Seeking Alpha

The President's statement denying the application for the building of TransCanada's (TRP)...

The President's statement denying the application for the building of TransCanada's (TRP) Keystone XL Pipeline: The rejection is "not a judgement on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of (the Congressional) deadline." (earlier)
Comments (51)
  • This boy keeps his word with congress or they might impeach him...
    18 Jan 2012, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • boy?




    must be a republican.


    i'll be sure to keep an eye out for your posts, brother. i'm sure there's a wealth of intelligence behind such old-fashioned language. bwa-haw haw haw
    19 Jan 2012, 07:00 AM Reply Like
  • still its a rejection. The project is not moving forward. Obama clearly doesn't care about jobs or energy security, but hey the problem was the Congressional deadline.
    18 Jan 2012, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • You're wrong. They can reapply. And when they do, it will be approved.


    Please keep the Republican bias off the message board.


    It is so p-r-e-d-i-c-t-a-b-l-e.
    18 Jan 2012, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • They can build a pipeline to Vancouver and ship the oil to China and South Korea. And then Vancouver will see investments in its port facility instead of the Gulf of Mexico. And then China will be less dependent on Middle East Oil and we will be still as dependent.


    Its truly amazing.
    18 Jan 2012, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • David -


    There is no support whatsoever for shipping oil from Vancouver (try to visualize the uproar in Vancouver, Seattle and neighbouring communities if this were proposed). The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would nave its Pacific terminal at Kitimat or Prince Rupert near the southern end of the Alaska Panhandle.


    That location is actually more than 2000 km closer to China etc. than Vancouver.
    19 Jan 2012, 01:49 AM Reply Like
  • In the meantime, the Alberta crude will continue to sell at a $20+/bbl discount to WTI crude. Canada won't mind taking that hit for another two years or so. No hard feelings as a result of that.


    Or maybe they sell to China, which has already invested in Alberta oil sands projects.
    19 Jan 2012, 07:42 AM Reply Like
  • Ok, so to some other port in Canada. I think you get my point.
    19 Jan 2012, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • Now that's LEADERSHIP. Screw the jobs, screw the American people, screw energy independence, I am mad at congress and I think I'll go on vacation just to show them how mad I really am.
    18 Jan 2012, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Right wing drivel doesn't belong on this board.


    1) CNN posted an interview with a TransCanada executive who admits that permanent jobs would only number “in the hundreds, certainly not in the thousands” from Montana down to Houston.


    2) The "oil" being pumped is really like sludge. Despite fantasies to the contrary, we will still need the lighter grades of foreign oil because the lighter grades are more efficiently refined in gas, kerosene etc. etc.


    3) In terms of making a decision, Obama is deferring to Nebraska. Remember states rights? This is ultimately a delayed decision.


    4)From the american petroleum institute:
    "Refineries in the U.S. Gulf Region that have long received heavy crude from other countries are already well positioned to handle supplies from Canada." So the gulf refineries were already receiving heavy crude.


    5) It's highly ironic that people who worship markets don't listen to them. TRP was down 33 cents and oil was essentially flat.


    6) Right wing hypocrisy has been outed again. Wingnuts wanted to shut down whole industries along with their supply chains in the US, like GM and Chrysler, but in this case they are worried about a few thousand temporary welding jobs.
    18 Jan 2012, 11:29 PM Reply Like
  • Unfortunately, the statement makes no mention whatsoever of "deferring to Nebraska". Had that been the message, it would at least be understandable. Saying that the request is being denied because of the Congressional deadline is just an attempt to make political hay and point fingers. The administration has had many months to evaluate the proposal on its merits or, for that matter, to simply poll the states through which the pipeline was to pass. Had it done so, a final decision could have been issued long ago. Instead of doing that, it chose to play politics. Just one more chapter in the story of America's increasingly dysfunctional government. I think (or perhaps I merely hope) that's what wyostocks really meant to say. The fact that Obama really is acting like a petulant child is a disgrace, regardless of whether one agrees with the customarily overstated benefits of the pipeline itself.


    Disclosure: I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of either the Republican or Democratic Party. Nor do I worship markets. Sorry.
    19 Jan 2012, 04:04 AM Reply Like
  • Yes, TransCanada will only create a few hundred or several hundred jobs..... but your next point about the oil being "sludge" means it all has to be processed - which creates more jobs. And lets not overlook all the investment that would take place in OK and along the gulf of Mexico...... all of which could spur even more development and jobs and perhaps even lead to the export of Natural gas from the USA in the form of LNG.


    I don't care if its 400 jobs or 4,000 or 40,000. Combine even one job with the lessening of our reliance on oil from Muslim countries and its something we have to get done.
    19 Jan 2012, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • Just on point one-------You can build a 1700 mile pipeline with only jobs "in the hundreds"? Get real man. Better get you head back in your behind.
    BTW, the California dems said that a one point seven mile subway in San Franciso is adding 43,000 jobs.
    19 Jan 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • The Central Subway project is a useless boondoggle that has little or no value to San Franciscans. Once the government finishes building it, which will probably take 5 times as long as it needs to and cost 10 times as much, it will probably add a few dozen jobs: train operators and maintenance workers. All of which, of course, will have to paid for by the City, meaning money taken in taxes that would have been spent somewhere else instead had the subway not been built, because revenue from the line will be negligible.


    Yeah, in the government's ridiculously and deliberately inefficient approach to construction, there may well be 43,000 people working on it at various times, but that's very different from saying that building the subway will increase the capacity of the SF economy by that many jobs. It's a fantasy number, just like the pipeline numbers, because what the government calls a "job" is not what you or I would call a job. To them, welding a section of pipe or dumping a few tons of ballast is a "job"; you do it, get paid, and go back to EDD for your unemployment checks when you're done. To the rest of us, it means steady work and a steady paycheck for an indefinite period of time.


    No matter which major party is backing the project, the employment benefits are always overstated. And that's even after the government's senseless requirements that force contractors to hire many times more temporary workers than are really needed to do the work, costing the rest of us billions in extra taxes, lengthened schedules, and additional inconvenience while construction is going on. For that matter, privately-backed projects always come with absurdly overstated employment figures, too. If you want to gauge the real impact, ask yourself what the project will do after it's been completed. If it's a factory with 340 workstations, it's a safe bet that it will increase employment by a few hundred jobs, not the 23,871 that the corporation building it claims when it's trying to negotiate its "tax break" handouts. The same thing applies to the Central Subway, the Keystone XL, and just about every other project you ever read about these days.
    19 Jan 2012, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • bearfund
    Well stated.
    19 Jan 2012, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • what happened to compromise...and oh..they have already studied it for three years already...and oh..what is the State department doing anyway?????? Obama is trying to destroy this killing our energy supplies..and by trashing our money
    18 Jan 2012, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • Youngman....You are right. I hope everyone understands that the elitists of the world cannot stand for a strong, economically independent, constitutionally centered America; moreover, an America that is capable of defending itself militarily. Those three pillars need to be destroyed in order to advance the cause of the elitist's vision of what we need to have as a set of United Nations under one "charter".


    We have been led for years by politicians who are marching us in that direction. Perhaps we'll wake up soon enough.
    18 Jan 2012, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • This President does live up to his words and is leading from behind. He's set up "the Secretary of State" (why is she in on this?) and he's accepted her recommendation much as Bill Clinton accepted Janet Reno's recommendation to raid the compound in Waco.


    Reuters reports that "the state of Nebraska is taking a new look at the safety of the hundreds of miles of pipelines already operating in the state. The fate of the sub-species, medium-haired-grey groundhog hangs in the balance."
    18 Jan 2012, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • 11 more months and the non-american will be gone..... I think he should take the rest of the 535 idots with him......
    18 Jan 2012, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • And Obama will get a pass on this purely political decision. Amazing, he was the perfect candidate. A great orator who is narcissistic and has no baggage. Wonder how long, if ever, the last three years catches up to him.
    18 Jan 2012, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • very disappointed that Obama is such a wuss. If the environmentalists want to worry about oil pipeline spills, why don't they worry about the pipelines that are 50 years old instead of the brand new ones? Makes NO sense.
    18 Jan 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • Bullish for the volt and prius. Bearish for us. This putz wants to price us out of our cars and onto bicycles like the chinese even as they go towards cars and away from bikes. Oh well, we can always get solar from Solyndra... Oh, that's right, Solyndra and it's democrat fundraiser/owner went belly up and took 500 million of our $ with it...
    18 Jan 2012, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • I can only HOPE that the people that voted for Obama and are his friends start leaking his history to the press so he will not be elected..he can't have that many friends anymore...they way he is ...I bet we get leaks of of his college friends..and his Hawaii connections...IMHO
    18 Jan 2012, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • Al qida can only DREAM of doing the amount of damage to this country that our Dear Leader has done and still doing! Why do the people allow him to get away with such nonsense?
    18 Jan 2012, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • Curious statement. That would suggest he should have rejected all of the bailouts due to the arbitrary nature of the deadlines associated with them. "If we don't pass this right now (without reading it), _________"
    18 Jan 2012, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • If anyone really buys this clever spin, they are really stupid. Soon he'll be saying he'll approve it, just after the election. Try to play both sides yet again.
    18 Jan 2012, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • As Expected - Obama voted "Pressent" yet again in an attempt to keep the enviro boys happy till after the election. So much for jobs and energy security!
    18 Jan 2012, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • "not a judgement on the merits of the pipeline"


    So much for being "the adult in the room".
    18 Jan 2012, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • Now that's a POLITICAL SOLUTION!
    18 Jan 2012, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • There are serious arguments for and against the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline (as there are concerning the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Northern Alberta to the British Columbia Pacific Coast). Clearly before either project precedes the legitimate concerns of those along the proposed right of way and waterways potentially affected by pipeline ruptures need to be adequately addressed. Further, for Canadians there is the legitimate issue of the pace of Oilsands development (i.e. ensuring that the development of this resource is not accelerated beyond the ability of the available technology to ensure maximum recovery of oil and minimize adverse environmental impact throughout western and northern Canada and that adequate markets exist into which profitable production will be sold at global prices). What Canadians find objectionable, however, is that decisions whether or not to proceed in the US with the Keystone XL Pipeline should become a transparently political phony war issue (rather than a serious debate about the merits of proceeding) between the Republicans and Democrats (clearly the Republicans included the 60 day decision rule as an add-on to the budget appropriation knowing that the review could not be completed within that time and that today’s decision would follow).


    Expect Canada to actively pursue offshore markets (and expanded markets in Eastern Canada) for Oilsands production while continuing to pursue US markets insofar as these can be reasonably expanded. There is little appetite in Canada for placing this important resource at the whim of foreign political posturing.


    The following are initial reactions to today’s events published in Canada’s two leading newspapers.



    18 Jan 2012, 06:07 PM Reply Like
  • Congratulations to President Obama for doing the right thing (if for the wrong, i.e. political, reason). The pipeline would have created a small number of jobs, done nothing to enhance energy security, had no effect on the price of gasoline, and locked in the future of the most environmentally destructive industrial project on earth. Much better to promote job-intensive, domestic alternative energy, including the cheapest, most reliable, most security-enhancing energy alternative that exists - conservation.
    18 Jan 2012, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • so.....are you planning to put your car up on blocks and turn off your home heating system?
    18 Jan 2012, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • My Honda Civic uses less fuel and costs less to run than most cars on the road, but I usually leave it home and bicycle to work. The house I am building this summer will be heated by renewable, carbon-neutral wood pellets for less than the cost of heating oil.


    Thanks for tossing me a softball.
    18 Jan 2012, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • "Much better to promote job-intensive, domestic alternative energy"


    Sure moron like a billion dollars to companies that have gone bankrupt. Hello, NO JOBS...
    Will you liberals EVER learn? Let me answer, NO......


    I hope you walk the walk and don't own a car, take mass transit (takes energy, you know) and live in a frigging igloo.


    If not to all the above, you are a fake, phony, fraud.
    18 Jan 2012, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • Still chewing on the "Solyndra" bone that Fox News tossed to you?


    How many people do you think are employed today building and deploying solar panels, wind turbines and geothermal? Retrofitting under-insulated homes? Manufacturing and installing high-efficiency appliances? Building and operating mass transit? Recycling steel, aluminum, paper, glass and plastic? How many would be employed if we got serious and tripled the activity in these sectors?


    "I hope you walk the walk and don't own a car, take mass transit (takes energy, you know) and live in a frigging igloo."


    I guess you didn't read my second comment.


    And finally: congratulations! Starting off your comment by calling me a moron makes you the loser.
    18 Jan 2012, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • Orangutan
    And what does Fox have to do with the issue? Is is true. What is next blame Bush?
    Second comment----You said "usually". As for wood pellets, shame on you for polluting the environment. Hypocrite.
    18 Jan 2012, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • Yes; let's invest in more corrupt and then bankrupt solar energy companies. Just what we need to jump start our economy. When will we learn, Canada should be our blueprint. Not these phony green energy programs.
    18 Jan 2012, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • Saving the world, one bafoon at a time!
    18 Jan 2012, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • It's rough out on this board for a liberal tonight.
    19 Jan 2012, 12:57 AM Reply Like
  • I am neither a Republican or Democrat, but stating that decision is based on missing a deadline is wrong on so many levels. This is clearly not an example of leadership that anyone voted for when they elected Obama.
    18 Jan 2012, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Now there is no doubt where the big oil and gas campaign dollars are gonna go:-)


    If anyone can compete with a billion dollar war chest (In untraceable $5 dollar internet donation big oil can :-)
    18 Jan 2012, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • Its so tiring hearing the nonsense coming from DC.


    Does anyone think there is some nice easy solution to our energy dependency on oil from the Middle East and elsewhere?


    If the Canadians want to develop the oil sands thats their business, not ours. If we need to divert the pipeline around some water, then just do it.


    If the president can't have his administration make this happen then he should resign in disgrace. We can go to the moon but we can't build a pipeline that would 1. Reduce our dependency on oil from other parts of the country. 2. Spur several thousand jobs over the next couple of years. 3. Spur port development that could lead to even more economic development through exporting LNG. 4. Increase tax revenues for the states involved. 5. Ensure the USA benefits from the oil sands as opposed to ...... CHINA!!


    This is a national disgrace.
    18 Jan 2012, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • oh come on you guys. it's election season.


    up in canada the mining minister is grumping about american radicals messing with his pipeline. talking heads are calling native people with their land rights "mongolian canadians." it's their land whatever some unaware business type thinks.


    canada is gilligan to the us's skipper. americans are majority holders in canadian stocks. canadian oil co's aren't really canadian.


    canadians pay more for their oil than when it's sold to the south. when it's sold to the south, it's exported for profit. and canadians are good with that, see next point.


    a canadian politician's most fervent dream is that they get put on the board of an american multinational.


    when the deadline was tacked onto the jobs bill, anyone with any sense should have known what the outcome was. a committee can't tell the boss what to do.


    did you watch them during the reaction set piece after the announcement? they looked scared, they looked like they feared their little game had backfired again. no fire. no conviction. beaten.


    the most impressive of all the pols i saw was the premier of alberta. even, balanced, expressed respect for the us process. a female in a province awaft with the testosterone of cattle, oil and born agains. texas with a funny accent, alberta.


    the plan was flawed across the sand hills. it should have been better. opposition was ignored at the time when it should have been accomodated.


    true maybe another pres would've crushed opposition. but obama generally follows the rule of law. which is a welcome change for some of us.


    canada can sell to china and still have lots for america to sell to others. don't worry.
    19 Jan 2012, 07:27 AM Reply Like
  • Here are some interesting takes:


    22 Jan 2012, 02:54 AM Reply Like
  • Dr V
    Thanks. Very insightful. Seems everyone in the administration has a different reason for the veto with no clear reasoning. My takeaway, politics plain and simple.
    22 Jan 2012, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • Lack of a clear plan is what's being said mostly, deal isn't dead, just needs to be more comprehensive.


    Alot of people are speculating about jobs and oil costs. Even with the Pipeline, oil price would not change. If people want cheap oil, ask Congress why we didn't seize the oil fields in Iraq?


    Why is 90% of that oil being diverted to China?
    23 Jan 2012, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • In answer to both your questions: To show the world what nice guys we are even though are acted outside the international community in invading Iraq.
    23 Jan 2012, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • Dr. V.... a most excellent question for congress. My follow on question would be, "Why don't we burn the poppy fields in Afghanistan?" We could simply employ a "crop subsidy" like we pay for ethanol and pay the Afghan farmers cash to grow something productive like corn or some climate appropriate crop. Think of all the John Deere equipment we could sell.
    23 Jan 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Not much of anyone in the world thinks the USA is a bunch of nice guys. In my view....we should bring the troops home and stop wasting our financial and human resources trying to be the world cop.
    23 Jan 2012, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • Ah, a true Economist.


    That is the question not being asked, isn't it?


    Unless of course, the real plan is to get them all hooked on their own smack and roll in there with coffee and cigarettes and win them over, or a "12 Step Democracy Program", as it were.
    24 Jan 2012, 01:43 AM Reply Like
  • User 509088 -


    A a Canadian I must admit that too many Canadian corporate executives and politicians have narrowed their horizons in a manner that gives some creditability, especially in the past, to the scorn you express. This 'branch plant mentality' was the product of laziness (i.e. the US market was easier with which to integrate rather than do the added work of forming links further abroad) and a certain post colonial frame of mind (i.e. first the UK and then the US were bigger, successful, congenial and more developed models so why not simply ape them in miniature).


    In truth such attitudes served the interests of both Canada and the US poorly and we should all welcome their passing which, I suggest, is now well underway. As others have suggested, Canada and the US will always have a robust trading, political and cultural relationship as distinct exemplars of North America but this will best continue in an environment where each expands its relationships across the globe, pursues its own enlightened best interests and doesn't make unrealistic assumptions about its North American neighbour.


    In this context, it is only reasonable for Canada to avoid having the US as its only foreign market for energy exports.
    22 Jan 2012, 03:52 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)