Neutral Perspective: Oil Pipeline Construction is Economically Beneficial and NOT for the United States?

Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create by Rene Marsh and Chris Isidore @CNNMoney January 28, 2017: 1:35 PM ET money.cnn.com
“.. “If we can get that pipeline built. A lot of jobs; 28,000 jobs. Great construction jobs,” he said when signing executive orders this week aimed at restarting both Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines that the Obama administration had blocked.

But according to official estimates, constructing the pipeline will generate far fewer construction jobs than that.

A State Department report on the pipeline that was issued under the Obama administration found that there would be 3,900 direct construction jobs if it was built over one year, or 1,950 if the work was spread over two years. …

Once the pipeline opens it would require only 35 full-time permanent jobs to run it, and 15 full-time temporary jobs, according to the state department report. TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline, does not dispute those numbers. …

…TransCanada also pointed out that there would be benefits beyond the jobs and wages, including “significant property tax revenues, as well as sales and use and other tax revenues, to counties and states along the proposed project route.” ..
Trump claims the Keystone XL pipeline will create 7 times more construction jobs than it actually will Dana Varinsky
Jan. 24, 2017, 4:44 PM 9,957 businessinsider.com

“..The number of permanent employees the pipeline would require after construction ends is dismally low: just 35…”

Most Of The Dakota And Keystone Pipeline Construction Jobs Trump Touts Are Temporary Chris White 2:35 PM 01/25/2017 dailycaller.com

“…Meanwhile, only 3,900 of the remaining 16,000 positions would be “construction jobs,” with all but 50 being temporary, most of which would be responsible for Keystone’s general upkeep.

The Dakota pipeline’s 12,000 jobs also include non-construction jobs for those in the services area that would see an increase in business during the project’s construction phase. Just 40 full-time permanent positions will remain after the controversial DAPL is completed, according to estimates by the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based liberal think tank…”

Beneficial

Here Are The Jobs The Keystone XL Pipeline Would Create Under Trump’s Executive Order Jan 24, 2017 @ 05:45 PM Ellen R. Wald , Contributor forbes.com
“..or the Keystone XL Pipeline, construction job estimates have ranged from 2,500 to 9,000. TransCanada, the S. Federal Government and the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University all produced interesting studies on this issue. Nearly all construction jobs for this project would be temporary.
Analysts also look at “spin-off” jobs, which are jobs that are created in related industries as a result of the new pipeline. These include sectors like refining, manufacturing, petroleum transportation and petroleum-dependent manufacturing. These jobs rely on too many variables to accurately predict and even measure after the fact…”

Dependence on Foreign Oil: Economic Risks, Global Demands for Petroleum – Alan Greenspan (2006) , from youtube.com
“Published on Oct 20, 2015

In the early 20th century the United States became a major oil supplier to the world. World War II prompted a Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program but it did not go beyond research. In mid-century the country shifted from being a major exporter to a net importer. An import quota imposed in 1959 limited imports to a fraction of domestic production until 1973.[10]

America’s dependence on foreign oil rose from 26 percent to 47 percent between 1985 to 1989.[11] After the 1973 oil crisis, the United States Department of Energy and Synthetic Fuels Corporation were created to address the problem of fuel import dependency. According to the Washington & Jefferson College Energy Index, by 2012, American energy independence had decreased by 22% since the tenure of President Harry Truman.[12]

America’s imports of foreign oil fell to 36 percent in 2013, down from a high of 60 percent in 2006.[13]

Many proponents of energy independence look to the United States’ untapped domestic oil reserves, either known or potential. Those who favor increasing domestic oil production often suggest removing many of the limitations on oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see Arctic Refuge drilling controversy) and the Outer Continental Shelf. Foreign dependence is not the only factor in North American energy politics, however; environmental concerns around land and water pollution as well as greenhouse gases related to are also a matter of controversy.

Some proponents of U.S. energy independence promote wider use of alternatives such as ethanol fuel, methanol, biodiesel, plug-in hybrids and other alternative propulsion. A 2013 report published by the Fuel Freedom Foundation said that without a shift to domestic feedstocks for fuel, such as natural gas and biomass, the U.S. would not be able to achieve energy independence.[14] As of 2014, the United States imposes an import tariff of 54 cents a gallon on ethanol fuel (there is no such import tariff on oil). Ethanol fuel in Brazil is produced from sugarcane, which yields much more fuel per acre than the corn used for ethanol production in the United States.

In Canada and Mexico there is also the concern not to have energy policy dictated by the United States, as well as tension over American ownership of energy companies.

In 1937 Mexico passed a constitutional amendment to nationalize its oil industry, which led to the creation of Pemex, the national oil company. There have been several proposals to privatize Pemex since, but they have never come to fruition as many Mexicans fear foreign control of this strategic industry.

The 1957 Canadian election was fought partially in response to the 1956 Pipeline Debate which concerned whether or not the government should allow a U.S.-owned company to build a trans-Canadian gas pipeline and whether the route should be entirely within Canada or partly through the United States. The right-leaning Progressive Conservatives and leftist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation opposition parties opposed American involvement in the pipeline while the Liberal government supported it. The Liberals were defeated in the 1957 election.

In 1973 Canada created its own state energy company Petro-Canada. It began operations in 1976, though it bought assets from private companies rather than seizing them as in many other countries. In 1980 the National Energy Program was launched to create oil self-sufficiency within Canada. It attempted to use tax incentives to discourage oil exports (mostly from Western Canada, primarily the province of Alberta) to the US, and redirect these towards to the oil importing provinces of Eastern Canada. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was also created to screen foreign (mostly U.S.) takeovers of Canadian companies. These policies were bitterly opposed by the provincial government of Alberta, and were repealed and reserved during the Conservative government of 1984-1993 which sought closer economic ties with the U.S., including the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement of 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_…”

-Learn from Past Pipelines

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline: Lessons for the Keystone XL Pipeline Debate
November 18, 2014 20 min read Download Report heritage.org

“..Proponents touted the jobs associated with the pipeline, but then as now, these jobs were discarded as “temporary.” As Brew noted in the environmental impact analysis, “At the end of construction, unemployment would probably increase.”[22]..

As far as the pipeline’s harmful effects on the ecosystem, those fears were never realized. A study presented in 2002 at the American Society of Civil Engineers 11th International Conference on Cold Regions Engineering found:

[T]he ecosystems affected by the operation of TAPS and associated activity for almost 25 years are healthy. With the exception of very limited local impacts, the vegetation, fish, and wildlife along TAPS have not been impacted at the resource population level. TAPS, as it exists today, is simply another feature on the landscape, to which the flora and fauna have habituated. Even Alaska’s North Slope, with extensive oil fields, has a healthy community of flora and fauna. Populations of large and small mammals, birds, and fish are healthy despite development of the oil field.[44]…

Total oil spilled averaged less than 8,083 barrels (340,000 gallons) per year, including the Exxon Valdez spill, since the pipeline opened, while production has averaged nearly 20 billion gallons annually. Not counting the Valdez spill, which was not a result of problems with the pipeline, total oil spilled averaged 1,151 barrels per year throughout TAPS, including all other Alyeska spills, shipper vessel spills, and contractor spills. Including the Valdez spill, which was approximately 150,000 barrels, just over 291,000 barrels was spilled from 1977 to 2012 (8,083 barrels per year)[46] out of around 400 million barrels produced annually. Many of the spills were small and easily contained and cleaned up, posing no environmental threat. …

The pipeline has transported nearly 17 billion barrels of oil over the past 37 years. Today, TAPS transports more than 500,000 barrels of oil per day. Although the volume continues to decline gradually from the peak of 2.1 million barrels per day, the original estimate of 10 billion barrels of total production was exceeded in 1994. Every barrel flowing through the TAPS is another barrel of economic benefit exceeding expectations.
Alaska has become an energy production powerhouse. The 17 billion barrels of oil accounted for nearly 20 percent of U.S. domestic energy production for 1980–2000. Even now, Alaska accounts for 10 percent of U.S. domestic energy production, although volume is falling, in part because of federal prohibitions against drilling in certain areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).[55] The economic value of this oil is more than $1.7 trillion at today’s prices.
Construction employment was significant. More than 21,000 contractors were employed at the peak of the construction project in addition to more than 6,300 other workers. Throughout 1969–1977, more than 70,000 individuals were employed at some point in the construction.[56] While some decry the temporary nature of some of these construction jobs, it is important to note that this line of work is by nature temporary—at some point the project is finished. Real families prospered and built wealth because of these jobs.
Oil and gas employment in Alaska has surged. Today, 127,000 jobs in Alaska (one-third) are oil related—either in production or in state oil revenue.[57] Another 60,000 jobs have resulted from the “broad economic benefits created by oil industry activities and by state spending of its huge oil revenues.”[58] The Alaska state constitution established the Alaska Permanent Fund, which states, “At least 25 percent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sales proceeds, federal mineral revenue-sharing payments and bonuses received by the state be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which may only be used for income-producing investments.”[59] The current value of the fund is more than $53 billion—more than $71,000 for each of Alaska’s 731,000 residents. ..”

NOT

5 Reasons Why the Keystone Pipeline is Bad for the Economy by Brendan Smith labor4sustainability.org
“…Here are 5 reasons why building the Keystone pipeline is bad for the economy — and workers…

urns out that 40 percent of U.S oil-industry jobs consist of minimum-wage work at gas stations. Instead of bankrolling an industry that is laying off workers and threatening our economic future, isn’t it time to take the billions in subsidies going to oil companies and invest instead in a sector that both creates jobs and protects the planet?…

…For example, the solar industry continues to be an engine of job growth — creating jobs six times faster than the overall job market. Research by the Solar Foundation shows a 13 percent growth in high-skilled solar jobs spanning installations, sales, marketing, manufacturing and software development — bringing total direct jobs to 119,000 in the sector. And according to the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts”“Amherst, investment in a green infrastructure program would create nearly four times as many jobs as an equal investment in oil and gas…”

-Learn from Past Pipelines

Secondary Negative Effects schoolbytes.com
“.. economy. They discovered what money was and what you could do with it. (Strohmeyer, 1993) The pipeline exposure and money caused much trouble in the balance of native villages as drugs entered the environment for the first time and so did the greed for money. Many young people left the older members of the villiage to go and live in the city, or pushed for changes in the old ways of the village. Many villages were ruined by this split caused by money. The construction of the pipeline had many negative effects on the social and economic structure of Alaska. It brought much crime and drugs to a relatively quiet Alaska. Also it disrupted many lives of Native Alaskan villages. Many of these problems were due to Alyeska’s effort to have the pipeline finished as quickly as possible at high costs. This rush also brought upon negative impacts when the pipeline began to start running. Between 1970 and 1986 there has been over three hundred spills of more than one hundred gallons of oil from the pipeline. Since 1977 over 10,000 meteric tons of crude oil has been lost. (Coates, 1991) Most of these spills are due to the rush job that Alyeska did to build the pipeline and their lack of management of the pipeline when it was running. Pumping stations lacked management and often equipment. Employees often lacked the proper training to work the machinery and safety was at the bottom of the importance list for Alyeska. Oil spill safety drills were considered jokes by employees and were never carried out properly. Former oil spill coordinator for Alyeska Jerry Nebel was quoted as saying “We knew exactly what was coming, where we were supposed to be, and we still messed it up. Drills were a farce, comic opera.” In a 1988 inventory of cleanup equipment conducted by Alyeska, half the emergency lights were missing. They were later found set up in preparation for Valdez’s winter carnival. The reason Alyeska could get away with such flagrant mismanagement was that there was no real punishment the government could administer besides shutting down the pipeline , which was never considered because of the money at stake that the pipeline provided. The sensitivity of the detection equipment was definitely not up to par for oil spills from the pipeline. Late in the seventy’s, 3,000 barrels of oil could leak out in one day from the pipeline and no instruments would pick it up. Also Alyeska only had one helicopter flight a day along the pipeline. After many spills and many complaints from environmental groups and the government, did Alyeska finally upgrade it’s detection system to pick up a 1000 barrel leak and had three helicopter flights a day along the pipeline. The biggest leaks along the pipeline happened June 1979 at Antigun Pass, which is the highest point along the pipeline route. The pipe sagged after the ground below thawed and 5,267 barrels of oil spilled into the Antigun River and headed north to the Beaufort Sea. There was another large leak at the 734 mile mark along the pipeline that was also a result from the thawing of the ground. (Coates, 1991) Another impact that the pipeline’s mismanagement had was in the area of air pollution…”

Good News Financial
https://www.facebook.com/groups/426559690751225/

Advertisements

Neutral Perspective: U.S.A. did NOT and did have a Christian founding?

DID NOT…

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion

by Jim Walker
Originated: 11 Apr. 1997
Additions: 26 Dec. 2004 .nobeliefs.com
“…Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity…

Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This nature’s view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone…”

The Masonic Influence In The Foundation Of America

Freemasonry and the Founding Fathers of America
Disclosure Nation
“Published on Jun 11, 2014

Masonic conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry; hundreds of such conspiracy theories have been described since the late 18th century. Generally, these theories fall into three distinct categories: political (usually involving allegations of control of government, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom), religious (usually involving allegations of anti-Christian or Satanic beliefs or practices), and cultural (usually involving popular entertainment). Many conspiracy theory writers have connected Freemasons (and the Knights Templar) with worship of the devil; these ideas are based on the doctrines of those organizations.

Of the claims that Freemasonry exerts control over politics, perhaps the best-known example is the New World Order theory, but there are others. These mainly involve aspects and agencies of the United States government, but actual events outside the US (such as the Propaganda Due scandal in Italy) are often used to lend credence to claims.

Another set of theories has to do with Freemasonry and religion, particularly that Freemasonry deals with “the occult”. These theories have their beginnings in the Taxil hoax. In addition to these, there are various theories that focus on the embedding of symbols in otherwise ordinary items, such as street patterns, national seals, etc.

There are Masonic conspiracy theories dealing with every aspect of society. The majority of these theories are based on one or more of the following assumptions:

That Freemasonry is its own religion, requires belief in a unique Masonic “god”, and that belief in this Masonic “god” is contrary to the teachings of various mainstream religions (although usually noted in terms of being specifically contrary to Christian belief)

That the 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite is more than an honorary degree, coupled with the belief that most Freemasons are unaware of hidden or secretive ruling bodies within their organization that govern them, conduct occult ritual, or control various positions of governmental power

That there is a centralized worldwide body that controls all Masonic Grand Lodges, and thus, all of Freemasonry worldwide acts in a unified manner

Scott Wolter has investigate many of these claims and here He Joins Capricorn Radio’s James Swagger to discuss his findings.

http://www.jamesswagger.com/ Interview by James Swagger with Scott Wolter @ Capricorn Radio”
*see 17:00 minute mark on Runestone in Kensington, Minnesota

NEUTRAL

-Debate

Was America Founded As A Christian Nation? Bill Flax , Contributor Sep 25, 2012 @ 09:51 PM 368,782 views
I explore the intersection of economics and culture.
“…The most damning evidence of a non-Christian past is a humiliating 1797 treaty with the Barbary Pirates. President Adams sought to stem unremitting Muslim raids against Mediterranean shipping and protect American sailors from African slavery. This obscure treaty submitted, “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”..”

Did America Have a Christian Founding? from heritage.org

“…A fourth possibility is that the Founders acted as Christians in their private and/or public lives. Some historians have argued that the Founding cannot be called Christian because some Founders did not join churches, take communion, or remain faithful to their spouses. Moreover, in their public capacity, they did not act in a Christian manner because they did things such as fight an unjust war against England and did not immediately abolish slavery.[5]..

2. The War for Independence

On the surface, the War for American Independence appears to be an inherently un-Christian event. The Apostle Paul, in Romans 13, seems to leave little room for revolution: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained by God. Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”

Historically, Christian thinkers have taken this and similar biblical passages to prohibit rebellion against civic authorities. However, in the 12th century, some Christian scholars began to allow for the possibility that inferior magistrates might overthrow evil kings. …

DID Have..

Faith of Our Fathers-

Christianity and America’s Founders faithofourfathers.net
“…The pilgrims were followed to New England by the Puritans, who created bible-based commonwealths. Those commonwealths practiced the same sort of representative government as their church covenants. Those governmental covenants and compacts numbered more than 100, and were the foundation for our Constitution.

New Haven (Connecticut) and Massachusetts were founded by Puritans who wanted to reform the Church of England, who later became known as Congregationalists. Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island based on the principle of freedom of conscience. Pennsylvania was established by William Penn as a Quaker colony. Maryland was a haven for Catholics from Protestant England.

America was indeed founded by bible-believing Christians and based on Christian principles. When they founded this country, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that would promote and encourage Christianity.

All but two of the first 108 universities founded in America were Christian. This includes the first, Harvard, where the student handbook listed this as Rule #1: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”

In 1777. Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies! And in 1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”

So, let us take a look at some of the lives and words of our Founding Fathers to see whether they were Christians or whether history has been revised…”

3:47 / 11:06
AMERICA’S CHRISTIAN FOUNDING FATHERS


“Published on Nov 22, 2012

Most Americans have been conditioned to believe and to assume that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a “wall of separation between Church and State.” This concept is seldom challenged today.

But it is not actually a part of the Constitution or any of the Amendments;
It did not exist until well into the twentieth century.

The establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The meaning was crystal clear to Americans and American jurisprudence for generations.

Very simply, the federal government was prohibited from establishing a single national denomination above all others (a state religion—endowed with public funding, special privileges, and penalties on other faiths that reject its doctrines—as Great Britain had) and secondly, the federal government could not interfere with the individual’s right to freedom of worship.

The purpose of the First Amendment was not to protect Americans from religion, it was to protect religion from government intrusion. This “understanding” is in full and obvious accord with the raison d’etre of the Bill of Rights to limit the federal government’s power and thereby secure the freedom of individuals and the rights of the states. The Bill of Rights was a declaration of what the federal government could not do. …”

Any questions, comments, feedback, etc… on any of the content above or that wasn’t mentioned? What side do you fall in?

Good News USA
https://www.facebook.com/groups/141726762684036/