It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yet exactly how much work Keystone, a proposed 1,700-mile pipeline that would transport oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast, would generate remains in dispute. Transcanada (TRP), the energy giant bidding to build the pipeline, projects the undertaking would create 20,000 jobs in the U.S., including 13,000 positions in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing.
That figure, based on a report by a consulting firm hired by Transcanada to assess the project's economic impact, has been widely cited by Keystone backers on Capitol Hill. Other estimates advanced by supporters of the pipeline have been even more optimistic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claiming it could create 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs.
Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions.
Another reason for the discrepancy appears to stem from what that 20,000 figure really means. As Transcanada has conceded, its estimate counted up "job years" spent on the project, not jobs. In other words, the company was counting a single construction worker who worked for two years on Keystone as two jobs, lending fuel to critics who said advocates of the pipeline were overstating its benefits.
In recent years, the United States has become a net-exporter of refined oil products, like gasoline, jet fuel and asphalt (meaning it exports more products than it imports), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. However, it is a net-importer of the crude oil it uses to make those products.
Keystone XL would transport crude oil from Canada’s tar sands through the Midwestern United States down to the Gulf Coast, and there are refineries all along the proposed route. (The map is from TransCanada, the pipeline operator.)
America gets more crude oil from Canada than any other country. Nearly all of Canada’s exports go to the United States, and this accounts for about a third of America’s total crude oil imports. Much of its oil already makes it to the United States by rail and existing pipelines
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: neo96
I would say it get's killed by his mighty pen.
He should veto it. No American should support a foreign company to be able to use emanate domain to steal land from American citizens for a pipeline.
Too funny!
So they should just support our government that steals land using imminent domain!
Why do you hate Canada eh ?
Lot's of American corporations have plants there, and there is the Alaskan pipeline.
Guess Canada should rise up, and take it instead.
So you support some foreign company being able to tell an American citizen we are taking your land because we want to put a pipeline on it. Some American you are. What other parts of America do you want to hand over to foreigners seeing how you think they have more right to our lands than Americans?
Oh stop being so xenophobic.
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: neo96
I would say it get's killed by his mighty pen.
He should veto it. No American should support a foreign company to be able to use emanate domain to steal land from American citizens for a pipeline.
Too funny!
So they should just support our government that steals land using imminent domain!
Why do you hate Canada eh ?
Lot's of American corporations have plants there, and there is the Alaskan pipeline.
Guess Canada should rise up, and take it instead.
So you support some foreign company being able to tell an American citizen we are taking your land because we want to put a pipeline on it. Some American you are. What other parts of America do you want to hand over to foreigners seeing how you think they have more right to our lands than Americans?
Oh stop being so xenophobic.
Not able to answer the question huh? Do you or do you not think foreign companies have more rights to American land than Americans?
originally posted by: neo96
In recent years, the United States has become a net-exporter of refined oil products, like gasoline, jet fuel and asphalt (meaning it exports more products than it imports), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. However, it is a net-importer of the crude oil it uses to make those products.
Keystone XL would transport crude oil from Canada’s tar sands through the Midwestern United States down to the Gulf Coast, and there are refineries all along the proposed route. (The map is from TransCanada, the pipeline operator.)
America gets more crude oil from Canada than any other country. Nearly all of Canada’s exports go to the United States, and this accounts for about a third of America’s total crude oil imports. Much of its oil already makes it to the United States by rail and existing pipelines
www.politifact.com...
Sure is about the politics.
The general consensus among experts, as well as the State Department, is that American refineries would be the primary buyers of crude oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline, by a vast margin. S
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Connector
The general consensus among experts, as well as the State Department, is that American refineries would be the primary buyers of crude oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline, by a vast margin. S
That is not what I read.
US refiners primary buyer.
After that other products that get made from it.
Not only construction jobs, but the jobs that make those petro products, and other jobs from them spending money.
Although the go-out, or “going global strategy”, was officially promulgated in 1999, it had already really taken effect in 1993, the year China turned from a net exporter to a net importer of crude oil. The reason behind it was the Politburo’s recognition that the time had come to empower its inward-looking state-owned enterprised (SOEs) to go overseas in their quest for the materials and energy resources necessary to drive the country’s epochal modernization. While most countries implement policies to encourage inward foreign direct investment, few do the reverse and encourage outflows. In his somewhat longwinded style, Bo writes about CNPC’s lead in following the government’s go-out policy: “In 1993, against the backdrop of liberalization reforms and economic globalization and, moreover, under the direction of the party’s and our nation’s great policy decision to extensively utilize both domestic and foreign resources and markets, CNPC, as representative of China’s oil and gas industry, initiated measures to internationalize its operations.” And CNPC got right to work. On June 15 of that same year, CNPC ventured to distant Alberta where it acquired a 15.8 per cent operating interest in the North Twining oilfield and 11 per cent equity in the associated natural gas processing plant. In Alberta CNPC cut its teeth in overseas deal-making and incrementally built up its expertise. The NOCs follow suit: Chinese contractors refer to 1991 to 1996 as the pilot phase and 1997 to 2002 as the foundation phase of the implementation of the go-out policy for these companies. Subsequently, the rapid growth phase lasted from 2003 to 2008 and had major implications for Canada’s petroleum industry. During this period, Chinese companies were involved in acquisitions of Calgary-based PetroKazakhstan (US$4.18 billion), Ecuadorian assets from Encana (US$1.4 billion) and PetroCanada’s interests in Syrian assets (US$576 million). The period from 2009 until today has been called the scaling-up phase. As the name suggests, this period involves Chinese NOCs going after larger projects and further internationalizing operations. There are numerous examples: PetroChina’s sequenced acquisition of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.’s Mackay River project for $1.9 billion and $680 million; Sinopec’s purchase of ConocoPhillips’s nine per cent stake in Syncrude ($4.65 billion); and, of course, CNOOC’s acquisition of Nexen ($15.1 billion). This scaling-up phase is the real beginning of the go-up policy that charts a path of extensive structural reform for the whole Chinese oil and gas industry.Over the past 20 years, China’s NOCs have gone out and successfully established themselves internationally; it is now time for them to start building up in size, right up and down the entire industrial value chain.
originally posted by: Connector
The oil is ALREADY flowing down at basically the same rate it is now using, rail.
originally posted by: peck420
originally posted by: Connector
The oil is ALREADY flowing down at basically the same rate it is now using, rail.
Rail is currently shipping just over half of what XL can carry.
2nd.
2014 Canadian Crude Oil Exports by Rail - Quarterly Data
Volume
(m³) Volume
(m³ per day) Volume
(bbl) Volume
(bbl per day)
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 2,363,453 26,261 14,872,875 165,254
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 2,358,023 25,912 14,838,705 163,063
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 2,661,655 28,931 16,749,414 182,059
originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Connector
You are correct! I am remiss...
Canadian Crude Oil Shipmenst by Rail - Quarterly (NEB)
2014 Canadian Crude Oil Exports by Rail - Quarterly Data
Volume
(m³) Volume
(m³ per day) Volume
(bbl) Volume
(bbl per day)
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 2,363,453 26,261 14,872,875 165,254
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 2,358,023 25,912 14,838,705 163,063
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 2,661,655 28,931 16,749,414 182,059
Edit to add: The chart just doesn't copy over very well as a quote, it's at he bottom of the linked page.
XL is rated for 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 cubic meters/day).
4th quarter counts are not 100% firm, but my sources tell me that they are not much better than the 2nd-3rd growth, putting early estimates around 32,000 cubic meters per day.
originally posted by: intrepid
Canada needs this more than the States imo. Everyone says, "Well if this isn't shipped to the States we'll build a pipeline to the west coast and sell it to China."
originally posted by: NiZZiM
a reply to: neo96
Kill it. We don't need any foreign oil flowing in and out of our country with the oil spills in pristine lnd that it will undoubtedly bring with it.
originally posted by: intrepid
I have no dog in this fight. Do it or not. I think we rely too much on oil for our economy as it is. From my reading on this here's a few points:
This isn't down political lines. Some Red states don't want this. It's not all the "environazis".
Canada needs this more than the States imo. Everyone says, "Well if this isn't shipped to the States we'll build a pipeline to the west coast and sell it to China."
BS on the last. Too many environmental and First Nations concerns, provinces, etc. It would take off if it went to the States AND they take all of the risk. Pipeline to the west coast is a pipe dream.
Regulators approved the project with 209 conditions last year, but it remains hotly contested by some aboriginal and environmental groups, who contend the risk of an oil spill outweighs the pipeline’s projected benefits.