Keystone pipeline jobs claims: a bipartisan fumble

By:  Glenn Kessler

There is bipartisan consensus: The Keystone XL pipeline means jobs, jobs, jobs.

The Obama administration last month announced that it was taking more time to consider how to balance environmental concerns and economic issues in deciding whether to approve the pipeline, which would carry heavy crude oil from Canada's Alberta province to the Gulf Coast. (Skeptics would suggest the White House wanted to avoid angering two key allies during an election year.)

Ever since, advocates of the pipeline have pressed the case that thousands of shovel-ready jobs are being delayed by the administration's inaction, with House Republicans including a shortened timeline for a permit in legislation extending the payroll tax cut.

We've repeatedly warned that many "job creation" statistics are often guesstimates of estimates, and should be viewed skeptically. By some accounts, the number of jobs that would be created could be as many as 150,000. But the State Department in August put the number of construction jobs at just 5,000 to 6,000.

What's going on here?

The Facts

 TransCanada Corp., which is pushing to build the pipeline, claims that  Keystone XL "was poised to put 20,000 Americans to work to construct the pipeline." The company also cites another figure - 118,000 spin-off jobs Keystone XL would create through increased business for local restaurants, hotels and suppliers - that comes from a study commissioned by the company. The study even suggested that under "normal" oil price assumptions, the number of permanent jobs would top 250,000.

These statistics form the basis of most of the claims made about the jobs supposedly created by the pipeline. Caveat emptor: the company building the pipeline is obviously going to offer the rosiest scenario possible. One should especially view with a large grain of salt any study for which it paid good money.

 Juliet Eilpern and Steven Mufson of The Washington Post explored some of the problems with these numbers in an article last month, but their analysis apparently did not get enough attention. Here's what they wrote:

Continue reading on the Washington Post.