White House to announce opposition to Keystone pipeline project
January 18th, 2012
12:08 PM ET
2 years ago

White House to announce opposition to Keystone pipeline project

Washington (CNN) - The Obama administration will likely announce its opposition to the controversial Keystone pipeline project as early as today, according to a Democratic source briefed on the matter.

Though House Speaker John Boehner's office has not yet been informed of the White House decision, the Speaker said today, "This is not good for our country. The president wants to put this off until it's convenient for him to make a decision. That means after the next election. The fact is the American people are asking the question right now, "Where are the jobs?"

The proposed Keystone pipeline has been caught up in the Washington political discourse since Republicans inserted a clause in the payroll tax cut negotiations last fall trying to force a decision on the project within a limited time frame. The White House had tried to push the decision until 2013 after the coming presidential election.

The pipeline would run from northern Alberta in Canada down to Texas's Gulf Coast. Republicans and some unions want to push approval through for the project in favor of the job creation prospects. The administration points to environmental reviews still underway and opponents express concerns about the nation's oil dependency being further embraced in regards to not rushing a decision.


Filed under: Uncategorized
soundoff (317 Responses)
  1. Nate

    All I ask the government for any more, (as they are useless in all other areas) is cheap oil. It appears they can't do that either. This is just another example of the government trying to dictate our purchases. Obama wants us to pay more for oil so that we are forced to accept alternative fuel and transportation methods. Some may think this is a noble cause. Tell that to our current and fragile economy. Let's quit letting China take over. Make this happen!!!

    January 18, 2012 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |
  2. Ironfoot

    John said "When is the last time we had a leak? Answer, 1978."
    Right wingers need to be reminded they are allowed to have their own opinions, but not their own facts.
    Are you forgetting the 800K barrels leaked into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010?

    January 18, 2012 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |
  3. Truth and Nothing But the Truth

    Obama and the Democrats need to be hammered NONSTOP on this issue. This whole matter points out the complete INSANITY of the leftists and tree huggers. Obama has shown himself the gutless empty suit he truly is. Yet another "I vote Present" display of leading from behind.

    Four more years of this insanity and this country is TOAST.

    January 18, 2012 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |
  4. omg

    Really? He's for indefinite detention. Why wouldn't he be for a pipeline? He's probably for a twenty foot diameter pipe crossing every citizen's front yard.

    January 18, 2012 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |
  5. Nelson Colorado Springs Co.

    How much is the Canada going to pay each state for leased land use by the pipeline that would run from northern Alberta in Canada down to Texas's Gulf Coast.

    January 18, 2012 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |
  6. tim

    Fantastic that they left it open for another route. Going around the aquifer instead of over it will create more jobs. Excellent work Mister President!

    January 18, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  7. kbenson

    Where do all of you plan on spending your hard earned money when we have no planet left? You may want to actually do some research yourself before spewing falsities on job creations. If you were to actually check, you would find that the end result would be jobs for a few hundred folks at best. Be smarter than our trusted leaders on either side of the party line, who look out for nothing other than winning a popularity contest. If you think either side is going to make your life any better, you are a fool. This pipeline is essentially game over for the environment. You can say it's bull, but are you really willing to bet youir children's life on it? If so, you are a selfish fool.

    January 18, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  8. Rudy NYC

    John asked:

    When is the last time we had a leak? Answer, 1978.
    ----------–
    Wrong Answer. I am not going to hammer you over the head with BP and the Gulf. Instead, I am going to point out that there was a leak in Michigan last year that shut a river down, and it still ain't cleaned up.

    January 18, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  9. petemg

    If we are to become independent of the Mid East and their oil, why won't Obama look at this pipeline. Is he too much for the oil companies.

    January 18, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  10. Jerry

    Obama will oppose the construction of that pipeline to create more 'Green' jobs...........in China, India & Mexico. Our tax rates, environmental and labor laws make 'Green' industries so unprofitable that the foreign companies can produce 'Green' technology at a fraction of our cost.

    January 18, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  11. RPE

    To Nick: The jobs act is another stimulus that ensures billions end up in the hands of the favored Obama entities. The net job loss for this presidents term is still hovering around 1.4 million. He should be embracing the pipeline opportunity. By the way, if you dislike using oil so much I hope you are not a hypocrite and still buying it.

    January 18, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  12. John B

    NOW Boehner is all about jobs? These are CANADIAN JOBS anyway...not American. I'm happy that Obama is against this.

    January 18, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  13. KaraOK

    Hussein the Food Stamp President doesn't like job creation and is a big fan of continuing our insane dependence on Middle East oil.

    January 18, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  14. GrouchyKat

    Well, not a big suprise from the ANTI-JOB PRESIDENT.

    January 18, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  15. FC

    Why have temporary contruction jobs, when building the refineries closer to the oil would accomplish that and make permanent new jobs. Follow the money. This is about the oil industry that makes billions in profit off every american and doesn't give a hoot about this country. Who really benefits? Its not us. They have already stated that this new oil is much more expensive to extract. Its only because of the high price of gas now, that they are even willing to do it. In other words, they can make more money. This new oil will do nothing to bring prices down. Follow the money!

    January 18, 2012 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  16. Beth

    "in regards to" REALLY? How lame.

    January 18, 2012 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  17. Jason

    Research this pipeline, my fellow Americans, before you sound off on what you think it is about. If any project were good for America, from jobs to the environment to energy production, every president of either party would sign off on it, especially in an election year. To create thousands of jobs in a down economy, and give America direct access to oil, who wouldn't sign that deal? Then why isn't it being down? TransCanada, the company that will own the oil and the pipeline, wants to get it to Texas and Louisiana to the refineries and the shipping ports, because it has already been either promised or sold to the Chinese government. They don't or can't build it to the west, over the Canadian Rockies, and they can't take it east because of a lack of refineries and the shipping ports are that much farther away from where the oil is destined. Besides the temporary jobs building the pipeline (and they will be temporary jobs between 2000 and 20000, depending on the estimate), what is in it for America in the long run? We won't own any of the infrastructure, or the oil or gas refined from it. Do we really want to let a private corporation bisect the country with a pipeline from which we receive no lasting benefit? And, if there is a spill, yes the private company will eventually have to pay to clean it up, but what happens to the people living in that area, or the land in the area of the spill, or any water sources nearby? I am all for jobs, good paying and satisfying jobs, but there must be something more when the stakes are as high as this. This sort of project will not drop the price of a barrel of crude or a gallon of gas, in our country or most likely anywhere else. Those that are saying it will either don't understand how the oil and gas markets work, or they are trying to sell you on the idea because it will benefit them.

    January 18, 2012 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  18. Pan3

    Good! The pipline is a STUPID idea!

    January 18, 2012 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  19. Knucklehead

    All you folks whining about the economy and Obama not getting you enough oil....we need to get off oil. Should have started 40 years ago.

    January 18, 2012 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  20. Jim

    Obama is a foolish young man and will regret this decision. The pipeline would run through my state. Oil pipeline safety records are really very good and with a brand new pipeline, risk is minimal.

    January 18, 2012 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  21. steve

    The process by which this oil is being extracted in Canada is destroying their land and the GOP not only doesn't care about that fact or the fact further environmental problems could easily occur here in America. They'll scream for the oil – continuing our reliance on petroleum – pretend jobs are at stake and in the end some fat-cat in Texas is going to have their pockets lined with more money. We should be afraid of anything the GOP is pushing down our throats. Their track record is disasterous and all they've done is prevent President Obama from managing this nation properly. There is NOTHING but problems from this Republican led Congress and they are NOT serving the bests interests of our citizens.

    January 18, 2012 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  22. Four and The Door

    This environmental concerns are minimal and not even close to justification for killing the project. Pipeline technology is well established and reliable and environmental impact statements are certainly always done with this kind of installation. Completion of this project is extremely helpful to the American petroleum industry and develops relations with Canada as opposed to Venezuela and other even less stable trading partners.

    The objection for this project from the Obama Administration is purely political. It's an election year. Employment concerns run a distant second to anything related to re-election.

    January 18, 2012 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  23. Ohyeahright

    In the end, he'll cave. He always does.

    January 18, 2012 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm |
  24. larryw

    this oil is for export not for the US so why should we allow for it to be built? If it was just for the US then I would be in favor of it but to say it will help our dependency of foreign oil is not true.

    January 18, 2012 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm |
  25. JB

    After Obama threw all that money away on bad green energy projects, including Soylyndra and the "green" car company in Finland, he doesn't even need to open his mouth about green jobs.

    January 18, 2012 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13