Seeking Alpha

As the controversy intensifies over whether or not the U.S. approves the Keystone XL pipeline,...

As the controversy intensifies over whether or not the U.S. approves the Keystone XL pipeline, it seems that the oil will continue to flow across North America. At least 37 other pipeline projects are now planned or underway in the U.S.
Comments (48)
  • jack20
    , contributor
    Comments (294) | Send Message
     
    please make sure president obama knows this. we must stop all pipeline pollution so that the price of oil goes way up and shows how smart he is that wind&solar are the clear answer!!!
    27 Jun 2013, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • crash9010
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    I don't like making political statements but I would like to see the President push for an all of the above strategy while working with the industry to contain pollution without handcuffing Econ growth and innovation.
    27 Jun 2013, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • CincinnatiRick
    , contributor
    Comments (384) | Send Message
     
    I believe Jack was being facetious. Yes, of course, you have identified the appropriate stance of both safely exploiting presently available resources while leaving the door open or even encouraging (but not forcing) the development of new ones. Thus far, there has been no indication that this President will embrace that strategy.
    27 Jun 2013, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • AlbyVA
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    I own both pipeline and railroads, so no matter what happens, the oil is flowing over one of the infrastructure plays I have money in.
    27 Jun 2013, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • eddieojr
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    Just think of how great the US energy business could be if economic illiterates, politically correct fools, and other democrats would get out of the way. The market must decide what the best source of energy should be.
    27 Jun 2013, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • rdy4trvl
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Jack!! I didn't realize this until you pointed it out - it's the distribution mode (XL pipeline) that pollutes! Better to send it by inefficient rail and tanker trucks that use more of this dirty fuel before it gets to the end customer. Or better yet, ship it half way around the world to Asia because it's cleaner when it burns there. This is what happens when we have a well thought out, cohesive long-term national energy plan.
    27 Jun 2013, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • Be Here Now
    , contributor
    Comments (3910) | Send Message
     
    Unbeknownst to the Obama administration, there is already a pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to the USA, terminating in Anacortes, WA: http://bit.ly/10nJQSb
    27 Jun 2013, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • AltheDentist
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    The oil will go somewhere. The pipeline to Anacortes and one the Canadians are contemplating to Vancouver, BC will load tankers and go through the San Juan Islands and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. These are beautiful and fragile eco-systems and a Tanker spill would be more devastating than the Exxon Valdez. I guess that is better than a pipeline, that even is there is a leak. would spill maybe a 1000 gallons, Better to have a super tanker spill. What an idiot.
    27 Jun 2013, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • minwyhe
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    So if what the comments have been saying so far and there are pipelines going every which way across America including the 1 to Anacortes, why are we even considering testing fate and adding another 1. The XL is going to go through the heartland of the continent whereas at least the 1 to Anacortes is probably not going to affect huge populations and hopefully any tragedies would be less damaging to the environment and water. Pretty soon we are going to be drinking oil and gas and watering with it to.
    27 Jun 2013, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • glenkaiser06
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    I'd rather ship our coal to china rather than process Canadian tar sands oil on the gulf (via Keystone), and then ship it all to china. Economically it makes the most sense. The chinese are going to burn someone's coal, it may as well be ours...then convert to Nat Gas.
    27 Jun 2013, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Have any of you people considered how the oil that is produced in Alaska gets to market and to which markets? Which is more polluting, oil, coal, trains, ships, pipelines, etc.
    The oil sands (tar sands is incorrect terminology) are being developed come hell or high water. It will get to some market(s) somewhere, somehow, so lets push for the most environmentally sound means.
    Common people think and research a little before you comment. Emotional ranting serves no useful purpose and accomplishes nothing. If we want to reduce pollution from energy sources why not reduce consumption by reducing the cause for consumption.
    27 Jun 2013, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • cnc
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    The issue for most Nebraskans and environmentalists is the protection of the Ogallala aquifer. If the pipeline route went further east before turning south, much of the meaningful opposition would disappear. Cleaning a stream after a spill is possible and expensive; cleaning a massive aquifer after contamination is orders of magnitude more difficult. How would I vote on the issue? I do not know, but I know this is more complex than a simple trade off analysis.
    27 Jun 2013, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • durango58
    , contributor
    Comments (272) | Send Message
     
    It has already been moved east of the aquifer. Don't you follow the things you comment about? Rarely have I seen more ill-informed comments on a page as I just got through reading.
    27 Jun 2013, 04:54 PM Reply Like
  • cnc
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Yes, it was moved east, but it still crosses the aquifer.
    27 Jun 2013, 09:36 PM Reply Like
  • User 9973711
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Whatever... I enjoy driving my polluting car... you can walk if you want
    27 Jun 2013, 04:30 PM Reply Like
  • contaylor
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    Any of you anti pipeliners realize your water--sewer--natural gas--are all pipelines???come-on how many disasters per mile have they caused? meanwhile trains have done their share of polluting for years.
    27 Jun 2013, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • minwyhe
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    Yes we have all these pipelines, but are any of those pipelines as insidious as tar sands oil to clean up if the pipeline leaks. Think about that.
    28 Jun 2013, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • koolsool
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    One of Obama's large campaign contributors has investments in the other alternative pipelines.
    28 Jun 2013, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • Marv63
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    I'm old enough to remember $1.00 per gallon gas. I also remember that I have forgotten many things. I have energy stock so these comments are helping me remember what I should and some I should not. One thing we all need to realize; the US can control what happens here, they cannot always influence what happens out of this country!
    28 Jun 2013, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • jerrywengler
    , contributor
    Comments (420) | Send Message
     
    I am old enough that I remember dime a gallon gas wars and 21 cents a gallon normal prices. I also remember pollution worse than we have now. I'm also old enough to realize the differences between propaganda nonsense and truth. We need well-handled pipelines. It would also be nice to have a president focused on truth once instead of exhibition of his own shortcomings. Economics will happen with or without a president. Unless we get another president of Eisenhower-Truman-Reagan abilities, we'd better hope the economy overshadows what the office holder does or nations like China will be the deciders of global warming issues if they are issues.
    28 Jun 2013, 11:08 PM Reply Like
  • hanszarkov
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    Big oil and pipelines are USA's power! If you don't think so try bicycling to work for the next month.
    28 Jun 2013, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Pablomike
    , contributor
    Comments (1360) | Send Message
     
    All the fuss over the Ogallala Aquifer is kind of silly. I believe T Boone Pickens said there are already 19 pipelines through the area. Why is one more a problem??
    28 Jun 2013, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • AlbyVA
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    It is pretty amazing that anybody who thinks restricting the XL Pipeline is going to halt any global impact. If the Canadians can't get their oil out via Pipelines to the Gulf, they'll ship it on rail cars until they get a pipeline to the Pacific coast of Canada, and then begin shipping it from there.

     

    Nobody is going to keep billions of dollars worth of oil locked up in Alberta. If they had too, they would fill up actual barrels and transport them on 18-Wheeler trucks to the nearest pipeline depot in the US. This all boils down to efficient transportation of oil and has nothing to do with environmental impact.
    29 Jun 2013, 08:15 AM Reply Like
  • minwyhe
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    Let Canada deal with its dirty oil. If they want to get it to market let them do it themselves rather than foisting off on the US.
    29 Jun 2013, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • durango58
    , contributor
    Comments (272) | Send Message
     
    KMP already has a huge pipeline to Kitimat and Vancouver. The oil will move...it's just a question of where.
    29 Jun 2013, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • jack20
    , contributor
    Comments (294) | Send Message
     
    All great blogs. Conclusion:not a single one of us wants pollution. Here is where I think Obama's proposal falls flat. If he wants to shut down coal fired power plants why isn't he concurrently promoting fast tracking nuc power plants with ZERO emmisions. At the same time he should be urging Congress to pass the Nat. Gas Act. CNG has about 40% less pollution than diesel, and we could cut imports of OPEC oil by 1 million barrels/day!! Sadly we have no national oil policy. The president just does not know how to lead. We have thousands of brilliant people in the U.S. but few leaders.
    30 Jun 2013, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • minwyhe
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    Get your facts right. Obama does not want to shut down coal fired power plants, he only wants to clean the pollution emitted from these plants. Either or mentality is not the answer, the answer is compromise and moving the oil across Canada is the best answer. The oil moves, but chances of destroying our environment is eliminated and don't give me the argument about jobs.
    30 Jun 2013, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • AltheDentist
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    You are incorrect. Obama has declared a war on coal. He even wants to stop shipments of coal to China. Considering that the Chinese are opening a coal plant at the rate of one/week and the winds blow from the west, his stance on destroying the American coal industry is asinine.
    30 Jun 2013, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Pablomike
    , contributor
    Comments (1360) | Send Message
     
    Obama only knows how to get elected. Not a great leader. Heck he never even knows what is own administration is doing. He gets his info from the media.
    30 Jun 2013, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • AlbyVA
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    We don't have leadership in America because we put a "Legislator" into an Executive position. Lawmakers don't make good Law Enforcers.

     

    Lets elect a Governor, General, or CEO as our next President. Somebody who knows how to lead people to prosperity.
    1 Jul 2013, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • hanszarkov
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    Minwyhe obviously does not understand the realities of the geopolitical/economic world we live in right now. He/she is a Sierra Club member and/or member of academia who supports Obama and his anti-American business policies.
    1 Jul 2013, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • minwyhe
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    Thank you for uninformed comments. Stay with the matter at hand and realize the reality of great chances of very huge environmental impact if the pipe should breakdown which all invariably do. I do support Obama because the alternatives are all losers.
    2 Jul 2013, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Your ranting------
    3 Jul 2013, 01:52 AM Reply Like
  • AlbyVA
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    At the end of the day, here is the common sense playbook.

     

    a) Oil flows efficiently through pipelines. But long distance pipelines require political support.

     

    b) Oil isn't limited to pipelines. It can still flow (less efficiently) via Railroads and 18-Wheelers and it doesn't require political support.

     

    Either way, the oil will get to market and this nonsense of holding up a pipeline in some far fetched attempt to make the Canadians stop digging up the tar sands so there is a reduced impact to global warming is a fool's errand. The Oil Will Flow one way or another. Thankfully for my wallet, I own railroads and pipelines so the money keeps coming in the door regardless of what happens.
    3 Jul 2013, 08:03 AM Reply Like
  • hanszarkov
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    Minwyhe
    I stand by my statements. Your comments in the last sequence shows your ignorance about the subject. " If the pipeline should breakdown which all invariably do........" Please supply this SA community with some facts so we can digest them. I do not know of any pipeline breakdowns. If there were any your numb nuts president has swept them under the rug.
    3 Jul 2013, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • minwyhe
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    Hanzarkov, Please check history of pipeline leaks including the Alaskan pipeline before you shoot off your mouth.
    3 Jul 2013, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    minwyhe, re your earlier comment:- "Let Canada deal with its dirty oil. If they want to get it to market let them do it themselves rather than foisting off on the US."
    No one is foisting dirty Canadian oil onto the USA.

     

    Instead of ranting and making accusations and unsubstantiated comments why don't you back up your claims with facts. After all, you like to demand others look at facts. As they say, PUT UP OR _____!
    3 Jul 2013, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • AlbyVA
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    All pipelines leak or have spills. And just like a garden hose that springs a leak, the flow can be shut off until it's repaired. That isn't the case with oil tankers. And yet not approving the XL pipeline is forcing oil onto tankers and is just asking for a spill along the Cali coastline.
    4 Jul 2013, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • hanszarkov
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    Minwyhe
    Let me say it again.......where are your facts??????? You loser liberals make statements with no substance behind them. I am waiting .........................
    4 Jul 2013, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • hanszarkov
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    I love to shoot off my mouth.....!!!!!!!!
    4 Jul 2013, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • hanszarkov
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    Minwyhe
    Still waiting ...... ..I don't want to rush you. The research desk at the Harvard library is very busy so take your time.
    4 Jul 2013, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • hanszarkov
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    AlbyVA
    You are right on. I own oil, pipelines, etc. and appreciate the $$$$$ from them. I am counting on the next boom in this country.....natural gas in the transportation industry.
    4 Jul 2013, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • AlbyVA
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    Without a doubt my brother Oil and NatGas will be big business for Railroads and Pipelines in the 21st century. And the best thing about both industries is they are near-monopolies. There really only 4 major railroads in America. UNP, NSC, CSX, and BNSF which Berkshire owns because Buffet is smart enough to also see the light. In the business of pipelines it's Kinder Morgan and then a bunch of small fries.

     

    Anybody owning UNP, NSC,CSX, and KMP/KMR will be rewarded handsomely.
    5 Jul 2013, 08:10 AM Reply Like
  • durango58
    , contributor
    Comments (272) | Send Message
     
    I've had KMP for years. Each share of KMR represents one share of KMP. The only difference is that KMR pays in additional shares instead of cash. A free DRIP for our children.
    5 Jul 2013, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • durango58
    , contributor
    Comments (272) | Send Message
     
    I didn't know this was a political forum. I thought it consisted of people like me who are just trying to make a little money.
    5 Jul 2013, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • jack20
    , contributor
    Comments (294) | Send Message
     
    Anyone think the Quebec oil train disaster will make the Canadian Government re think the need to move crude East or West via a pipeline?? Much cheaper and more efficient for sure.
    7 Jul 2013, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • AlbyVA
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    I doubt it. It wasn't that Oil was the evil culprit in this disaster. It could have been tanker loads of methyl isocyanate which killed 4,000 in India back in 1984.

     

    The facts seem to suggest that either the train's engineer didn't set a parking brake and that caused the train cars to roll away in the middle of the night or it was mechanical failure.

     

    Either way, I doubt that oil by rail will be impacted.
    8 Jul 2013, 08:16 AM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    The Canadian Gov't. has no need to rethink the need to move oil east by pipeline because that has always been the preferred method. The gov't. is fully behind getting the oil to market by whatever means is most appropriate. They are not hung with political gamesmanship as is being played in the USA.
    8 Jul 2013, 12:27 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|