God help the poor news consumers of America, especially the would-be voters.
President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline last week incited a new wave of coverage and speculation about how many jobs the line would create. Unfortunately, many outlets are still citing inflated and unreliable industry figures in the tens to hundreds of thousands while ignoring more modest and trustworthy approximations from academia and government, which place the total anywhere from 2,500 to 6,000.
The media were obsessed with the jobs number in 2011 and developed a preference for 20,000. A wide variety of conservative politicians and industry groups, from House Speaker John Boehner to the American Petroleum institute, have cited that figure, and some reporters have mistakenly attributed it to a variety of research firms that have issued reports on Keystone XL. But make no mistake, the number comes directly from TransCanada, the company that wants to build the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canadian tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries in the United States. TransCanada first mentioned it, with no explanation, in a February 2 press release, but didn’t explain its math for another eight months.
Here’s how the company arrived at the figure:
Construction of the 1,600 mile pipeline is broken down into 17 U.S. pipeline spreads or segments, with 500 workers per spread—that’s 8,500 jobs Keystone XL also needs 30 pump stations worth tens of millions of dollars. Each station requires 100 workers—that’s 3,000 jobs. Add another 600 jobs that would be needed for the six construction camps and tank construction at Cushing, Oklahoma. A project of such magnitude needs construction, management and inspection oversight—that would create 1,000 jobs, bringing the overall Keystone XL total to 13,000 direct, on-site jobs.
Now, compare the math in the company’s press release to the information that it provided to the US State Department for its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), delivered in August. With regard to the seventeen “spreads,” it read:
Approximately 500 to 600 construction and inspection personnel would work on each spread, except for the proposed Houston Lateral which would require approximately 250 workers. Each spread would require 6 to 9 months to complete. Construction of new pump stations would require 20 to 30 additional workers at each site. Construction of all pump stations would be completed in 18 to 24 months. Tank farm construction would require approximately 30 to 40 construction personnel over a period of 15 to 18 months.
Notice that in its press release, TransCanada omitted the durations of employment and inflated the number of pump-station and tank-farm jobs in order to arrive at 13,000 construction jobs. To that, it arbitrarily added 7,000 manufacturing supply jobs in order to get to 20,000 jobs. Most reporters published only that number despite the fact that, based on the information provided by TransCanada, the State Department’s EIS said Keystone XL “would result in hiring approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers over the three-year construction period.”
In September, researchers at Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute used the information in the EIS to come up with an estimate that was even more modest. Factoring in the various durations of employment, it calculated that “on-site construction and inspection creates only 5,060-9,250 person-years of employment (1 person-year = 1 person working full time for 1 year). This is equivalent to 2,500-4,650 jobs per year over two years.”
One of the researchers told InsideClimateNews that the difference between the Cornell and State Department estimates is attributable to the fact that the State Department includes a number of workers that TransCanada has already hired, while the Cornell study addressed only new jobs from pipeline construction. Whatever the case, the State Department and Cornell figures are clearly more reliable than those from TransCanada, which has a history of toying with numbers.
That's allot of jobs
#1 Posted by chad Gilbert, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 05:16 PM
The Keystone project will create very few, permanent jobs. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills, and deep-water-blow-outs and pump-handlers jobs. This pipeline will not cause the gasoline price to decrease, because the petroleum products passing through this pipeline are for export. The Keystone project wiil benefit the Port Arthur, Texas refiners, namely, Total, the Koch brothers, Shell and Valero, because Port Arthur is a Foreign Trade Zone, which really means, "free tax zone." That is, no taxes and custom duties for the oil industry.
#2 Posted by Earl Richards, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 04:20 AM
The project will create a lot of permanent jobs. Just one example is in the State of Montana. Montana says it will get $63 million in property taxes annually from its 281 miles right of way. In a state with an average household income of $35 thousand this would equate to 1800 households supported if the state uses the money to hire (lowering unemployment by 3 tenths of a percent). Add to it the maintenance and operations jobs and the jobs from oil exploration and production from the Bakken field which will also supply the line and it will help a state whose population has stagnated for 80 years. Why shouldn't Montana get a shot at prosperity like other places? Even its Dem governor and senators are onboard with this.
#3 Posted by Warren, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 09:15 AM
TransCanada has a specific document detailing the exact type and number of workers for each spread of the pipeline. 13,000 directly on the pipe and 7,000 providing manufacturing support for equipment, etc.
No construction job is permanent. GEEZ. When are people going to think this through. Skilled building trades work for months or a year and are paid only when they work, but the pay can be $100K a year with benefits. These jobs can provide for 20,000 families. These families buy groceries, clothes, etc.
#4 Posted by dan gunderson, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 11:30 AM
"trustworthy approximations from academia and government"
Wow, there is an oxymoron if I ever saw one!
#5 Posted by G. Hugh Bodell, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 11:42 AM
Nobody seems to be very interested in how many GOOD and LONG TERM jobs would be created by the building, operating and maintaining of a complete infrastructure for post-fossil fuel energy. Such infrastructure will, of course, be absolutely required at some point and might be very nearly impossible to build if we wait until so little fossil fuel is left that we cannot use existing construction techniques and equipment. For me, the choices are to start the transition now or wait until it is too late and we have used up the last of our options.
#6 Posted by John F. Dunbar, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 12:10 PM
"trustworthy approximations from academia and government // Wow, there is an oxymoron if I ever saw one!"
Cornell and State Department researchers have no monetary incentive to inflate the numbers, while TransCanada does. I know it's fashionable to question the credibility of academic and government researchers, but there's a reason everyone turns to them when objectivity is needed.
#7 Posted by Joe Schmo, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 01:01 PM
I am a little concerned that this article does not cover the potential risks of the Keystone XL, something that will potentially affect all Americans, not just those that will benefit from possible employment.
I urge those strictly basing their response on financial concerns to look into events that have recently occurred in Marshall, Michigan. Those jobs may not be worth the other repercussions.
#8 Posted by Concerned Citizen, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 02:32 PM
This is why no one gets it right........http://www.angda.state.ak.us/DOCS/Section%203.pdf..
#9 Posted by Kenneth Close, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 02:42 PM
The Cornell Labour Report is anything but independent. Look at their partner organizations which conveniently include 350.org, Greenpeace, Sierra Club etc., also look who funded the study The Goodman Group who also does work for the non-partisan green groups stated above. For God's sake one of the author's is a member of the Greenpeace Board. How can you be critical of the Perryman study and not challenge the integrity of this study. People challenge academia because they're looking to get paid like everybody else.
Real non-partisan folks take these things into account. Unfortunately the journalism review does as most journalistic institutions do these days and search for confirmation bias. Step your game up.
#10 Posted by not independent , CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 03:48 PM
LOL...
I think Mr. Brainard needs to address his "trustworthy" claim...
Brigid Rowan, one of the authors of the Cornell paper, is not only on the Canadian Greenpeace Board, but is in fact the TREASURER of Greenpeace Canada.
She's clearly an environment activists with a plain financial horse in the race..
I wish CJR could be a tad more "trustworthy" in its reporting.
http://kyotoplus.greenpeace.ca/visitor/?event_id=canada&action=profile&participant_id=536535851251935407
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 05:27 PM
Padkiller et al, there is nothing inherently trustworthy about industry, government, or academia. In this case, based on the information that TransCanada provided for the EIS (for which it is legally liable), the State Dept. and Cornell's math adds up. The math in TransCanada's press release (for which it is not legally liable) doesn't.
#12 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Wed 25 Jan 2012 at 11:38 PM
Curtis, besides relying on suspect sources (Media Mutters, moonlighting Sierra Clubbers), the sad fact is that we know exactly what your opinion on any given subject will be before you write a word. Of course you'll do anything in your power to minimize the job creation estimates, because you want the pipeline to fail.
Your credibility is zero, except among those who have already made up their minds. This isn't journalism, it's cheerleading.
#13 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 26 Jan 2012 at 07:16 AM
Jobs and Economy were the top issues in Obama’s address but now the question is what is the most viable plan to make those things that he said possible? Not only that what are we going to do to bridge the gaps that already exist within job creation? This is one of the reasons that projects like Keystone should actually get a little more support. For many blue collar and middle class workers the pipeline could be the saving grace factor that frees them from the trenches of poverty. (http://bit.ly/ytP77z) to delay a decision such as this is a big mistake on the part of the white house, and one that we should take a firm action on so we can move on with a course of action that will benefit us all in the long run.
#14 Posted by Florian Schach, CJR on Thu 26 Jan 2012 at 04:17 PM
Have the President's assertions on the net number of 'jobs saved' by his actions in 2009 been subject to comparable press scrutiny?
#15 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 29 Jan 2012 at 04:57 PM
I am surprised by the obvious prejudice of the author of this piece, not about the sloppy journalism, which is what I thought this blog was about -- 'A lens on the science press' -- but rather on the subject matter, the pros and cons (in the case of this author, only the cons) of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The science press obviously has a hard time with numbers -- doing hard math and getting details exactly right has never been a strong point.
But it is impossible to ignore the basic issue: If Keystone oil comes down to American based refiners, the refiners have more work, and that means more jobs. Period. New construction means new construction jobs of some duration, new infrastructure (the pipeline itself) means more maintenance jobs and repair jobs. Even if the refined petroleum products are exported, that means transportation jobs, dock jobs, merchant marine jobs, etc.
More industrial production means more jobs -- any way you slice it.
Preventing industrial expansion by nixing the pipeline means less jobs or certainly the loss of the potential jobs.
Any other interpretation is just nit-picking and defeatist.
#16 Posted by Kip Hansen, CJR on Sun 29 Jan 2012 at 05:41 PM
Actually, the number of jobs created over the life of the pipeline could be much, much greater than even TransCanada's estimates! They failed to include the jobs that will be created when the pipeline springs a leak and ruins the aquafier. Oh, there will be many jobs created by that. There's the cleanup. There's the trucking in of, um, drinkable water. There's the repair costs, There's the mob control costs (there'll be lots of those, for sure). How anyone can be against this job creation machine is beyond me. Well, I suppose I can see why Oklahomans might be against it.
#17 Posted by TorontoBentley, CJR on Mon 30 Jan 2012 at 10:15 AM