The 35 permanent jobs referenced by some is a result of a US State Department study and considering the source, I wouldn't place much credence in this. For those interested in multi-viewpoints with some numbers (competing) and a comparison between the Alaskan and Keystone, got to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/energyso...y-keystone-xl/ Forbes isn't known as a left or right wing business publication, they're known for fact based financial reporting. Of particular interest in the Keystone debate is the fact that there are already two Keystone trunk lines, this would be the third. What isn't in dispute is the thousands of permanent ancillary jobs that the pipeline will foster and that's where the winner is for America. The number that the Obamaites like to rattle around is the 35 number, and they may be right, but keep in mind that those numbers are based on projected Keystone permanent jobs as a result of its build. Personally, I can't really see where you can maintain and manage this pipeline with only 35 but hey, I'm not in the oil business. I do know that the existing pipelines under Keystone's control, which presently operate in the US have several hundred employees.