl-pipeline-risks?page=3

 

As you stated, be careful. Liberal blogs against the pipeline have no more credibility than conservative blogs in favor of it so don't just assume their information is correct.

According to the Houston Chronicle

 

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a $7 billion private-funded pipeline that will carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil daily from western Canada to American refineries in Texas and elsewhere. The pipeline will create 20,000 construction jobs and approximately 118,000 related jobs, resulting in more than $20 billion in additional private sector spending and as much as $5 billion in new local, state and federal tax revenues.

 

In Texas, the pipeline would boost our state economy by an estimated $1.9 billion. For Texas' 26 oil refineries - which account for one-fourth of total U.S. oil refining capacity - the pipeline would result in 700,000 additional barrels of oil refined per day.

 

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/We-can-t-afford-indecision-on-Keystone-pipeline-2392359.php

 

That's not according to the Houston Chronicle, that's according to the opinion of Republican Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Big difference.