The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has become a controversial issue. While the debate has mainly focused around the environmental risks, from labor’s outlook opening up the Canadian Tar Sands is often viewed as an economic issue rather than an environmental one. Some may not find this surprising because construction unemployment is double the national average. From a worker’s perspective, Keystone jobs will be a union job that pays good money in an economy that increasingly suggests only minimum-wage service work. The Keystone XL pipeline will eventually connect Canada’s vast tar sands in Alberta with refineries along the coast of Texas and Louisiana. Because the pipeline will travel the Canada-U.S. border, construction requires an agreement  by the U.S. State Department—and afterwards by the president. However, many people have been arguing about the pros and cons of building this pipeline.

People feel that building this pipeline would be bad for the economy itself and its workers. One reason it is viewed this way is because supposedly constructing the Keystone pipeline and opening up the Tar Sands will negatively effect national and local economies. Burning the reparable tar sands oil will increase the earth’s temperature by a minimum of 2 degree Celsius. NYU Law School’s Environmental Law Center estimated that this could permanently cut the US GDP by 2.5%. State and local economies are already simultaneously contorting under the real-time economic impacts of our nation’s reliance on fossil fuels. Another reason people are against it is because the same fossil fuel interests striving for the Keystone pipeline have been decreasing the amount of jobs rather than creating more. Regardless of producing $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP diminished their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that extent of time. In the year 2010 alone, the top five oil companies cut their global workforce by 4,400 employees, which was the same year executives compensated themselves around $220 million. One major negative effect this pipeline could create is a rise in unemployment. According to Mark Zandi, the Chief Economist of Moody’s Analytics,“Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on the job market in November, slicing an estimated 86,000 jobs from payrolls.” Also, poor and working people will be unduly afflicted. KXL and other projects like it conclude an excessively negative impact on working families whom are already struggling. According to a recent article by the Center for American Progress called “Heavy Weather: How Climate Destruction Harms Middle- and Lower-Income Americans”, lower-and middle income households are immensely affected by the most costly severe weather events. In 2011 & 2012, sixteen states were damaged by five or more severe weather events. Households in catastrophe-asserted counties in these states acquire $48,137, or seven percent below the U.S. median income.

One of the pros for building this pipeline is that it would be a secure and safer way to ship oil sands crude. The central environmental argument against TRP’s Keystone XL is that the pipeline would spur ascending oil sands production. Although, the State Department’s findings displayed that higher production from the region is anticipated— whether or not the Keystone XL is constructed. Ultimately, that crude oil would be deposited via railway if the TRP’s pipeline isn’t built. With some high profile crude-by-rail calamities happening recently, the Keystone XL might really be the safer substitute for the oil sands. Another positive effect this pipeline could have is create an instantaneous accredited cash flows. Pipelines are especially great for constant and stable cash flows.In the course of time, it’s the volume of oil, not the price that matters to the pipeline owner. The authorization of the Keystone XL would be great for TRP stock cash flows and its profit, especially in light of the long, lengthy consent process has actually been a big success for TransCanada shares. As Obama has postponed the confirmation for the pipeline, TransCanada has fundamentally been able to save up enough money to supply and build the Keystone outright. That means that any cash flow from the Keystone XL will be accretive right away to the bottom line of TRP stock and adept limited partnership (MLP) subsidiary TC PipeLines (TCP). Another positive thing is that taxes paid by TransCanada supply counties revenue that is greatly needed to pay for infrastructure. When President Obama spoke at the Port of New Orleans he conveyed the urgency to fix old roads and bridges. He gave a case of how trucking companies are rerouting their deliveries  to bypass traffic and unsafe bridges and that those expenses get passed on to consumers. This can be compared with the investments that TransCanada earns in its energy infrastructure to confirm that our systems function safely and dependably. Over the past 3-4 years, TransCanada has invested an average of more than $900 million in our pipeline uprightness and maintenance programs. Keystone XL Pipeline also improves energy security which is about safe, reliable access to various and ample energy resources. It’s also about being able to decide how those resources will be obtained, utilized and distributed. A new inclusive report from energy research organization IHS CERA, called “Critical Questions for the Canadian Oil Sands,” highlights that the oil sands have a crucial role in the energy security of the United States. The report states: “Increasing supply from Canada allows the United States to reduce its dependence on more distant supplies of oil by tanker, often from regions that are less stable and more susceptible to disruption. Pipeline and rail links between the United States and Canada constitute a “hardwired” link of Canadian oil to the US market — very different from waterborne shipments that can be diverted, even while en route” (John, Matthew).

By developing a “hardwired” connection between flourishing domestic U.S. production and expanding supplies of Canadian oil and the U.S. Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will be demanding in helping the United States decrease its dependence on oil from less-friendly, less fixed regimes in a safe and environmentally accountable manner. It’s about assertion that oil production is linked to the right markets with the right infrastructure at the right time – which is what the Keystone XL pipeline is all about.

3 Pros, 3 Cons For TRP Stock & The Keystone XL Pipeline

http://www.labor4sustainability.org/articles/5-reasons-why-the-keystone-pipeline-is-bad-for-the-economy/
http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/11/the-keystone-xl-pipeline
http://keystone-xl.com/five-reasons-why-keystone-xl-benefits-the-u-s/