ODT: The Keystone XL Pipeline

Thanks Ron Paul for the debate. R1: Job Destruction Pro did not rebut my claims that the KXL pipeline would only contribute about $4 billion to the US economy. TransCanada said that KXL would add about $7 billion towards GDP. This includes both the US and Canadian portions of the pipeline. The Canadian portion will cost $1.6 out of the $7 billion. This leaves $5.4 billion. TransCanada stated that the Keystone project including XL and the section already completed will in total cost $13 billion. Of this figure, $7.9 billion had already been spent. Of this portion already spent, only $1.7 billion is related to KXL. So prior to the KXL construction, 25% of it has been spent. This leaves only $5.3 billion for construction, split between the US and Canada. Using the same proportion above (77%), the remaining KXL spending within the US is now only $4 billion. [1] Simply put, the US will only receive about $4 billion for the KXL project. Presently, 40% of the pipe will be manufactured by Evraz (Russian company) outside of the U.S. [1] The rest of it is likely to be produced in India, by the same company that produced the first defective pipe, because this company has already produced 10% of the pipe needed for KXL, and it is the same dimensions as the pipe for XL that is needed. [2] Ultimately, the US will get about $4 billion from the pipeline, after you factor in the amount already spent, the amount shared between the US and Canada, and the factor that the steel is made almost entirely overseas. The steel may be purchased from North American facilities, but this does not mean that it is produced here. On the contrary, TransCanada and specifically Pro's source relies on this fallacy, as the steel is produced overseas, then "purchased" after it is stocked in American facilities. [1] This doesn't create jobs. Finally, the US only gets $4 billion from the KXL after external factors (mentioned above) are applied. R2: GDP Effect Pro cites a 2 page document for this evidence. There are no outside sources, it is from a Pro-Business Manufacturing lobbying interest group at Congress. This is not solid evidence. The other sources are also from other groups, including Transcanada, but they are not original estimates. Meaning, it differs from the actual data that Transcanada sent to the State Dept., and it differs from the estimate from the State Dept. on economic growth. I, on the other hand, have provided solid sources from the company itself after careful evaluation and scrutiny. 1) The State Dept. has concluded that the KXL pipeline would create an "astounding" 20 permanent jobs. [3] 2) TransCanada's original application acknowledged that KXL pipeline would create about 3,500 to 4,200 temporary construction jobs. [4] 3) The State Dept. has themselves acknowledged that KXL would only create approximately 5,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs, in the USA. [5] TransCanada hired and payed the Perryman Group to undertake a "study" to see how many jobs would be created by the KXL, after the meager 5,000 temporary job figure was not strong enough for TransCanada. The methodology used was "unsubstantiated and misleading" and "highly flawed", when evaluated by the University of Cornell Global Labor Institute. [6] Remember, my opponent's figures are simply not accurate. After you 1) account for the amount already spent, 2) the amount actually produced in the US (minimal to none), and 3) account for that the figure also partially goes to Canada, you only have $4 billion in investment. TransCanada has acknowledged that oil prices would go up in the US by about $2-4 billion and be increasing. [8] This is annually, so it doesn't just end after two years like the temporary job bubble. Ultimately, GDP in the US will go up by $4 billion, after you acknowledge that the steel is made almost if not entirely overseas (Pro conceded this), that Canada gets a lot of the money, and that a good portion of the money has been spent. $4 billion for two years, which is about 3,500-4,200 jobs that are all temporary, and with real long term permanent jobs being around 20 or up to the "hundreds." [6] These estimates are from the State Dept. and TransCanada, not some shady, inaccurate, and refuted and highly flawed study. R3: Higher Oil Prices KXL was designed as an export pipeline, meaning that with some new tar sands oil and by redirecting oil from the Midwest, it would be shipped to the Gulf and resold in the world market. Keystone XL is an export pipeline. The oil industry intensely foucsed on this pipeline because it will enable them "to transport tar sands oil from Canada through the U.S. to the Gulf Coast where it can be exported overseas." [7] Pro also recites the highly flawed study, which was created by Perryman Group, whom were payed by TransCanada. Here is a similar analogy. I am the CEO of Pizza Hut, and I pay a health expert/ dietician so that he recommends Pizza Hut to his customers. It is blasphemy. Again, the cost at the pump will go up about $2-4 billion. [1] When you take into account the $4 billion in investment, spread over 2 years of construction, the job creation is null. Then, job creation is harmed. Mathematical Conclusion GDP = C+I+G (X-M) KXL raises consumption barely, remember only about 50- several hundred permanent jobs, figures from TransCanada and the State Dept. [3] Investment is $4 billion, or $2 billion over two years (USA). Goods produced is a - $2-5 billion, due to higher oil prices. Let's use a conservative estimate that oil prices go up by $3 billion. It's basic mathematics. When you have a simple function: (y= -3X + 4.002), and this includes 1) the actual investment, 2) the actual amount of real jobs, and 3) the higher oil prices, and 4) all these figures from the State Dept. and TransCanada, you get a real figure. And economic growth is negative. R4: Environment TransCanada must heat the water and fill it with toxic chemicals to pump out the tar sands. Pro just used a word gimmick. My opponent has dropped the arguments about how different species of animals would be wiped out, and how different forests and waterways would be removed. Pro also didn't rebut my argument that an estimate 92 spills would occur during the course of the pipeline, and this was presupposed from the amount of spills from the first, "high quality" pipeline. (last round evidence) Conclusion (After accounting for the new investment, higher oil prices, and amount divded): * The environment would threaten green energy and water sources. * Transcanada has used eminent domain to seize private landowner's land. PRO HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THIS. * KXL is a job destroyer, I've provided mathematical proof. Is Keystone XL beneficial? Nope, just if you use the highly flawed studies. Only 50 or so permanent jobs, but overall negative job effects. KXL? It is a pipe dream. Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] US State Department. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Socioeconomics, Section 3.10-80. August 26, 2011. http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.... gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/16_KXL_FEIS_Sec_3.10_Socioeconomics. pdf?OpenFileResource. [4] US State Department. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Socioeconomics, Section 3.10-53, 54. August 26, 2011. (http://www. keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open) [5] US State Department. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), (http://www.keystonepipelinexl.... state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/16_KXL_FEIS_Sec_3.10_Socioeconomics. pdf?OpenFileResource.) [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] Brookings, Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment, (http://www.brookings.edu... economy.aspx). [8] National Energy Board (Canada), Reasons for Decision, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline (https://www.neb-one.gc.ca... livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=604441&objAction=browse) (http:// www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/117832183.html?source=error.)