John Boehner Admits That Keystone XL Won’t Create 100,000 Jobs

The pressure may be getting to John Boehner, as the Speaker made a subtle change to his story today that served as an admission that Keystone XL won’t create 100,000 jobs.

Here is the (apparently partial) video from ABC’s This Week:

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

During the interview Boehner was also asked about Keystone XL. According to ABC News, he said, “Now that the president has decided for political reasons that we’re not going to move ahead just yet, not until after the election… we’re going to have to find another way to lean on the Senate, to take this issue up, because the Keystone pipeline will create … over 100,000 indirect jobs.”

This is not the same thing that John Boehner said eleven days ago before the president announced he was not going to approve the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, “This is not good for our country,” he continued. “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 president’s got an opportunity to create 100,000 new jobs almost immediately. The president should say yes.”

One week ago on Fox News Sunday, Boehner started to sing a slightly different song, “The Keystone pipeline is the prime example of a shovel-ready project that’s been through every approval process here in Washington. Every option is on the table. We’re going to do everything we can to try to make sure that this Keystone pipeline is, in fact, approved. It’s 20,000 direct jobs. It’s over 100,000 indirect jobs. And as more energy independence for America as opposed to forcing our friends across the border in Canada to run a pipeline out to the Pacific Ocean and sell it to the Chinese.”

In politics, the addition or subtraction of one word can change everything. As soon as John Boehner changed his wording from Keystone XL creating 100,000 jobs to the project creating 100,000 indirect jobs, this was a subtle admission that his earlier claims were false. Unfortunately for the American people, his 100,000 indirect jobs claim is also not true.

In less than two weeks, Boehner’s gone from claiming 100,000 direct jobs will be created immediately if the pipeline is approved to the pipeline creating 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs to only 100,000 indirect jobs. There is a huge difference between direct jobs and indirect jobs. Direct jobs are those that specifically come from a project. Indirect jobs are the estimated economic impact of a project. Those jobs are guesses as what a project might do to bolster an entire economy.

A study by Cornell University found that Boehner and all the supporters of Keystone XL are not being truthful about the direct and indirect jobs that the project would create, “XL. However, the “118,000 indirect jobs” claim is based on a study conducted by The Perryman Group on the employment and broader economic impacts of the project. These numbers (20,000 and 118,000) have often been cited together in statements and press releases in order to gain support for the project. The Perryman study offers no figure for the direct jobs that might be created by Keystone XL, but it does claim that the project will generate “118,935 person-years” of employment. A “person year” of employment is not equivalent to an individual job in the real world, despite the obvious inference that it is.”

Cornell also found that the data used to estimate the indirect jobs is stretched out over 100 years, “The Perryman report uses an unusually long time frame—100 years—to make the employment and economic impacts of the project look more impressive. Perryman combines the results over all years of construction and operation for 100 years.”

Speaker Boehner keeps changing his story on the number of jobs created, because his estimates aren’t true. The reality is that according to the State Department, Keystone XL will only create 6,000 direct jobs with only 10%-15% of those workers being hired locally.

As PoliticusUSA has been reporting, Boehner is pushing the project so aggressively because he is personally invested in the oil companies that will benefit from the pipeline. As the American people have begun to call for the corrupt Speaker to step down or resign, Boehner has started to sing a different song on the number of jobs that the pipeline will create.

With the SEC considering an investigation of him, John Boehner has no choice but to add a different note to his Keystone XL jobs claims, but he is still lying to the American people for his own financial benefit.

Let Rep. Boehner know that you have had enough of his lies, by signing the petition calling on him to either step down or face expulsion from the House. His story on Keystone XL is falling apart, and now it is time for the Speaker to go.

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

31 Replies to “John Boehner Admits That Keystone XL Won’t Create 100,000 Jobs”

  1. I wasted no time signing the petition from the last article here about this. The bonehead is now threatening to tie Keystone to every bill in the house. I dont think he gets it. Why build a pipeline across the US to get oil to a place where it can be exported at the both risk and higher fuel costs to the people of the US?

    All for the profits of oil company’s. This is no different than SOPA. This is at the risk of our drinking water just like SOPA risks the people on the internet. The people gain nothing except higher fuel costs in the midwest. Boehner needs to be taken to jail on this one

  2. aw… good for you Boehner… that man has a heart of gold and will say just about anything for a shot of Johnny Walker, bless his alcoholic lil heart!

  3. What people dont know is that both stats given for job estimates are from seperate companies that did the research. If the facts are disputed that should only be brought to the attention of the group doing the intial research. The Fact is the Keystone XL will create jobs, it is privately funded and not costing the tax payers, and will help spur economic development. I have worked on pipeline projects and know the number of people that go into a portion of the work, that I can assume the estimate of 20,000 direct jobs is correct, and 100,000 indirect jobs is accurate. These may not be continuous jobs, however the 100,000 temporary jobs sounds like a positive for the US economy.

  4. And if we deny the keystone XL we are only denying the enviromentally sound way of transporting the canadian tarsands. Without the pipeline, the tarsands will still be produced and shipped by less effecient means, such as tanker or train, which cannot compete with pipelines in saftey or efficiency. Those who want to protect the enviroment are only causing more damage by opposing the XL

  5. The pipeline is only to get Canadian oil to texas to get that refined and exported. Is there some reason we should risk our aquifers being possibly destroyed for that? And to raise gas prices in the midwest?

    All you are saying is let the oil companys get rich while Americans pay more for gas.

  6. @Justin: Which part of “according to the State Department, Keystone XL will only create 6,000 direct jobs with only 10%-15% of those workers being hired locally” did you not get? And it isn’t “100,000 temporary jobs”. The 100,000 referred to a boost to the economy brought about by more cash to spend in the economy, but it’s flawed anyways because it was based on an inaccurate number of real jobs to start with.

    Good lord, this is exactly why people get so misinformed about issues like this, because people like you come on blogs and misinform, with your supposed “facts” based on nothing more than your own observations, when in fact you have zero to do with the information loop of this pipeline.

    Of 6,000 jobs, 10-15% equates to 600-900 jobs, temporary jobs, for a period of two years. The offset into the economy from that few jobs is minor at best. We must weigh the consequences, both short term and long term, of a project like this, in terms of environmental impacts. We can’t simply just ignore the fact that this pipeline as originally proposed (through Nebraska) COULD contaminate the drinking water for 12 states, and severely impact agriculture and livestock industries. Do you not understand the impact of 12 states not having drinking water? Monumental catastrophe. Now in your second post, you actually expect us to believe the environmental impact is greater by transporting this stuff by train or tanker? How on earth do you figure that?

    And last, none of that is even the prime topic. The real topic here is that this pipeline is for nothing more than enriching the already meta-wealthy oil companies. The US isn’t going to gain one iota of energy independence from it. Factually, our own oil prices will go UP, not down. The oil from this pipeline goes straight to the Gulf of Mexico so that it can be refined and shipped out of the country. Why on earth would we, as responsible citizens, want to risk the environmental damage to just enrich Big Oil further? Then, there is Boehner, who has lied over and over about the facts about this pipeline. Don’t you actually expect truth from your politicians, ideally? Do you appreciate being lied to by a legislator who is being paid off by Big Oil to lie to you? C’mon people, get your noggins working. This is absurd. Boehner stands a good chance of losing his speakership over this, and rightfully so. He’s been bought and paid for. Stop toeing the party line and think for yourselves.

  7. So what if it’s privately funded?

    The whole project is so that Canadian oil can be processed and shipped overseas, driving up costs for us and profiting a few thousand workers (most temporary) and the 1%. The temporary workers might make pretty good money for a short while, but without benefits and when the job ran out, where would they be?

    Add to that the probability of contamination of aquifers and land (when Big Oil is connected, that is ALWAYS a problem) and the problems multiply.

    As far as your expertise, well, I might have directly profited (for a while) off that project as well, but I’m glad it didn’t go through. I would have been one of the better paid people too…

  8. If that’s so, why are they putting the pipeline to Texas and not to the refineries in the midwest? (I think there may already be crude pipelines in that route.)

    If I’m right about pipelines to the midwestern refineries, it would be far more cost-effective to parallel what is already laid down. If the ROW is wide enough, they wouldn’t even have to have any new surveys done, work spaces would already be laid out, and the land already disturbed.

    No, this is only done to profit the 1%, and those of us who might get jobs out of it are accidental beneficiaries.

  9. There are lots of misinformation is floating around this issue..Here are the facts as I could gather them from independent sources and not colored by people and the companies will profit from the project…Fact: Obama Admin. while in favor of the pipeline initially, opposed it of its current route due to complaints received from farmers and environmentalist. Obama did put a hold on the project (one year I believe) until a better route can be established.But that is not good enough for the oil companies that has decided on the cheapest route regardless many other important concerns. Fact: Amount of jobs projected to be created, directly or indirectly, are maximum 8.000 Fact: While this pipeline can create 8.000 jobs and spur a minimum economic activity, it does not have any substantial impact on USA’s oil consumption, oil prices American pays, but it is extremely profitable for oil companies and people buying stock in them (such as Boehner). It would be a lot more beneficial for this country and for the world that such investment be made to GREEN ENERGY production. But of course such investment by private companies does not have immediate and huge returns oil provides. So we are delaying the development of green energy resources and degrading our environment further with every new investments in fossil fuels…

  10. My reading indicates it will impact the price that people in the midwest where the oil is now refined. The price will go up simply because the availability will go down. Also oil taken from outr midwest will also be sent to texas on this pipeline. Its not just for Canada

  11. The Enbridge Pipeline ALREADY brings tar sands oil down to Illinois. And there’s not enough oil to fill it.

    Some estimates say the tar sands output won’t fill the existing pipelines for decades.

    So the whole claim is busted, Justin. The XL Pipeline was intended to re-route the oil down to Texas where it can be sold overseas. The investor statements say it will being in $3.3 Billion Dollars sold overseas as compared to selling to the USA.

    And the same Precis states that the expected number of workers hired will be less than 6,000.

    TransCanada only started lying about 20,000 jobs when they hit opposition to crossing Nebraska.

    They already hit opposition to crossing Canada to the West Coast. Nobody wants a pipeline built by the same contractors as did the Enbridge Pipeline, it’s leaked at least 11 times in the last two years.

  12. It is my understanding that the Enbridge Pipeline will be hooked into the Keystone XL so that oil can be sold on the world market instead of just the midwest as it is now. I’ve also seen comments that some American oil from the mountain states will also be added in. The reason for the Texas refinery is it is located in a tax free zone if it is exported.

  13. The premise that it can go west to the Pacific is unfounded. The First Nation (Canada’s indigenous population) issues completely prevent this from going west through Alberta and BC. That’s why the US route is so important to TransCanada – They can’t go west! TC will say anything to get this pipeline completed. I just hope the US is prudent is rerouting and planning for future maintenance and upkeep. I’m sure it’ll get passed after the next application is filed.

  14. “Boehner’s gone from claiming 100,000 direct jobs will be created immediately..” You provide no citation for this. The article you cited only said 100k jobs, not 100k direct jobs.
    “pipeline creating 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs to only 100,000 indirect jobs.” It’s common sense that the project must create at least some jobs directly. What are they going to build it with a slave army of alien robots?
    “118,935 person-years” of employment. A “person year” of employment is not equivalent to an individual job in the real world, despite the obvious inference that it is.” That’s so obvious, anyone who thought that is a fucking moron. It’s more likely a stat for the direct jobs creation. 20k x 6 years = 120k years.
    If he is invested in the oil companies they should throw him in the slammer.

  15. And the Texas refineries are in a ‘tax free’ zone. So, no economic benefit to the country in the form of taxes, Plus GHG emissions from refining this dirty oil will be 3 times what normal sweet crude emits in refining. And the use of billions of gallons of fresh water will be needed. An Texas is in a drought of biblical proportion.

    Please sign the petition to oust Boehner in the article. I did as soon as I saw it last week.

  16. Ill try to address all the replies without getting lost, but it might be hard with people trying to talk in circles. The fact that many say this line will only create upto 6000 jobs, is that this figure is sustained work over 2 years. There is no arguement that 20,000 direct jobs would be temporary and counting for full employment for 2 years would equal approx 6,000. The fact is that both research groups are saying the same thing just with 2 different figures..

    To those that point out a risk to our Water ways and land, No matter how the tarsands are transported there is a risk of disaster. Pipelines are enviromentally safer and more efficient, and compared to transporting by other means, would make for a lower risk for disater. Without the Keystone XL these tarsands are being transported by other means, so the same question could actually be point back at you… Dont you care about our land and water ways? Transcanada has already agreed to reroute the already deemed safe pipeline out of the sandhills and aquifer in Nebraska, even though there are much bigger threats to that waterbody(ie. Toxic waste dumps over the same aquifer, older lines ran through it, and pumping the water outside of the aquifer for farmland).

    To the Question on running the XL parrallel to Phase I, you notice that the xl comes from the western side of the US and phase one is closer to the eastern? The XL will also be used to transport the oil being produced in North Dakota.

    To those pointing out that the XL will pipe to texas and be able for trade. This is true, The oil produced in canada would be refined here and be available to a world market(which looking at oil consumption, I would tend to believe that the US would have a high demand of this oil) instead of a lack portion being piped and shipped to china for their benefit. There are currently trains shipping to Texas, and I have yet to see a big price change at the pump, but I could be wrong.

    To those stating we should back green energy, there are plenty of articles about the price of green energy, the enviromental affect of batteries used to store and ship the green energy, etc that you could read to find out why thats not a great idea at this time. To help I have a great article about one company Obama backed that went bankrupt in a matter of 2 years after recieving 118 million dollars.(http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49084). This may be a good reason why 20000 Jobs created from a 7 billion dollar private project might be better than up to 350 jobs which cost 118 million to tax payers. True green energy has to be invested in, however this is still an option with or without the keystone XL. The XL will not hinder the US in investing into green energy.

    To get directly to the Facts, Canada is producing oil in need of refining. Right now their choice would be to have the US refine this product, with a second choice of china if investment in US becomes to high. The tarsand need to be transported, which is currently by train, but pipeline would be more efficent and enviromentally safe. Transcanada wants to build this 7 billion dollar project with US workers through the US, which would produce jobs and tax revenue. Without the line, other means of transportation are used and is more dangerous to the enviroment. To stop the XL will not stop tarsands from being produced, nor will it stop transportation of the tarsands, but only stop the ability to do both in a more enviromental fashion. Your idea of jobs compared to Boehner may differ, but doesnt make one wrong, just different figures.

  17. So your stating because only 10 to 15 percent of the jobs in each state will be manned by residents, and the other 90-85 being other US citizens, that this is a bad thing? Im a nebraskan resident and I dont think I would complain if I was hired in South Dakota to work. They would still recieve state taxes from my check, and I would be spending money on goods and services to stay there temporarily(Hotel, food, gas, etc.)your quoting a number for jobs sustained over a 2 year period. I would be happy being just 1 of the 20,000 people getting just short term employment, but would be excited to be employed for 2 straight years. The fact I did point out had everything to do with this article. 20,000 jobs would be created, 6000 jobs would be sustained over the full period of construction(2 years), and many jobs along the route will be created to accommodate the workers and construction crews, and jobs will be created or sustained by the portion of 5.2 billion in property tax the states would recieve. As for the exact number, I dont know myself, but would tend to believe the 100,000 indirect to be close. If you dont wish to believe that number that is fine, but you need to take that up with the research group responsible for the fact and not a politician quoting it.

    Your dismissal of my claim that pipelines have a lower impact on the enviroment is none of my concern. if you wish to learn more about it, please refer your questions to google.com, or bing.com they can help your continue your research on that topic. Im not going to re-search everytime someone wants an easy link given to them. Take a look at green house gas emission, efficencey, and spills that have occured from both. Trains do not have leak detection, nor do they have shut offs in case of emergencey.

    I do have a mind of my own to use, and maybe the reason it is so easy to look through the spun stories of groups as such. Maybe you should use yours and take a look at what would benefit the US, and the World, instead of believing that creation of jobs in any ammount is worth turning down.

  18. The real fact is, it takes the Canadian oil away from the midwest refineries where it is currently being refined. It will jack up prices for most of the upper US. Refinery space could be created in the midwest and the oil would not have to travel far, and the oil would be used in the US. Novel Idea! After all our dear beloved Sarah says drill here and drill often!

  19. This has been very intersting reading your comments back and forth. Justin, thank you for so many real facts. My son has worked on the pipeline in northern MN. This pipeline had to be installed through tribal land and natural preserves. The red-tape, the stalling from environmentalists and Native Americans was long and costly, including the extra money the Native Americans demanded. Extreme Rules and regulations were followed and after completion,the land is right back to normal conditions. Realizing the involvement with the Keystone XL, the transport of the tarsands and all the roadblocks along the way, we do need this pipeline. Letting it go to China is by far one the worst things the U.S. can do.

  20. Well I hate to break it to you, but the southern portion from OK to texas has been approved and will be moving that oil anyways. The portion not approved is the northern portion that will bring more product to the US refineries.

  21. I’ve seen this on a few lines that I have worked on, many groups protesting with an enviromental stance until the gas company is delayed so long that they settle with a big check. Once the line is laid you rarely hear any complaints, the only reason they do it is hoping for a big check. The bad thing is the end cost is only being paid by the consumers, so a few get a check while everyone else pays the bill. Its funny how oil and gas companies get the bad rep for prices, while these groups do their share of increasing costs for everyone

  22. Ah take everything that transcanada has to say and you will get maybe one third………. Keystone one which went through my State South Dakota was promised thousands of jobs but got hundreds instead mostly burger flippers and strippers……….. taxes we were promised 9.1 million a year but got 2.1 and wait the best is coming, they got a tax break of 2.5 million. So Transcanada sends 91 million back to Canada and South Dakota gets zip.

    Their equipment is built in Korea and is mega sized which means you have loads 20 long, 24 feet wide , 30 feet high………… guess who foots the bill for new roads not Transcanada !

  23. We are still complaining in South Dakota. Keystone one leaks so bad it makes old faithful look small ! The oil has already been contracted to go to a foreign trade zone refinery which means it won’t be sold in the United States. Look up Valero .

  24. Justin you fail to tell everyone the reason that Transcanada wants this new line is because currently Keystone one can only sell to the United States……… Canada has made no bones about wanting Keystone XL to go to the Foreign trade zone refineries to avoid selling to the United States . Canada wants to avoid paying taxes on the oil by selling to other countries and take home huger profits at the expense of United States taxpayers.

  25. Because if they go to Texas there are refineries in the foreign trade zones. What this means is that as long as Canada does not sell this oil to us they will not pay taxes and take home huger profits…….. Canada has never hidden that this was their plan from the git go. South Dakota was totally gypped with Keystone one…….. jobs were burger flippers and stripper, tax money was suppose to be 9.1 million dollars a year but went down to 2.1 million, which went down to 0 after their tax exemption . not hard to do the math

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.