Keystone

Faint hope, now. So it seems.

"Republicans have said that [Keystone] would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that's true. 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 jobs in an economy of 150-million working people."
U.S. President Barack Obama, The New York Times interview

TransCanada is prepared to invest $5.3-billion in the building of the Keystone XL pipeline meant to transport oil from Alberta and North Dakota to Texas. The U.S. State Department's draft review of the pipeline proposal has arrived at completely different job figures. Their review analysis claims the project would create 42,100 jobs, translating to around $2.05-billion in earnings.

TransCanada's own job figures are somewhat more conservative, coming in at 20,000.

It is estimated that roughly 3,900 jobs will relate to construction workers. But maintenance of the pipeline is set to create about 35 permanent jobs along with 15 temporary jobs. "A blip relative to the need" is how President Obama characterizes those figures. Critics of the president's stance claim his attitude to be a deliberate disparagement of the project in reflection of his perceived need to appease environmentalists.

The approach of midterm elections mitigates just that, evidently. His critics claim he is prepared to surrender the project to failed history in an effort to maintain the environmental electoral support faction. Keystone XL has become a national climate-change issue. There is also, of course, the issue of American companies supplying steel pipe, valves and motors for the project, along with jobs servicing construction crews.

A Washington consultant on cross-border issues feels the development of shale oil along with enhanced extraction methods considered to be more environmentally safe and friendly in both the U.S. and Canada has resulted in an altered energy picture, swiftly and dramatically. So much so that the United States administration may now feel it no longer has such a great need for Canadian oil.

"Ten years ago there was this constant unremitting flow of energy from Canada to the United States, never ending, and it looks great", said Paul Frazer. Director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institute, Charles Ebinger said he was "dumbfounded" by the president's remarks. "I just never know where the president on a given day is coming out on this."

The suspense of it all.