SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (107590)1/18/2012 6:29:55 PM
From: zeta1961  Respond to of 149317
 
Scott: I couldn't agree more.

It's important to stand up to Big Oil and the intense right wing pressure in Congress that wants to quickly authorize a $7 Billion dollar tar sands oil pipeline (and these powerful interests don't care if the pipeline could have many unintended consequences for generations to come). It's nice to see President Obama do what is in the nation's best interest.

It's now our job to have his back and go to bat for him....big time.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (107590)1/18/2012 11:13:38 PM
From: zeta1961  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
President Obama Stands Up to Big Oil

By Robert Redford. Posted: 1/18/12 03:28 PM ET

Let's face it: Big Oil is used to getting its way. But not today... and we have President Obama to thank for standing up to them in spite of the political risk.

President Obama has just rejected a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline -- a project that promised riches for the oil giants and an environmental disaster for the rest of us.

His decision represents a victory of historic proportions for people from throughout the pipeline path and all across America who have waged an uphill, years-long fight against one of the most nightmarish fossil fuel projects of our time.

But make no mistake: Big Oil is going to fight back hard and fast.

Why? Because this was a prime-time fight. The oil giants made sure of that.


Big Oil had their Congressional boosters put the president to an election-year test by forcing him to decide the pipeline's fate within 60 days. Then, the oil lobby itself rolled out its biggest PR guns to get the job done.

The head of the American Petroleum Institute sent the White House a very public and blatant warning: Approve the Keystone XL or face "huge political consequences."

Because Big Oil lost, this is not the end of the fight. This is the beginning of the real battle for America's energy future.

That battle will be fought in Congress, where Representatives who've collected $12 million from the Oil & Gas industry over the past two years are sure to try to raise Keystone XL from the dead.


So when you hear Big Oil call Keystone XL a national jobs plan -- ask "Are you kidding me?" A single pipeline project is not a jobs plan. Economic security is to be found in clean energy not in dirty energy that threatens us with oil spills and ever worsening harm from climate change.

And when you hear Big Oil say that we need Keystone XL for our security -- tell them to get real. Energy security comes from reducing our dependence on oil, not from a pipeline that would leave us with the risk but send the tar sands oil overseas.

The president stood up to Big Oil and listened to Americans saying: "We're done with fossil fuel schemes that destroy our land, poison our water and wreak havoc with our climate so that oil companies can make out like bandits." Now we need to continue to stand with the president and make it clear that tar sands pipelines are not in our national interest.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (107590)1/19/2012 11:21:44 AM
From: zeta1961  Respond to of 149317
 
In a Congressionally mandated report on the reasons for rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the Department of State concludes that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has little to do with energy security or the economy. The pipeline, of great interest to the foreign tar sands company TransCanada and its investors, would have little benefit for Americans and many risks. The Keystone XL pipeline just won’t change the economics of oil dependence in the United States:

"Regarding economic, energy security, and trade factors, the economic analysis in the final EIS indicates that, over the remainder of this decade, even if no new cross-border pipelines were constructed, there is likely to be little difference in the amount of crude oil refined at U.S. refineries, the amount of crude oil and refined products such as gasoline imported to (or exported from) the United States, the cost of crude oil or refined products in the United States, or the amount of crude oil imported from Canada. . . ."

The analysis from the final EIS, noted above, indicates that denying the permit at this time is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment, economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term.

The State Department concludes that “it would not be reasonable to suggest the pipeline would cause an increase in employment or other economic activity by increasing crude oil imported into the United States.”

Instead of the 100,000 or more jobs that proponents like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Rep. John Boehner tout, there would only be the “approximately 5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs in the United States that would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline.”

Download the complete State Department document.

thinkprogress.org



To: stockman_scott who wrote (107590)1/24/2012 6:39:14 PM
From: zeta1961  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
From Politico:

House and Senate GOP staff gathered Monday afternoon for a conference call with TransCanada counsel to plot out how to push the Obama administration on the Keystone XL pipeline.

"More or less everyone walked out of the room on the same page backing" a bill from Rep. Lee Terry to give FERC authority over the project instead of the White House and State Department, a Terry spokesman told POLITICO.

Lugar on Monday said House and Senate Republicans were still looking for a compromise. "That's the emphasis presently ... to have both chambers together," Lugar said.

Among those at the meeting were staff for Terry, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans, Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Dick Lugar, Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski and House GOP leadership, aides said.

House and Senate Republicans had different Keystone XL language late last year, with Senate language giving Obama 60 days to make up his mind on the project winning out over Terry's language in the initial payroll tax holiday extension passed in December. Hoeven also has a draft plan to simply allow Congress to authorize the pipeline.

After Obama announced last week he would turn down the project while an alternative route is being sought and examined in Nebraska, House Republican aides have complained that perhaps they would have been better off with the Terry language as part of the must-pass payroll package.

But the Senate wasn't going to accept the Terry language last month. "The essential difference this time is that we gave the president a chance," a Senate GOP aide said. The strategy is to "try to attach [Keystone language] to anything we can," the aide said. This includes another extension to the payroll tax credit.

Also while text can be tweaked until the last moment, a Senate GOP aide late Monday said to expect Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to mention the need to approve the Keystone pipeline when he gives the Republican response to Obama's big speech Tuesday night.

Read more: politico.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (107590)1/25/2012 12:02:41 PM
From: zeta1961  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
Keystone XL Jobs Bewilder Media

Reporters still fumbling numbers in wake of pipeline’s rejection

By Curtis Brainard

cjr.org

This is a great read re: what Transcanada says in its press releases that the media outlets keep regurgitating and what TC has told the gvt......
_____________________________________________________________________


God help the poor news consumers of America, especially the would-be voters.

President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline last week incited a new wave of coverage and speculation about how many jobs the line would create. Unfortunately, many outlets are still citing inflated and unreliable industry figures in the tens to hundreds of thousands while ignoring more modest and trustworthy approximations from academia and government, which place the total anywhere from 2,500 to 6,000.

The media were obsessed with the jobs number in 2011 and developed a preference for 20,000. A wide variety of conservative politicians and industry groups, from House Speaker John Boehner to the American Petroleum institute, have cited that figure, and some reporters have mistakenly attributed it to a variety of research firms that have issued reports on Keystone XL. But make no mistake, the number comes directly from TransCanada, the company that wants to build the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canadian tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries in the United States. TransCanada first mentioned it, with no explanation, in a February 2 press release, but didn’t explain its math for another eight months.

Here’s how the company arrived at the figure:

Construction of the 1,600 mile pipeline is broken down into 17 U.S. pipeline spreads or segments, with 500 workers per spread—that’s 8,500 jobs Keystone XL also needs 30 pump stations worth tens of millions of dollars. Each station requires 100 workers—that’s 3,000 jobs. Add another 600 jobs that would be needed for the six construction camps and tank construction at Cushing, Oklahoma. A project of such magnitude needs construction, management and inspection oversight—that would create 1,000 jobs, bringing the overall Keystone XL total to 13,000 direct, on-site jobs.Now, compare the math in the company’s press release to the information that it provided to the US State Department for its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), delivered in August. With regard to the seventeen “spreads,” it read:

Approximately 500 to 600 construction and inspection personnel would work on each spread, except for the proposed Houston Lateral which would require approximately 250 workers. Each spread would require 6 to 9 months to complete. Construction of new pump stations would require 20 to 30 additional workers at each site. Construction of all pump stations would be completed in 18 to 24 months. Tank farm construction would require approximately 30 to 40 construction personnel over a period of 15 to 18 months.Notice that in its press release, TransCanada omitted the durations of employment and inflated the number of pump-station and tank-farm jobs in order to arrive at 13,000 construction jobs. To that, it arbitrarily added 7,000 manufacturing supply jobs in order to get to 20,000 jobs. Most reporters published only that number despite the fact that, based on the information provided by TransCanada, the State Department’s EIS said Keystone XL “would result in hiring approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers over the three-year construction period.”

In September, researchers at Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute used the information in the EIS to come up with an estimate that was even more modest. Factoring in the various durations of employment, it calculated that “on-site construction and inspection creates only 5,060-9,250 person-years of employment (1 person-year = 1 person working full time for 1 year). This is equivalent to 2,500-4,650 jobs per year over two years.”

One of the researchers told InsideClimateNews that the difference between the Cornell and State Department estimates is attributable to the fact that the State Department includes a number of workers that TransCanada has already hired, while the Cornell study addressed only new jobs from pipeline construction. Whatever the case, the State Department and Cornell figures are clearly more reliable than those from TransCanada, which has a history of toying with numbers.

After the 20,000 “direct jobs,” the second most popular tally cited by the media has been 118,000 “spin-off jobs,” and it, too, has a long, convoluted history. It comes from a June 2010 report from The Perryman Group, a financial analysis firm based in Texas that was hired by TransCanada to evaluate Keystone XL. That report estimated, in a very non-transparent way, that the pipeline would create 118,935 person-years of employment over the hundred-year life of the project.

TransCanada first cited the figure in a September 2010 press release (which failed to mention the century-long time frame). But two months later, it issued another press release that dispensed with person-years and mistakenly referred to “118,000 spin-off jobs” instead. The error was repeated in dozens of media reports.

The Perryman Group did, in fact, estimate the “spin-off” jobs that result from “the permanent increase in stable oil supplies associated with the implementation of the Keystone XL Pipeline”: 250,348 under a “normal oil price scenario” and 553,235 under a “high oil price scenario.” And these figures formed the basis for countless media assertions that the pipeline would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, but they are highly suspect. A report to Congress submitted by the State Department took issue with the numbers, stating:

The economic analysis conducted for the EIS under contract to the Department of Energy, however, indicates that Keystone XL is unlikely to have any impact on the amount of crude oil imported into, or refined in, the United States. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to suggest the pipeline would cause an increase in employment or other economic activity by increasing crude oil imported into the United States.“Regarding employment, the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would likely create several thousand temporary jobs associated with construction; however, the project would not have a significant impact on long-term employment in the United States,” the State Department concluded.

That’s the bottom-line best guess for reporters: a few thousand temporary construction jobs over the course of a couple of years. Permanent jobs operating and maintaining the pipeline once it’s built probably wouldn’t add up to more than a few hundred. Everything else is unsubstantiated spin.

1 2