2014 Midterms

[OCinBuffalo]

What's the payoff, in your mind, to the pipeline being approved and completed? What's the benefit to American citizens?

First, let's ensure that you've conceded the following arguments:

1. Americans "have their price", but nobody else does

2. The pipeline is dangerous....compared to the other ways the oil will be transported without it

3. US corporations are bad because they are doing something every other corporation in the world wouldn't do

4. No other people in the world would choose to do this, only Americans

as patently retarded.

 

We cannot proceed with nonsense like that clouding this discussion. The fact is that the exact opposite is true for 1-4, as I said above.

 

Now, as far as the benefits go:

1. Corporations, plural, are making a business decision here. If there was no significant benefit to them, the risk of you and your pals crying for months/years over an accident, would ensure they didn't go forward. The lawsuits and PR damage alone is daunting, because there would be no shortage of people/lawyers looking for unearned $, and no shortage of people looking to trade/gain influence off the accident(5 months of MSNBC minute-by-minute coverage...just like with the Christie story). However, there are legions of people who work for these corporations who have weighed the benefit/risk, and have decided to proceed. I haven't seen the projections, nor have I seen the plans....but I do know the process. And if they have decided to go forward(and haven't changed their minds in the YEARS that this has been delayed), you can bet there's compelling evidence.

 

2. The oil market....is a market. We are currently overpaying for gas(directly due to intentional tampering with the market by this administration's EPA. If they were traders, they'd all be in jail.). In fact, despite the best efforts of this administration to screw us all on oil, which would have made this economy about 2x worse than it is, natural gas has saved Obama's ass. It has provided the cheaper energy that has allowed our entire economy to tread water. Without it, we'd be looking at another recession, starting 2 years ago. The pipeline(and getting rid of this version EPA), will drive oil prices down further by adding supply to the oil market. That's because: that's how a market works.

 

3. Directly due to #2, there are all sorts of not-Keynesian mutlipliers that have the potential to take effect. In the simplest way it can be said: Lower gas prices--> lower energy prices in general(there's that competition word again)-->more opportunity for expansion/growth of existing business-->100% of the time means more jobs. How many depends on multiple factors, but it never means less jobs, or 0 jobs. Energy cost is a key metric upon which most business is based. Thus, there are benefits, beyond merely the pipeline lowering the price of gas, that must be taken into account. PRIVATE BUSINESS, not government, WILL make choices to expand if energy prices drop, hence, not-Keynesian multiplier.

 

4. Directly due to #3, limiting our estimate of jobs created to: only those created directly by the pipeline itself?

 

Um, that goes against the last 80 years of Democratic Party Doctrine, which clearly states: "Government Investment in infrastructure ALWAYS creates the primary jobs of the project itself, which in turn create "multiplier" jobs because of the new income-->consumer spending that results".

 

Apparently this 80 years of doctrine somehow applies to every new road, bridge, tunnel, airport terminal, and even sports stadium...

 

....but does not apply to a massive pipeline? Oh it must be that ONLY government investment in infrastructure applies, but corprate does not?

 

Once again, Democrats need to get their story straight.

 

Once again, either you have been lying for 80 years, or you are lying about this pipeline. These things are mutually exclusive. Thus, pick one.

 

Once again, as I said above: Get some F'ing perspective, but before you can do that, get in touch with reality.

Edited November 20, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

First, let's ensure that you've conceded the following arguments:

1. Americans "have their price", but nobody else does

2. The pipeline is dangerous....compared to the other ways the oil will be transported without it

3. US corporations are bad because they are doing something every other corporation in the world wouldn't do

4. No other people in the world would choose to do this, only Americans

as patently retarded.

 

We cannot proceed with nonsense like that clouding this discussion. The fact is that the exact opposite is true for 1-4, as I said above.

 

Now, as far as the benefits go:

1. Corporations, plural, are making a business decision here. If there was no significant benefit to them, the risk of you and your pals crying for months/years over an accident, would ensure they didn't go forward. The lawsuits and PR damage alone is daunting, because there would be no shortage of people/lawyers looking for unearned $, and no shortage of people looking to trade/gain influence off the accident(5 months of MSNBC minute-by-minute coverage...just like with the Christie story). However, there are legions of people who work for these corporations who have weighed the benefit/risk, and have decided to proceed. I haven't seen the projections, nor have I seen the plans....but I do know the process. And if they have decided to go forward(and haven't changed their minds in the YEARS that this has been delayed), you can bet there's compelling evidence.

 

2. The oil market....is a market. We are currently overpaying for gas(directly due to intentional tampering with the market by this administration's EPA. If they were traders, they'd all be in jail.). In fact, despite the best efforts of this administration to screw us all on oil, which would have made this economy about 2x worse than it is, natural gas has saved Obama's ass. It has provided the cheaper energy that has allowed our entire economy to tread water. Without it, we'd be looking at another recession, starting 2 years ago. The pipeline(and getting rid of this version EPA), will drive oil prices down further by adding supply to the oil market. That's because: that's how a market works.

 

3. Directly due to #2, there are all sorts of not-Keynesian mutlipliers that have the potential to take effect. In the simplest way it can be said: Lower gas prices--> lower energy prices in general(there's that competition word again)-->more opportunity for expansion/growth of existing business-->100% of the time means more jobs. How many depends on multiple factors, but it never means less jobs, or 0 jobs. Energy cost is a key metric upon which most business is based. Thus, there are benefits, beyond merely the pipeline lowering the price of gas, that must be taken into account. PRIVATE BUSINESS, not government, WILL make choices to expand if energy prices drop, hence, not-Keynesian multiplier.

 

4. Directly due to #3, limiting our estimate of jobs created to: only those created directly by the pipeline itself?

 

Um, that goes against the last 80 years of Democratic Party Doctrine, which clearly states: "Government Investment in infrastructure ALWAYS creates the primary jobs of the project itself, which in turn create "multiplier" jobs because of the new income-->consumer spending that results".

 

Apparently this 80 years of doctrine somehow applies to every new road, bridge, tunnel, airport terminal, and even sports stadium...

 

....but does not apply to a massive pipeline? Oh it must be that ONLY government investment in infrastructure applies, but corprate does not?

 

Once again, Democrats need to get their story straight.

 

Once again, either you have been lying for 80 years, or you are lying about this pipeline. These things are mutually exclusive. Thus, pick one.

 

Once again, as I said above: Get some F'ing perspective, but before you can do that, get in touch with reality.

 

Give up, Greg. Even if you beat him with facts, he'll still flood you with mind numbing emoticon-strewn bull **** and win on endurance.

 

And no, OC, I didn't read your damn post.

[OCinBuffalo]

Give up, Greg. Even if you beat him with facts, he'll still flood you with mind numbing emoticon-strewn bull **** and win on endurance.

 

And no, OC, I didn't read your damn post.

But, in fact, it is I that has put forward the facts, and debunked Greg's nonsense arguments.

 

Which, is why he abandoned all his nonsense, FUD, and inconsequential consequences, and in his very next post, boiled it down to: "What are the benefits?"

 

Why did he do that? Especially after posting the longest post in this thread? We went form a book to a single question. How?

 

The answer is simple: you're running your mouth again, with no clue what is happening again, and contributing nothing, again.

Edited November 20, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Why did he do that? Especially after posting the longest post in this thread? We went form a book to a single question. How?

 

In other words, you're claiming victory on volume, like I said.

[OCinBuffalo]

In other words, you're claiming victory on volume, like I said.

No, not like you said at all.

 

You suggested Greg could win on facts. He cannot. I stripped him of all his "facts" with regard to risk and costs, 3 posts ago. Which, is ostensibly why he boiled it down to "benefits".

 

Now, I have answered his question with real facts.

 

So, in fact, you are the opposite of right.

[Joe Miner]

 

The job figures have come out in the past few months from a few different sources.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/state-department-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-only-create-35-permanent-jobs-228898

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/keystone-s-thousands-of-jobs-fall-to-20-when-pipeline-opens-1-.html

 

Cornell's GLI school released this: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_keystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

 

Pricing is not going to be impacted mainly because of the shale boom. We're already producing 70% more oil globally, and even more domestically, than ever before. The oil going through the pipeline will still be put into the market with or without the pipeline (which is why the CO2 threat the greenies are hitting so hard is silly), so it's really just a way to cheapen the cost for TransCanada, it's Chinese partners, and the Saudi owned companies that are going to be refining the sludge.

 

I'm not making an environmental argument here, but rather an economic one. Though the environmental factors certainly play into my opinion. I agree with you the chances of a spill are small (despite recent spills in similarly built pipelines in Michigan that's still costing us untold millions of dollars and has yet to be contained), the question should be are even those small risks worth it? If you're Chinese, Canadian, or Saudi the answer is yes. If you're an American politician who gets campaign donations from big energy, then the answer is yes. But if you're an American, I'm not so sure the answer is the same. If something does go wrong, no matter how slim the chances, we're the ones that are going to pay for it. And in return we get less than a handful of jobs and about 4 billion.

 

I don't think that's a good deal at all.

 

 

 

 

This is the problem. It's been sold to you as a Barry vs America issue when it's not. This is a bad deal for Americans as it stands, but a great deal for the Chinese, Saudis and Canadians. You should really refocus your argument and ask yourself if you'd rather help those nations at the (possible) expense to our own for little to no economic benefits. I bet your answer would change if you thought about it in those terms rather than the snake oil the pols have been pushing for close to a decade now.

So you quote a bloomberg article that lists varying numbers for created jobs and then decide to preach on the one that best suits your position.

 

Not too mention that nowhere does it go into any details on how the numbers were derived.

 

In not saying it will create 20,000 jobs, but to preach 30 based on one person's opinion seems just a bit disingenuous. Almost like you're not really interested in having an actual discussion.

[Deranged Rhino]

So you quote a bloomberg article that lists varying numbers for created jobs and then decide to preach on the one that best suits your position.

 

Not too mention that nowhere does it go into any details on how the numbers were derived.

 

In not saying it will create 20,000 jobs, but to preach 30 based on one person's opinion seems just a bit disingenuous. Almost like you're not really interested in having an actual discussion.

 

The Cornell article goes into 40 pages of detail about how the numbers were derived and is cited in my post. It's also the only of those links I read, I pulled the first two from a quick google search about the numbers just to show they've been out there. I should have been more clear, the Cornell piece is the only one I read and where I got my numbers from. It's one of the primary sources for articles about this subject in bloomberg, newsweek, salon, daily beast et al, they all go back to the Cornell findings.

 

I find it more useful to read the source material (when possible or when I'm interested enough of course) than to read the interpretation of that material. In any case, the numbers are explained, in some detail there. And I find their argument to be quite compelling. You should give it a read.

 

Almost like you're not really interested in having an actual discussion.

 

And to clarify, I am interested in having an actual discussion, and am more than willing to listen to other opinions. Kinda why I'm here.

[Rob's House]

 

 

The Cornell article goes into 40 pages of detail about how the numbers were derived and is cited in my post. It's also the only of those links I read, I pulled the first two from a quick google search about the numbers just to show they've been out there. I should have been more clear, the Cornell piece is the only one I read and where I got my numbers from. It's one of the primary sources for articles about this subject in bloomberg, newsweek, salon, daily beast et al, they all go back to the Cornell findings.

 

I find it more useful to read the source material (when possible or when I'm interested enough of course) than to read the interpretation of that material. In any case, the numbers are explained, in some detail there. And I find their argument to be quite compelling. You should give it a read.

 

 

 

And to clarify, I am interested in having an actual discussion, and am more than willing to listen to other opinions. Kinda why I'm here.

 

I'm glad you posted and explained this because I'm curious to know what the debate here is. When I know more I'll weigh in with my opinion. I will say, just having read the first few pages of the Cornell piece, it is already pretty obvious where the author(s) was coming from before any research was done. It doesn't mean they're wrong or that there isn't good research in there, but it does mean the findings were predetermined to be framed negatively.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Rob's House

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm glad you posted and explained this because I'm curious to know what the debate here is. When I know more I'll weigh in with my opinion. I will say, just having read the first few pages of the Cornell piece, it is already pretty obvious where the author(s) was coming from before any research was done. It doesn't mean they're wrong or that there isn't good research in there, but it does mean the findings were predetermined to be framed negatively.

 

[Joe Miner]

The Cornell article goes into 40 pages of detail about how the numbers were derived and is cited in my post. It's also the only of those links I read, I pulled the first two from a quick google search about the numbers just to show they've been out there. I should have been more clear, the Cornell piece is the only one I read and where I got my numbers from. It's one of the primary sources for articles about this subject in bloomberg, newsweek, salon, daily beast et al, they all go back to the Cornell findings.

 

I find it more useful to read the source material (when possible or when I'm interested enough of course) than to read the interpretation of that material. In any case, the numbers are explained, in some detail there. And I find their argument to be quite compelling. You should give it a read.

 

 

 

And to clarify, I am interested in having an actual discussion, and am more than willing to listen to other opinions. Kinda why I'm here.

 

No it doesn't.

 

It's a paper that spends the bulk of it's time discounting the Perryman study that it confesses never releases the details of how it was put together. So it's a paper that discounts 1 study based on results of different studies, outside observation, anecdotal evidence, and assumptions. It does not counter the Perryman study with its own calculations of how many jobs would be created, and the reasoning and data behind it. Whenever it's specific on job numbers it's pulling that info from another source.

 

The entire 4 sections on how it could cost more jobs than it creates is extremely weak and full of speculation and conjecture. I'd be ashamed to read that if I was from Cornell. They lay out a premise of 4 ways it could cost jobs, and then don't actually substantiate that premise with anything other than conjecture about a worst case possible spill or leak.

 

I'm not saying it's totally wrong or that it doesn't bring up several good points. I highly doubt that the pipeline will create thousands of jobs, or that a large number of those jobs won't be temporary. But it's a paper that's definitely written with a slant and an agenda. The conclusion that it will only result in 30 permanent jobs and that it's a "bad deal for Americans" are disingenuous statements.

[IDBillzFan]

I highly doubt that the pipeline will create thousands of jobs, or that a large number of those jobs won't be temporary. But it's a paper that's definitely written with a slant and an agenda. The conclusion that it will only result in 30 permanent jobs and that it's a "bad deal for Americans" are disingenuous statements.

 

A university brainiac writing something misleading to be referenced to advance the motives of an over-his-head president? How long before the author starts telling students how stupid Americans are?

[Nanker]

Give it up. The oil is being produced in Canada. It will get to the world markets somehow.

I guess it's far better to enrich Warren Buffett and other's pockets by letting them haul it in their oil tanker trains - which have ZERO history of wrecks and spills.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2014/03/03/warren-buffett-is-still-bullish-on-rail-and-keystone/

[Deranged Rhino]

Give it up. The oil is being produced in Canada. It will get to the world markets somehow.

 

That's not my argument. I agree the tar sands will be plundered regardless, and have said as much a few times. The question should be framed in terms of risks and rewards. The risks, as small as they may be, are still real and potentially catastrophic for the heartland if the worst case scenario comes to pass. The rewards on the other hand, are small -- a few jobs, less than half the projected revenue, and does nothing to help the national economy or energy independence.

 

Forget helping Buffett, what you're advocating is helping the Canadians, Chinese, Indians and Saudis -- not the United States.

[Chef Jim]

That's not my argument. I agree the tar sands will be plundered regardless, and have said as much a few times. The question should be framed in terms of risks and rewards. The risks, as small as they may be, are still real and potentially catastrophic for the heartland if the worst case scenario comes to pass. The rewards on the other hand, are small -- a few jobs, less than half the projected revenue, and does nothing to help the national economy or energy independence.

 

Forget helping Buffett, what you're advocating is helping the Canadians, Chinese, Indians and Saudis -- not the United States.

 

Give us a real and catastrophic scenario.

[Deranged Rhino]

Give us a real and catastrophic scenario.

 

I've given one already. There have been a number of spills from similarly constructed pipelines in the United States. The biggest happening in Michigan and is still not cleaned up and has cost over $1 Billion to date (http://archive.freep...River-oil-spill). Now, if the same spill happened over the Ogalla Aquifier (the largest, and shallowest, source of fresh water in the country which the proposed pipeline will be built over) it would wipe out crop production on a large scale in Nebraska and the midwest for decades.

 

The chances of that happening? Probably pretty small. But considering the risks to our national economy and ability to feed ourselves, it'd be foolish to take even a small risk without the promise of a big reward, especially when oil production is up 70% already without the pipeline. That's what's missing for me with the pipeline, forget politics or the CO2 issues with the tar sands, I've yet to see any credible numbers on what the pipeline gives the American people. So far there are no big rewards promised from the pipeline unless you're a politician getting paid by TransCanada / Big Energy, or a citizen of Canada, Saudi Arabia, China or India.

Edited November 20, 2014 by GreggyT

[Nanker]

So we also refuse to let the oil be transported in railroad tankers and trucks on US soil?

[Deranged Rhino]

So we also refuse to let the oil be transported in railroad tankers and trucks on US soil?

 

That's not what I'm saying or the point I'm trying to make. This isn't an anti-oil stance or even an environmental one. It's simply a question about what the actual benefits of the pipeline is to the American people. So far, there haven't been any put forward that aren't dubious, or at least aren't enough to completely dismiss the inherent risks in building an oil pipeline over the country's biggest source of fresh water -- one that fuels the agro industry in a huge portion of the country.

[meazza]

That's not what I'm saying or the point I'm trying to make. This isn't an anti-oil stance or even an environmental one. It's simply a question about what the actual benefits of the pipeline is to the American people. So far, there haven't been any put forward that aren't dubious, or at least aren't enough to completely dismiss the inherent risks in building an oil pipeline over the country's biggest source of fresh water -- one that fuels the agro industry in a huge portion of the country.

 

IIRC didn't they change the route so it doesn't pass over any critical areas?

[Chef Jim]

I've given one already. There have been a number of spills from similarly constructed pipelines in the United States. The biggest happening in Michigan and is still not cleaned up and has cost over $1 Billion to date (http://archive.freep...River-oil-spill). Now, if the same spill happened over the Ogalla Aquifier (the largest, and shallowest, source of fresh water in the country which the proposed pipeline will be built over) it would wipe out crop production on a large scale in Nebraska and the midwest for decades.

 

The chances of that happening? Probably pretty small. But considering the risks to our national economy and ability to feed ourselves, it'd be foolish to take even a small risk without the promise of a big reward, especially when oil production is up 70% already without the pipeline. That's what's missing for me with the pipeline, forget politics or the CO2 issues with the tar sands, I've yet to see any credible numbers on what the pipeline gives the American people. So far there are no big rewards promised from the pipeline unless you're a politician getting paid by TransCanada / Big Energy, or a citizen of Canada, Saudi Arabia, China or India.

 

I've not researched this as much as you. Actually not at all. But how does this fit in making the US energy self-sufficient? Anything that can make the Middle East irrelevent is a big plus to me.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Chef Jim

[FireChan]

 

 

I've not researched this as much as you. Actually not at all. But how does this fit in making the US energy self-sufficient? Anything that can make the Middle East irrelevent is a big plus to me.

 

I don't think it's a significant step to making the US energy sufficient unless there's a catastrophic situation where we take the pipeline by force.