‘Approximately 50 total employees’

[ProSense]

‘Approximately 50 total employees’

By Steve Benen

Last summer, President Obama sat down for a lengthy interview with the New York Times, which noted that congressional Republicans talk about the Keystone XL pipeline “as a big job creator.” The president was incredulous.

“There is no evidence that that’s true,” he said. Obama noted temporary jobs would be created during the construction of the pipeline, but after that, “we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 (chuckles) jobs in an economy of 150 million working people.”

Republicans were outraged. PolitiFact labeled the president’s comments “false.” But a new, comprehensive, long-awaited State Department report on the pipeline project suggests Obama’s assessment was pretty accurate.

“Once the proposed Project enters service, operations would require approximately 50 total employees in the United States: 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors. This small number would result in negligible impacts on population, housing, and public services in the proposed Project area.”

In fairness, it’s important to note that the same report found the project could create over 40,000 temporary jobs – “direct, indirect, and induced” – during the construction of the pipeline itself. But (a) those temporary construction jobs would likely come and go quite quickly; and (b) this total is still well under half of the total talked up by congressional Republicans.

In contrast, the CBO estimates that extending federal unemployment benefits is worth 200,000 jobs in 2014 alone.

Of course, Keystone isn’t just about jobs, it’s about oil. And while the State Department’s report is likely to disappoint conservatives who see the project as a job-creating bonanza, the same document is likely to disappoint progressives who see it as a serious environmental risk.

The New York Times’ report this afternoon explained:

The long-awaited environmental impact statement on the project concludes that approval or denial of the pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, is unlikely to prompt oil companies to change the rate of their extraction of carbon-heavy tar sands oil, a State Department official said. Either way, the tar sands oil, which produces significantly more planet-warming carbon pollution than standard methods of drilling, is coming out of the ground, the report says. <…>

The project, which has been under review by the State Department since 2008, has become a political lightning rod for both the left and the right. Environmentalists rallying for action on climate change have seized on the pipeline plan as a potent symbol of fossil fuel projects that contribute to global warming.

- more -

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/approximately-50-total-employees

White House will not say if Obama will weigh in on Keystone pipeline
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024421988

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[surrealAmerican]

2. He's not counting the jobs ...

... of people cleaning up the inevitable leaks and spills. A leaky pipeline is surely a gift that keeps on giving, right?

[Vincardog]

3. If they want to extract process and ship to China from Canada, let them. We do not need the toxic

Sludge, the risk or the toxic extract. There is nothing of benefit to us in the hole deal.
Call the WH and you congress critter now.

[ProSense]

6. Yup. n/t

[ProSense]

4. Oil and Financial Industry Quotes Highlight Keystone XL as Essential Tar Sands Lynchpin

Oil and Financial Industry Quotes Highlight Keystone XL as Essential Tar Sands Lynchpin

It has been a pretty frustrating day on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline front. Lots of reporters seem to have been working off of the State Department's briefing that took place this morning, rather than reading the actual Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that came out late afternoon today. There's an array of issues that the first wave of stories seem to be getting wrong--and we will deconstruct some of that stuff later. But the issue of Keystone XL being the lynchpin that determines whether unsustainable plans to triple production of the dirtiest oil on the planet continues to get short shrift. Simply put, if the President says no to this project, the tar sands industry will be forced to take their foot off the pedal, which in turn means easing off one of the fastest growing sources of carbon pollution in North America.

- more -

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jmogerman/oil_and_financial_industry_quo.html

[ProSense]

5. Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, issued the following statement:

<...>

Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, issued the following statement:

“Reports of an industry victory on the Keystone XL pipeline are vastly over-stated. The final environmental review that the State Department released today sets the stage for President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department wisely walked away from its earlier contention that Keystone XL would have ‘no significant impact’ on climate disruption. Now the report concludes that Keystone XL will create the equivalent climate pollution of the exhaust of nearly 6 million cars each year, which the president cannot fail to recognize as significant and not in the nation’s best interest.

"Tar sands crude are more toxic, more corrosive, more difficult to clean up, and more carbon intensive than conventional oil. It’s the dirtiest form of crude oil in the world, and we just don’t need it.

"What the report fails to consider is just as significant. The market analysis assumes that over the next twenty years there will be no new efforts to curb carbon pollution and stimulate advanced batteries, fuel efficiency and clean energy – which, if true, would prevent us from meeting the challenge of climate disruption.

"Carbon pollution is the test for Keystone XL, and Keystone XL is the test for President Obama’s commitment to protect this and future generations from the worst impacts of climate disruption. We should not spend billions on a pipeline that will deepen our dependence on dirty oil when advanced batteries and clean energy are affordable and already meeting our energy needs in record amounts."

http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2014/01/statement-state-department-walks-away-significant-impact-new-keystone-xl