CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 01, 2014 11:11 AM UTC

Politifact Skewers Gardner Over Bogus Keystone XL Claims

  • 29 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

mostlyfalse

We've talked a few times about the well-funded efforts by the oil and gas industry to make an electoral issue in Colorado out of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline–a shortcut from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada to Oklahoma and petroleum export terminals along the Gulf Coast. The industry and allied Republican politicos have expended tremendous time and effort into firing up the public to demand construction of this pipeline begin immediately–before environmental reviews are complete. That's not the way they characterize the issue, of course, but that's the bottom line.

Here in Colorado, despite the industry's insistence in paid advertising that the Keystone XL pipeline represents an essential battle for American freedom, there's never been much to get agitated about either way. The Keystone XL pipeline won't pass through our state, and Colorado already has pipelines connecting Commerce City to the oil sands region in Canada. Studies indicate that, far from an economic benefit to our state, completion of the Keystone XL will increase gas prices in the central United States including Colorado, since we'll be competing with export customers for Canadian crude oil.

We've discussed all of this in previous posts, but the fallacious arguments for Keystone XL from Colorado Republican politicos go on unabated. Yesterday, Pulitzer Prize-winning fact checker Politifact ripped GOP U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner for claiming again, as he has many times, that Keystone XL would create "thousands of jobs in Colorado."

In the Colorado Senate race, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall recently voted against Congress fast-tracking the pipeline, but said the administration’s review process should continue. His likely Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, has called for swift approval, insisting it would be an economic boon to the state…

"The Keystone Pipeline would create good-paying jobs," Gardner said. "Not only where the pipeline is being built, good-paying construction jobs, but manufacturing and service opportunities in Colorado along with the Keystone Pipeline. We would create thousands of jobs in Colorado, if the Keystone Pipeline were to be built."

Cory Gardner.
Cory Gardner.

​As Politifact explains, that isn't anywhere near accurate. Early estimates of "job creation" from Keystone XL reached into the totally ridiculous hundreds of thousands, figures which Politifact reports not even industry proponents use anymore. According to the State Department's latest analysis, if the construction of Keystone XL lasts two years, roughly 8,000 temporary construction jobs would be created. Adding reasonable multipliers for indirectly created jobs from that economic activity results in something like 40,000 "job years," or individuals employed for a one-year period as a direct or indirect result of the project–with some 30,000 of those outside states where the pipeline will be located.

The bottom line is, "multipliers" to account for "indirect job creation" are a major fudge point for political prevaricators. But for argument's sake, let's say they're right. How many jobs, direct or indirect, would Keystone XL create in Colorado?

Ian Goodman, who co-authored a Cornell University study of the pipeline, said it’s unlikely that Colorado’s chunk of those 30,000 jobs would reach the thousands…In a rosy scenario, Goodman estimated that at most 1,400 additional jobs could be created in Colorado, but more likely it will be less, perhaps closer to 500. [Pols emphasis]

As we’ve noted in the past, too, almost all of these jobs are not permanent, as is often the case with construction projects. The State Department found the pipeline would create 35 permanent jobs and 15 temporary jobs once it went into operation.

So yes, there would be some number of temporary jobs created in Colorado by the construction of Keystone XL. Colorado has a robust petroleum services sector, with plenty of qualified workers who could supply the construction effort. But it's nothing earth-shattering for our state's already booming oil industry, and to say that "thousands of jobs in Colorado" are riding on the Keystone XL is simply not true. And if you really want to get into the weeds about it, are 500 temp jobs worth as much to Colorado's economy as the higher gas prices forecast by Keystone XL's completion will hurt?

There are plenty of arguments worth having in Colorado this election season. Keystone XL isn't one of them, but it may prove valuable for snaring Gardner in another demonstrably false statement.

Tweet
Share

Comments

29 thoughts on “Politifact Skewers Gardner Over Bogus Keystone XL Claims”

  1. You're right, Pols. What does Colorado need 500 jobs for? We sent that many packing with Magpul and Dems were happy to see them go.

    500 jobs here, 500 jobs there, pretty soon your talking about thousands. Democrats don't care about jobs, just about creating a dependent class of Americans they can control.

      2. Well here are the only figures Iwas abe o dig up from the beginning of this year.

        About 200 people currently work for Magpul in Erie, Colo. About 184 positions will leave Colorado, with the majority of them going to Wyoming because the manufacturing and distribution parts of the company have more people, Duane Liptak, Magpul’s director of product management and marketing, said.

         

        http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/colorado-arms-company-magpul-relocating-to-wyoming-texas/article_f0bf42ef-87de-5de3-a520-5042fa58c52f.html

          1. So a net gain. See, this is why they have no luck trying to attract women with their jobs, jobs jobs message. They're just as lousy at creating or protecting jobs as they are at respecting women's rights to make their own health and family planning choices. Why should women sacrifice autonomy for even worse job prospects? Less pay? A harder time affording education for themselves and their children? Less access to child care so they can work at those job, jobs jobs? I could go on but….. I have a better idea.

            Why don't we copy their Obama/Udall/fill in the blank Dem lied about Obamacare mantra only with Rs lying about how any gun regulation was going to cost jobs and lead to hunters boycotting our state? It didn't happen, right? So you righties lied, right?  How about it?

             

             

        3. Thank you. You've got the 200 primary jobs lost, plus all the indirect jobs lost because those wage earners lost their jobs.

          Democrats were happy to see Magpul gone. Which means you were happy to kill Colorado jobs. Do you deny it?

          1. You have no evidence Democrats don't care about jobs.

            What you're really advocating is the following: Every time a legislator introduces a bill and someone or some entity threatens to move their business out of Colorado, the legislation should be killed. In other words, you want out legislators held hostage by anyone who threatens to move their business out of Colorado. That's a silly notion.

              1. With this exchange, my dear little Moderanus, you have proven yourself to be the stupidest troll we have had in the many years I have been here.

                Democrats were happy to see Magpul gone. Which means you were happy to kill Colorado jobs.

                Congratulations…this is the bonehead comment that has catapulted you to the top.

                1. I dunno', Duke . . .

                  "Magpul had a duty and obligation to move"

                  . . . that's incredibly fucking boneheaded also — a really close second at least.  

              2. But Dems like alternative energy which, as you can see, brought in 800 jobs so Dems love jobs and all you righties who hate alternative energy hate bringing jobs to Colorado. See how that works?  And you are in no position to declare that Magpul was defending the constitution because you have no authority to declare Colorado's gun legislation unconstitutional. The courts that do have that authority have done no such thing. 

                But why am I talking to a very primitive computer program?

              3. Moddy if you could only show us precisely how a manufacturer of ammunition magazines- and plastic ones at that- acquired such a "constitutional"duty. I don't recall readiing about it in any copy of the U.S. constitution I've ever come across.

                1. I'm sure the duty Moddy was referring to was Magpul's duty to keep their can't be bothered to aim customers supplied with hi-cap magazines, lest they be caught unprepared for an attack. You never know when you'll have to defend against a horde of Elementary School students…after all..look what's happening at the border!! 

    2. I'm guessing you'll have little interest in reading this.  For the record, then-state Rep Gardner offered zero support for the expansion of our renewable portfolio standard under Ritter.  You know, the state policy that's responsible for the nearly $6 billion in wind energy investments (mostly in his Congressional district) where rural Coloradans didn't have to lift a finger to get the benefit of the investment?

      WIF

    5. Neither, Colorado, nor the Democrats sent Magpul packing. Magpul stamped their feet about passing reasonable regulations and  moved to whichever state would pay them the most to set up shop. Good riddance. Also 500 jobs just doesn't have the same ring as thousands of jobs which is kind of the point.

    1. Pam- I'm sure you're aware. It's not oil. It's dilbit( diluted bitumen) which is corrosive of pipeline material both chemically and physically and requires prodigious amounts of energy and water to extract useable oil from it while leaving a toxic byproduct.

      1. They argued (successfully) to the IRS in 2011 that diluted bitumen isn't 'oil', so they are exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And with zero shame – they argued exactly the opposite side of that issue in Texas – that they are oil – so they could fall under their commerce clause and be granted eminent domain power.

        They can't afford 8 cents/barrel for oil spill recovery – and as a foreign corporation operating in the United States can condemn domestic land holdings of US citizens. 

        I wish I was making this up.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

116 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!