% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Chevron Corporation Message Board

  • bluecheese4u bluecheese4u Jul 28, 2013 8:11 PM Flag

    Obama’s Keystone comments give opponents reason for hope

    Obama’s Keystone comments give opponents reason for hope

    By Juliet Eilperin, Published: July 28 at 12:19 pm

    For those trying to decipher which way President Obama is leaning on whether to grant the Keystone XL pipeline a presidential permit, the comments he made in an interview with The New York Times published this weekend suggest he accepts much of the criticism opponents have lodged against the project.

    In the interview, which was posted online Saturday night, Obama questioned the project’s economic benefits, saying “there is no evidence” to the Republican argument that “this would be a big jobs generator.”

    “And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline — which might take a year or two — and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people,” Obama added.

    He also suggested that the pipeline would not lower gas prices in the U.S., and could actually increase them in the Midwest, an argument buttressed by recent fluctuations in the crude oil market.

    “So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States,” Obama said. “In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can’t ship some of that oil to world markets.”

    The pipeline’s critics have made both of those arguments for months, although the State Department—which has oversight over the permitting process—has not embraced either one so far.

    While the White House could not say late Saturday what analysis Obama is basing his 2,000 jobs estimate on, it appears he was referring to the low-end estimate of a study done by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute. That analysis, which uses Tr

102.48+0.69(+0.68%)4:03 PMEDT