ODT: The Keystone XL Pipeline

I. Job Destruction "TransCanada estimates that building the Keystone XL Pipeline will result in more than $7 billion in investment and will create about 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs and 180,000 "spin-off" jobs. "[1] Even if it was $4 billion (which is immediate), it would still be a lot more relative to long term investment: "The benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline would be concentrated largely in the pipeline states themselves," said Wade. "These areas could see an increase in gross domestic product by as much as $3.1 billion as well as an increase in business sales by as much as $6 billion. "[2] That's $9.1 billion in immediate costs; we aren't even factoring in the long-term benefits. I apologize for my broken link. Here is a better version: . http://news.investors.com.... My opponent forgets the several other sources I used to back up my jobs claims. Here is cold hard evidence (this is an independent study I quoted earlier): "An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate: More than $20 billion in new spending for the U. S. economy; An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans; Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion. . "[3] (That's a lot) Want estimates by the company itself? : "Private sector investment of more than $20 billion in the U. S. economy – at no cost to American taxpayers (food, lodging, fuel, vehicles, equipment, and other construction supplies and services), create about 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs, which will increase the personal income of American workers by $6.5 billion,"[4] So yes, I do have independent studies AND evidence from TransCanada that support my jobs claims. "Investing in Canadian oil is an economic win-win for both Canada and the United States. According to a 2011 study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), new oil sands investments are expected to create 444,000 new U. S. jobs and generate $521 billion in U. S. government revenues by 2035. The Keystone XL Pipeline construction alone could create 20,000 U. S. jobs. And for every two jobs supported in Canada, one will be supported in the U. S. "[5] It's going to take a lot of jobs to manufacture the pipeline and some of it is being produced here. And my opponent forgets assembly of the pipeline. That has to be done here. II. GDP Effect My opponent forgets investment. "private sector investment of more than $20 billion in the U. S. economy. "[4] This means that even if my opponent's claims were true, he forgets the larger effect investment will have. GDP=C+I and my opponent only considers C. "The study further concluded that once the pipeline is operational, the states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated operating life of the pipeline. The $7 billion pipeline project is expected to directly create more than 15,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the US. "[6] This is within one year of construction. II. add. Long-Term My opponent has seemed to completely forget the long term benefits of the pipeline. I have already stated them several times in this debate and will not state them again. But, they should be taken into full consideration. III. Increasing Gas Prices My opponent is really making assertions now. He hasn't explained how the KXL would lower supply. I have stated many times that KXL oil is not bound for export and would help raise supply and help lower dependence on foreign, inflated oil. "Recently, for example, oil that is imported and sold on the U. S. Gulf Coast is trading around $90U. S. per barrel. Western Canadian oil is currently trading for $70 U. S. per barrel. "[4] In addition, "Currently, over 20 percent of our imported oil comes from Canada. .. Once the pipeline is completed, over 33 percent of our imported oil will come from Canada. "[1] The first one comes from TransCanada. So, America is getting more of the cheaper oil. But are they? "The crude oil Keystone XL will transport will not be shipped to China; it will be refined at U. S. refineries on the Gulf Coast to meet American demand for petroleum products. This pipeline is not an export pipeline. "[4] "99% of Canadian oil exports are U. S. -bound. The planned Keystone Pipeline would deliver oil sands to U. S. refineries, and create 250,000 U. S. jobs and generate $20 billion in economic activity. "[7] Yes they are. KXL oil is mostly bound for the US, if not all. And like I said earlier, it would be easy for the State Department to make a condition on US usage for approval. "The United States imported over four billion barrels of oil in 2010; a 700,000 barrel per day pipeline will make a real impact on American energy security, but it will not make America a net oil exporter. In addition, there is already spare pipeline capacity from the oil sands to the Pacific coast, a distance of only about 500 miles. Why would companies choose instead to ship the oil 1,700 miles in the opposite direction, load it onto tankers in the Gulf of Mexico, and then ship it south and through the Panama Canal toward Asian markets, incurring additional and avoidable costs at each step? "[11] (I know it's biased, but it makes a great point) IV. Green Energy Production Average Renewable Energy Salary: $61000[8] "The average salary for working on the pipeline [KXL] is $73,000 a year. "[9] Boom. On average, green energy may produce more payoff than dirty energy on average, but the KXL is above both averages. And, most green jobs are financed by the government, not big business anyway. As my opponent said, government is inefficient; then why does he want to create jobs in a field that is mostly financed by government? So, green does not equal more green but in fact red and black. V. Environment First, "TransCanada's company policy does not allow for the heating of oil within the pipeline. Any heat released will be the result of friction, seasons, and the normal transportation process. "[10] Second, "Jim Goeke, an aquifer expert at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has noted several times, any spill from the pipeline would be extremely limited and not affect the aquifer in general. Any leak in the pipeline would only affect "10's or 100's of feet around the pipeline. " The very structure of the aquifer makes it so that oil could not permeate the general aquifer. Furthermore, the Keystone pipeline currently going through Nebraska and over the Ogallala Aquifer has suffered zero leaks, and all reported spills were pumping malfunctions and done no damage to the aquifer. Nationally, ten of the twelve leak accidents involving pipes have measured only between five and ten gallons, a very negligible amount that can be easily cleaned and very localized. "[10] Third, my opponent is trying to way overestimate 5 gallons. Remember, I said only 210 gallons ever left the plant, and that is almost negligible compared to the sheer size of the aquifer. And finally, "The Pipeline will be very safe, using new technology to insure the best safety and environmental standards. "[10] To conclude, "The State Department also concluded after a 30 month study that there was no scientific evidence to justify the denial of a permit for the pipeline. Also, shipping oil through a pipeline is environmentally much safer than shipping it overseas, (i. e. the Middle East to the US). "[10] "Furthermore, there are several other pipelines already crossing the U. S. /Canadian border and have been operating for years without many problems. "[12] Conclusion: *The KXL has enormous immediate economic benefits thst could help boost the economy. *Long-term economic benefits are a whole lot better. *KXL Oil is bound for the US, reducing our energy dependence and gas prices. *There are few, almost negligible ï¿½environmental effects. *The oil will be sent to China any way, no net saved environment and lost economic potential. ï¿½ *Say YES to the Keystone XL Pipeline. Thank you again Contra. ï¿½ Sources: [1]:. http://www.nam.org... [2]:. http://www.businesswire.com... [3]:. http://www.pipeline-news.com... [4]:. http://www.transcanada.com... [5]:. http://www.pipelineandgasjournal.com... [6]:. http://www.keystonexlnebraska.com... [7]:. http://www.fuelingus.org...'s-smart-policies-spur-economic-growth [8]:. http://www.simplyhired.com... [9]:. http://www.dailytoreador.com... [10]:. http://www.platteinstitute.org... [11]:. http://www.buildkxlnow.org... [12]:. http://www.standard.net...