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. Good Call Obama

    I love US foreign policy. We don't want your oil peaceful neighbor. We don't care that Alberta spends more on carbon sequestration research than any other jurisdiction. We want our oil shipped from the Middle East, and we're prepared to go to war with anyone who threatens that supply.

    As the largest supplier of oil to the US, I wish Canada had the balls to turn off the taps to the US. Perhaps that would wake up Americans to their dependance on foreign oil. Then the US could pay $300/barrel to Iran and the Middle East and enrich those who hate Americans even further.

    January 18, 2012 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm |
  2. Fire the US Govenment in 2012!

    No more Blue team, no more Red team, no differance they could care less about the people. Vote No this November. No Incumbants all the way down to dogcather!

    January 18, 2012 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm |
  3. Richard Miller, Billings, Montana

    These are short term construction jobs for Teamsters, Operating Engineers (the guys that run the digging machines) and pipefitters. The oil will be processed and sold to other countries. Do a little research and the facts jump out at you that this project will not create the number of long term jobs that this country needs. However, it will enrich the oil companies that are proposing it and will fill the coffers of the Canadian government. I wish to hell that there was as much effort by the repuglician party to allow Canadian medicine to come into this country as is being spent of this pipeline. Put a pipeline out to the west coast near Vancouver, B.C., and see how they howl!

    January 18, 2012 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  4. Casey

    Finally Obama is doing something right. I have relatives living in NY that beleive it's the worst environmental diaster to come along in 150 years. This country is soooo short sighted, jobs now for ruin later.

    January 18, 2012 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  5. Jay

    As soon as all you people who are against oil quit using it in your cars, on your roads, in your plastics, I will listen to you. Right now, you are just a bunch of hypocrits.

    January 18, 2012 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  6. Ginny

    What a coward Obama is - he'll wait until after the election and then make a decision that further hurts our economy. He and his followers will continue to ride in limos and fly in private aircraft (yes, you, Nancy Pelosi!), but us ordinary hardworking commoners can stuggle to pay our home heating and electricity bills and get killed at the gas pump. Vote him OUT!!

    January 18, 2012 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  7. ChucK88888

    @Michael you stated "I'm Glad the POTUS took a stand and said no......Oil going still go throug the roof. with or without the pipe line so what's the fuss all about. what we really need is to build high speed roads to get people off the roads"

    Well Mikey, if you don't want people on the roads, you should start with yourself. If you use a road anywhere, you're an epic hypocrite.

    January 18, 2012 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  8. Say What

    While I may agree that this would bring about many jobs, let's explore the other driving reasons for this
    1-help me understand how this is less expensive than building refineries in the northern US closer to the source
    2-how would the refineries in the southern coastal states be able to keep up with the new pace of arriving crude. Haven't many of them been identified with significant regulatory issues and need to be taken offline to correct? In the past, haven't many of these refineries already been running at capacity? Again, how would the expenses to build a pipeline AND refit the current refineries be less than build new refineries in the north
    3-where is the provision than NONE of this piped crude or it's refined derivatives would be exported outside the US? Especially since we conveniently will piping to COASTAL states – coincidence or what.
    I have a real difficult time buying into the argument that this initiative would help reduce the US dependency on foreign oil. How much oil produced on US soils is exported? How much oil derivatives refined in the US are exported? You will have a better time convincing me of this argument when no oil or gas crude or products are exported from the US. But oil companies will not do that because they can get more money for some of these products outside the US – so much for their altruistic motives for additional requests to dig in the US.

    January 18, 2012 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  9. Ohyeahright

    Can we call "imminent domain" on the riches of the 1%? They're always taking folk's land for the betterment of society, supposedly...by that, I mean the Economy, our State Religion.

    January 18, 2012 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  10. Truth

    when are you all going to wake up to the fact that our last 4 presidents have been working to destroy the US economy and the middle class. They are manipulating the cost of power by not allowing power new power plant to be built . When are all you morons going to wake up? When you have zero property rights or when the state tells you that you dont have controll over your children anymore? Vote Ron Paul to end this stuff.

    January 18, 2012 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  11. Jamie5

    This pipeline does nothing to stem US dependence on foreign oil. Some posters on this thread need to know there are different types of crude. Tar sands is the dirtiest of the dirty-there is nothing good about it. If this pipeline is completed this oil must be sold-it will not provide gasoline for the US. It will in all likelihood increase the price of gasoline here. How is it that a foreign company can exercise eminent domain here? I am curious that in all our hatred of all things foreign we are allowing that–because of oil propaganda. It would appear to be so. What makes you think care anything about citizen property rights or aquifers or our endangered species? They care about making money now–and nothing else.

    January 18, 2012 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  12. Todd

    when many of you say "those jobs are temporary" aren't ALL construction jobs BY THE FACT THAT THEY COMPLETE THEM "temporary. c'mon, the construction industry needs a bridge until the real-estate and industrial glut is worked off. The environmental concerns can be addressed, this utterly ridicules.

    January 18, 2012 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  13. Rick 7809

    PA_outofwork
    "Just another reason the price of gasoline has increased of 50 % since 2008. The American people are going to blame Obama and the Democratic Party in Congress for this mess."

    Typical right wing propaganda. The price of oil has skyrocketed since the secret meeting between Bush and Cheny with their oil buddies right after "W" got elected. And there was this little war thing that "W" started.

    January 18, 2012 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  14. Paw

    Of the options available to the US this makes the most sense and is the safest, both environmentally and financially. Rather than relying on opec you can actually rely on a provider of oil that won't hold the US hostage. And who really believes that this less eco friendly than running miles and miles of highway throughout the same region? And shipping your oil with tankers from offshore drilling sites?

    January 18, 2012 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  15. rick1948

    The Keystone project should be opposed. It does nothing to benefit oil supplies in the United States and creates no permanent jobs here. It's simply a conduit to get Canadian oil to the Gulf coast so it can be shipped out.

    January 18, 2012 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  16. Harry

    Thank all the Gods in all the Heavens in everyone's faiths that he is going to oppose this nightmare of an ecological disaster!

    The jobs is brought would be terrible and short term, there are WAY better ways of creating jobs than by destroying the planet!

    January 18, 2012 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  17. Eddy James

    The only test Obama applies is: If it would be good for America...then he's against it. If it would be bad for America..He's for it.

    January 18, 2012 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  18. KBO

    Do you people have any clue on how many oil/gas pipelines are already out there? That Keystone parallels 2 existing pipelines that already cross these areas? That with the oil/gas boom, there are hundreds of large pipelines currently being built through sensitive areas? This one is all political. We need this for: 1) less dependence on Middle Eastern sources or African sources; 2) jobs. All this talk of environmental disaster is BS, once again getting in the way of rationale decisions. Obama has only his political aspirations in mind, not the American people.

    January 18, 2012 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  19. rosie

    ahhhh, so no one knows anything about the Alaskan Pipeline????? HMMMMMMMM. We did build one...... HMMMMMMM

    January 18, 2012 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  20. Mike

    Good!! Now we can build the northern pipeline to the BC coast and sell our bitumen and oil to the Chinese! The USA can keep relying on Iran for its energy needs!

    January 18, 2012 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  21. jim

    Let's see now – Exxon Valdez, BP Gulf Coast Disaster, Keystone Pipeline – Hmmm – is there something we're missing here? Maybe the job creation the Repubicans boast will be those to undertake a hugely disasterous clean-up or to build new water treatment facilities to deal with contaminated water supplies. Maybe someone is finally willing to stand up to the huge profits Big Oil ships off-shore.

    January 18, 2012 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  22. Buttercup

    Tankers and Chavez. Clever, very clever. This would have been the first pipeline in the US and God knows Canadians have always been the US's most diabolical enemy. The environment has now been protected and we are no longer dependant on foreign oil. Le's not forget that Iranians will always keep the straits of Hormuz open for us. It's a win win.

    January 18, 2012 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  23. Marie MD

    Good for the President!!!
    I guess bo ner is back after a two month vacation while the rest of us were working. Must be nice weeper.
    The pipeline is not good for our country andnour environment and while it might temporarily create a few jobs who is going to clean up shen the pipe bursts? This oil is NOT going to be for the US. Just like theHorizon in the Gulf it's slated to be bought by any country.
    BTW bo ner. You teapublikans ran on JOBS, JOBS in 2010. We should be asking you and your band of merry men where the jobs are. I see tantrum boy from VA got his federal money to help repair the damage caused by last year's earthquake. I thought he didn't approve of federal aid for natural disasters! HYPOCRITES!!!!!

    January 18, 2012 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  24. Topher

    Ok, to all the enviros on here... This will not stop Canada from extracting the oil. They will just sell it to the Far East instead. We should be using this oil as it will get us out of Middle East conflicts. Canada is a very safe trading partner. This is a national security issue. All of you who want to spend more money on Education, Healthcare and the Environment should applaud this pipeline. It will reduce our defense spending because we won't need to be as active in the Middle East.

    January 18, 2012 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  25. Jeff In Oregon

    This is a good thing. We don't need these greasy, oily companies polluting any more of our country. I think they have done enough damage.

    Good job Obama. Keep it up.

    January 18, 2012 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13