Article content continued

It all makes the U.S. President’s weekend remarks in the New York Times look like he hasn’t considered Keystone XL beyond the environmental lobby’s cheat sheets.

In an interview with the newspaper, Barack Obama called into question the project’s job creation potential, maintained most of the oil would be exported, argued it might increase prices in the Midwest, and urged Canada to do more about carbon pollution from the “tar sands” — all talking points advanced by the anti-oil sands lobby that have been refuted by Canadian governments, the North American oil industry, TransCanada, the union movement, many members of the U.S. Congress (including Democrats), and his own State Department.

As the Washington Post put it: “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 … suggest he accepts much of the criticism opponents have lodged against the project.”

The American Petroleum Institute, in its Oil Sands Fact Check report Monday, said it looks like the President hasn’t even bothered to read his own State Department’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

“If he had he would know that his State Department found — after almost five years of review and numerous studies — that Keystone XL would be a big job creator (supporting 42,100 jobs); that gas prices would not increase due to the pipeline (in fact because of more supply they will likely decrease); and that greenhouse gas emissions will not significantly increase with Keystone XL.”

Barack Obama keeps ignoring the most important reason for Keystone XL — U.S. energy security and independence, which cannot be achieved without Canada, and it would be a massive strategic blunder for him not to lock that up while in his grasp. Meanwhile, Canada is demonstrating it will survive and thrive without Keystone XL, making the President’s delay and pressure tactics less effective every passing day.