WASHINGTON — Keystone XL supporters are again mustering their forces to counter U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent remarks that disparage the job-creation potential of the US$5.3 billion project.
Republicans issued statements Tuesday mocking the president’s claim that Keystone XL is not a big job creator at a time when he is traveling the country pushing his employment policies amid a sluggish economy.
“A president disparaging private-sector jobs while backstage at a jobs rally is beyond belief,” Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan said in a statement. “In this economy, any source of private job creation should be welcomed with open arms.”
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who is a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said, “this has to be the first time the Obama administration has ever understated the jobs associated with a project it is responsible for either approving or denying.”
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry, a long time supporter of the pipeline, said, “President Obama needs to spend more time working with Republicans in Congress rather than traveling around the country reciting the environmental left’s talking points and giving speeches that don’t hire.”
In addition, Rep. Paul Ryan threatened to make successful budget negotiations dependent on approval of Keystone XL.
Obama told the New York Times on Saturday that Keystone XL, which will transport oil from Alberta and North Dakota to Texas, would create only 2,000 construction jobs and about 50 to 100 permanent jobs.
According to the State Department’s draft review of Keystone XL, however, his statements were not entirely accurate.
State Department job figures on the project are quite staggering. The department’s draft review says the project will create 42,100 jobs that will translate into about $2.05 billion US in earnings. (Keystone XL owner TransCanada says the project will create 20,000. Environmental groups dispute both numbers as inflated.) About 3,900 jobs will go to construction workers. In the long term, however, maintenance of the pipeline will create only about 35 permanent jobs and 15 temporary jobs, the draft review says.
Obama called these figures “a blip relative to the need.”
[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]Some commentators claim Obama’s attempt to disparage the project reflects his need to appeal to his environmental supporters as midterm elections approach. They say he may be prepared to jettison the project to maintain this growing electoral faction, which has succeeded in transforming Keystone XL into a national climate-change issue.
Charles Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institute told Politico he was “dumbfounded” by Obama’s remarks. “I just never know where the president on a given day is coming out on this.”
Ebinger said he has always thought Obama supported the project but now he’s beginning to change his mind.
“I think the president is very concerned about losing his environmental constituency going into the 2014 election season,” he said. “I’m just not sure he’s really convinced we need (Keystone XL).”
He does, however, need construction union votes. With unions advertising in favour of Keystone XL, he faces losing the support from workers desperate for large job-creation infrastructure projects.
He deals with such balancing acts often by telling one side what they want to hear while rendering a decision in favour of the other, claiming he has extracted appropriate conditions.
Paul Frazer, a Washington consultant on cross-border issues, said that the development of shale oil as well as enhanced extraction methods in the U.S. and Canada has changed the energy picture so quickly and dramatically that the U.S. may not need as much Canadian oil as in the past.
“Ten years ago there was this constant unremitting flow of energy from Canada to the United States, never ending and it looks great,” he said. “Where we are today is quite a remarkably different picture.”
He notes that Obama denied the original Keystone XL application primarily because it was not supported in Nebraska, a state he needed to win in the 2012 election.
“He told TransCanada to resubmit, so I think he was sending the message that he would approve it,” he said.
Others speculate that Obama’s statements are a signal warning Canada and TransCanada to improve their environmental performance by reducing emissions to offset those created by the oilsands. Concessions from Canada would give him what he needs to approve the project and at the same time keep his support among environmentalists.
Puzzling for some commentators is why after pledging that he would wait for the approval process to wind its way through the State Department, he has recently made two significant statements outlining his view of the project.
Requests for comment on this about-face received no reply from the State Department.
A White House spokesperson issued a statement Tuesday that Obama is simply interested in “draining the politics out of this debate and evaluating this project on the merits.”
Meanwhile, TransCanada has stepped up its national promotion campaign with a new TV ad pushing the job-creation and energy security aspects of Keystone XL. It ends with the line, “The Keystone Pipeline is a critical piece of a secure energy picture for America. Let’s get it done.”
