Most of the oil is already promised to foreign markets and there would only be 2500 - 5000 temporary jobs.
Report from Cornell:
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf
This information is all readily available.
Out of curiosity, I did a bit of reading in this report. I was particularly interested in the claims of job
losses due to the pipeline, since that didn't make much sense to me. They claim that this will raise gas prices in the Midwest by as much as $5 billion, because it will divert oil from Midwest refineries. Imagine my surprise when I went to the footnote, and found out one of their sources was an
opinion column. That opinion column claims $4 billion increased fuel costs to the US. As far as I can tell, they're both referring to this report (your source's only
real source for its claim):
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/li...asons_for_Decision.pdf?nodeid=604637&vernum=0
But when we actually dig into that report, what do we find? Well, on page 21 and 22, they do mention figures of up to $4 billion. But the figures aren't what the opinion article OR your paper claimed. Those are increased revenues for Canadian producers, NOT increased costs for American consumers. The entire point of a pipeline is to lower the cost of transport. So much of that increased revenue will come from decreased
costs to those producers, not increased costs to consumers. And even in regards to the issue of oversupply in the midwest, well, that
might raise costs in the midwest, but any such oil diverted elsewhere is going to lower costs elsewhere (including the price of crude from
non-Canadian sources). But the long and the short of it is, your source has badly misinterpreted its own source: the figures don't show what it claimed it showed.
And this was an elementary mistake which I uncovered with just a few minutes of looking at a claim that didn't seem right at first glance. God knows what an in-depth analysis might do to that report.
