Seeking Alpha

More on Obama's NYT interview: Obama played down claims TransCanada's (TRP) Keystone XL pipeline...

More on Obama's NYT interview: Obama played down claims TransCanada's (TRP) Keystone XL pipeline would generate large numbers of jobs. "The most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline...and then after that we're talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs." Obama also disputed that the line would cause gasoline prices to fall, saying it could do the opposite because it would lead to increased exports. Obama will decide whether to approve Keystone based on how much carbon would be added to the atmosphere because of it, but he isn't certain Canada is doing enough to resolve concerns about pollution. (Interview transcript)
Comments (92)
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    Obama's opinion is definitely bent by the lefties and greens in his party. The number of jobs and many benefits of this pipeline have been reviewed many times and they are way higher than his numbers. His claim that it would increase gasoline prices is comical.
    28 Jul 2013, 08:12 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    You have contributed nothing to the conversation by calling the President a liar and then failing to provide a shred of evidence to prove your point.
    28 Jul 2013, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • caupachow
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    To Jake, one would have to be silly to believe half of what 0bama says. Now he did speak the truth when he stated he wanted to put the coal industry out business and he is doing a damn good job at that I must say.
    28 Jul 2013, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • TGC004
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    If the Kenyan's lips are moving, he is lying.
    28 Jul 2013, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • chris2011
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    Marpy didn't call him a liar Jake, but I'll be happy to do so. Have a nice day!
    29 Jul 2013, 01:10 AM Reply Like
  • Petrarch
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    The fact is the guy knows how to get elected but not how to govern.
    Pretty speeches full of platitudes are all you can expect.
    This is just more of the same from the Redistributionist in Chief.

     

    The recent meme is that Government needs to do more to make sure that wealth is redistributed and that all have a real chance to rise up.
    This guy is so far away from getting what actually drives growth that there is really no point in getting upset with his nonsense.

     

    You want growth and good paying jobs?
    The answer must be more regulation - rules are good - let's have more of them.
    Obamacare helps a lot - extend it - why will it only apply to workplaces with 50 or more? Why not 10 or more and why define part-time at less than 30 hours - why not make it 10 hours. Why not?

     

    You want growth and good paying jobs?
    Tax small business and higher earners more and take the cash and spend it on propping up industries with high union membership or in congressional districts that are critical for re-election. Money left over. Give it to teachers and other fellow travelers. That will help.

     

    After that if you have anymore cash - spend it on anything "green". Anything. Hell - even better. Invent a tax and some regulations to force people to invest and use "green" - anything. Never mind the Volt cannot be produced economically. That's just stupid thinking. Spend more and see all those high paying jobs just sprouting everywhere like mushrooms. Nibble on a few - it will make the halluciantion complete.

     

    Government can do anything. Leviathan is omnipotent and all knowing.

     

    Carlos Danger 2018. That's where my vote is going.
    Anything, anything is better than this waste of space

     

    P
    29 Jul 2013, 01:15 AM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    It seems the president has been having trouble contributing anything much for some time now and his stating numbers without a shred of evidence to prove his point seems to be more or less about all that we can expect from him. Sad about sums it up!
    29 Jul 2013, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    He seems to be doing almost as good a job at trying to put America out of business!
    29 Jul 2013, 09:41 PM Reply Like
  • Tim Gallagher
    , contributor
    Comments (402) | Send Message
     
    Lies, damn, lies, and then what the Prez sez
    28 Jul 2013, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (1998) | Send Message
     
    Cancel it now!
    28 Jul 2013, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (9797) | Send Message
     
    Pipeline could create 100,0000 jobs and transport milk......the leftist 1% hollywood crowd would stop writing checks to President if he approved Keystone, that is the only thing one needs to know.....screw the 62 senators and 2/3's of the American public that are for approval.
    28 Jul 2013, 09:13 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > Pipeline could create 100,0000 jobs

     

    Source? Justification? Anything???

     

    Because even *Fox News* people disagree:
    http://fxn.ws/179nQdc
    28 Jul 2013, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • TFCAB
    , contributor
    Comments (1942) | Send Message
     
    Prez talks about energy independence, but does everything in his power to discourage and thwart it.

     

    a reminder to watch what he does, not listen to what he says
    28 Jul 2013, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • wgolfm
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    That is it in a nutshell
    28 Jul 2013, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    "> Pipeline could create 100,0000 jobs

     

    Source? Justification? Anything???

     

    Because even *Fox News* people disagree:
    http://fxn.ws/179nQdc"
    He was being facetious, did you actually think it was going to transport milk?
    28 Jul 2013, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Regarded Solutions
    , contributor
    Comments (15445) | Send Message
     
    This president has lost his mind.
    28 Jul 2013, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • Akaralph
    , contributor
    Comments (1655) | Send Message
     
    That happened a long time ago!
    28 Jul 2013, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Scooter-Pop
    , contributor
    Comments (1987) | Send Message
     
    Ralphy,

     

    Barry or Barack?

     

    How does this Pipeline or the Pipeline's Job Creation promote Solar Power, Greening the Grid, Ethanol, Wind Gen and his beloved EPA?
    28 Jul 2013, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    Yea...because its crazy to make decisions based on facts and national welfare instead of simply doing what the oil industry says is best for its bottom line...
    28 Jul 2013, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • TGC004
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    I have long thought him to be retarded.
    28 Jul 2013, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • Guest1234
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    Your sarcasm is perfectly appropriate because Obama's position against the Trans XL pipeline is not grounded in facts or an understanding of his nation's welfare
    28 Jul 2013, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • Energex
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    What about super tankers delivering heavy oil from the middle east and other friendly countries? Don't they contribute to carbon in our atmosphere? What about the transportation safety when using rail roads to haul oil? There is already a major disaster in Quebec - this could happen in any state.

     

    He mentioned 2000 or so construction jobs. There are also indirect jobs or increased business activity in the steel and pipe manufacturing industry. There are many small businesses who manufacture and distribute pumps, meters, etc. who would benefit from Keystone XL. Regardless, I thought, every single job should count - that's what people are told during an election speech.

     

    Politicians quickly jump on claiming credits on jobs created in North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states when in fact they have done absolutely nothing. Credits should be given to those who developed the technology and heavily invested in exploiting oil and natural gas from shale formations. These businesses could do more and crate even more jobs but they need help as there is lack of infrastructure

     

    There is also an issue of energy independence and a long term energy strategy. The latter doesn't even exist - most politician's term is limited to the next election.
    28 Jul 2013, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (1935) | Send Message
     
    Canadians rejected a "western" trek through their land where they could export via western coast. Wonder why?
    28 Jul 2013, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    bgold,
    It has not been rejected! What was "rejected" was some aspects of the proposal. That pipeline proposal is subjected to extremely stringent environmental reviews and may or may not be approved after the environmental review process is completed. The process is not however the subject of such extreme political processes as is Keystone XL.
    28 Jul 2013, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (1935) | Send Message
     
    Thank you for your response to the question. Not an expert on either but your response sounds very familiar to what IS going on here in U.S. I get the distinct impression that whatever Obama is for, a bunch are against and whatever Obama is against, a bunch are for regardless of the issue. C'mon on now, just fess up.
    28 Jul 2013, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    One of their provinces rejected it, not the Canadian gov. They may be able to influence the gov's decision with their vote, but if not, they have no authority to stop it.
    28 Jul 2013, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    If you want to make statements, get some facts - not just some biased reporting or outright fabrications. During an election campain one side said "we will not aprove". (they lost) The other side said they would not approve without a solid plan to act upon spills on land AND at sea. When the application actually is presented, I expect those plans will be detailed. Then they will be approved or rejected OR the proposal will have to be redrawn with more details and reviewed again.

     

    As of this day there has NOT been an application to the province. Only an application to the feds for environmental approvals.

     

    I know -- the facts are boring arn't they!

     

    Also this has nothing to do with KXL.
    28 Jul 2013, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    bgold,
    As I mean and thought I indicated is; The Provincial Govt. has said it will not be approved "as currently presented". This is not an outright rejection. It is a requirement that what is seen as legitimate concerns be addressed in a responsible manner.

     

    I do not believe your last two sentences are applicable in this instance. What is happening in the US political scene is different for a bunch of reasons that are complex. This complexity is in large part due to the different political systems and ways of doing some things. Yes, while both are Democracies they are different.
    29 Jul 2013, 01:37 AM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    Actually it was not rejected, it was more or less a case of being sent back with additional demands ( part of the negotiation process) . The 2 provincial leaders involved actually discussed the pipeline through British Columbia this past week and according to the press reports these discussions were far more positive. Transcanada is also looking at converting some of the gas pipelines it has running east to the Atlantic seaboard to oil and these discussions are also moving along well as reported in the media last week.
    People do need to get their facts straight here. Their is some political posturing going on with the west coast line but the lines will IMO get built.
    29 Jul 2013, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • Uncle Pie
    , contributor
    Comments (2665) | Send Message
     
    Does this mean that after SIX YEARS of dithering over the Keystone pipeline, the Politician In Chief is FINALLY going to make up his mind? It was really beginning to look like he was going to kick the can down the road to the next Politician In Chief.
    28 Jul 2013, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • Left Banker
    , contributor
    Comments (1830) | Send Message
     
    Uncle Pie:

     

    I doubt Hillary will approve it.
    28 Jul 2013, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (966) | Send Message
     
    C'mon Y'all, everybody knows jobs are only created by government spending, QE and political donations.
    28 Jul 2013, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • Remyngton
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    Food stamps and welfare ! ! ! !
    28 Jul 2013, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Blair
    , contributor
    Comments (4518) | Send Message
     
    Turning down Keystone will start a new chapter in Canada - U.S. relations that will bring Canada closer to Asia and further from North America. Oil Sands will be developed in any event. It is possible the U.S. will become energy self-sufficient but I agree with Charlie Munger, in the long run the U.S. should preserve every drop of its own resources and use up as much foreign oil as possible so that the next generation and the one following do not become dependent on foreign oil.

     

    The environmentalists make a good point and the issues have to managed but not by turning it down - by making a sensible set of compromises to ensure the environment suffers the least damage from a development that will take place in any event. The suggestion that the pipeline itself will cause major damage is ludicrous.
    28 Jul 2013, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (1935) | Send Message
     
    Not an environmentalist but the notion the pipeline will make U.S. energy self-sufficient is not only ludicrous but laughable.
    28 Jul 2013, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    I have to agree with you. Drilling rigs and pump trucks will make the US (or at least North America) self sufficient. Pipelines are just the icing on the cake.
    28 Jul 2013, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    Is the final payoff for Warren Buffett's support?

     

    Are we to believe that transporting oil by rail is safer, cheaper, and less carbon intensive than a pipeline?

     

    Is it any wonder that those of us who can actually think find this President's statements so obviously wrong yet he still utters them time and time again. I can only conclude that it is purposeful.
    28 Jul 2013, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps the president should stop hypothesizing about Canada and try leading the USA???

     

    I get sick and tired of this notion that somehow people in other countries can't make their own decisions and determinations.

     

    Perhaps the Canadian PM should conduct an interview and say something along the lines that he's not sure the Americans can add and subtract given their ruinous deficit spending? Perhaps he should say Americans lack grit and self-sufficiency given their willingness to vote for whatever politician promises them the most free stuff? Perhaps he could buy Obama a red pen to draw that line in the sand on Syria???

     

    Besides if this is such a small project then why not approve it? Its obviously just a blip on the radar screen.

     

    The more he speaks the less respect I have for our president. The country is running on auto-pilot and all the while the thieves in DC keep stealing from our future generations.
    28 Jul 2013, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    Sad commentary and a fair bit of insight.

     

    PM for Canadians . Pres. for the USA. Then KEEP IT THAT WAY!
    28 Jul 2013, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • EK1949
    , contributor
    Comments (1479) | Send Message
     
    "Besides if this is such a small project then why not approve it? Its obviously just a blip on the radar screen."

     

    That's true, it doesn't matter much either way. I have no position on Keystone. I own pipeline MLPs, does that make a difference to me? I have no idea. It probably has no more effect on me than it does on the country as a whole, but it might. I hope the President makes the decision on objective criteria, that's all.

     

    "Are we to believe that transporting oil by rail is safer, cheaper, and less carbon intensive than a pipeline?"

     

    I don't think the argument is about all pipelines versus all rail transport. At least I don't think it is.
    28 Jul 2013, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (3505) | Send Message
     
    This comment thread seems to be the convention of the Tea Party of Alabama. Virginia Thomas and Michele Bachmann please stand up.
    28 Jul 2013, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • Cliff Hilton
    , contributor
    Comments (1410) | Send Message
     
    We're building a whole slew (yep, I'm Texan) of tanks here in the Port Arthur area for all the oil their to send down the pipeline. In fact, we're building sections of that piping locally. All right-of-ways have been purchased. So, you don't think it will be approved? It's all politics. Yes, it may be the next presidents job to approve it. The pipeline construction continues.

     

    Save yourselves some trouble and call the city counsel in Port Arthur, Texas for updates. I am called frequently to cater those projects.
    28 Jul 2013, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (1935) | Send Message
     
    Again, don't got a dog in this hunt, but Cliff, I am a Texan also and I do very clearly recall a few landowners in Texas adamantly against the pipeline you are referring to going through THEIR land ( one of which was a long standing Republican political family). But most quickly realized that if they didn't allow it, the state would take it anyway and if a lawsuit was taken to a mediator (judge) they ran a very good chance of getting NO ROYALTIES! Kinda like an offer you can't refuse.
    28 Jul 2013, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • Cliff Hilton
    , contributor
    Comments (1410) | Send Message
     
    @bgold,

     

    I was interviewed by a Canadian Newspaper last year about the protest in Texas. The ones protesting were not from here. "All" Right of Ways have been bought. The last to fall was just outside of Beaumont. That right of way was on the west side of IH10. The pipe has been rolling in ever since. I live here.
    28 Jul 2013, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (1935) | Send Message
     
    I understand right of ways have been secured, however, I am not referring to protesters but to landowners that got injunctions to temporarily stop the clearing of their land for the pipeline. They were large landowners and (3 families) were in the north eastern part of the state not too far from the Paris, Tx area (if i recall correctly).

     

    My point is, they had no choice and that NOT ALL Texans feel that is appropriate in all cases, especially if it is THEIR land regardless of their political affiliation. As for me, I understand both sides.
    28 Jul 2013, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • Cliff Hilton
    , contributor
    Comments (1410) | Send Message
     
    @bgold,

     

    I get cha'!
    28 Jul 2013, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • EK1949
    , contributor
    Comments (1479) | Send Message
     
    I hope taxes are lowered on me and raised on that guy over there. I believe in self interest to the max. Therefore the President is evil if he doesn't comply with my wishes, which are identical with the national interest, as luck would have it.

     

    Did I say that?? Or was I just thinking it? No, I don't realllly believe my interest is paramount in such a solipsistic way. I mean I'd LIKE to believe it, but some high school civics crap or something gets in the way, something about the greater good. I hated school by the way.
    28 Jul 2013, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • Energex
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    I hope the Canadian PM, and the next president, don't agree with Charlie Munger... I hope the Canadian PM doesn't even know or cares who CM is.

     

    We've been already witnessing an increased popularity of fuel efficient and electric cars. Sooner or later a better battery, a super capacitor, will be able to store more electricity which will make electric cars more common and open the door to a wide use of solar, wind or other means to produce electricity.

     

    By that time, the rulers in the middle east and other friendly countries may have no oil left in the ground but lots of $$$ in their pockets. North America will be left with worthless oil and a huge debt... and unemployment.

     

    I wouldn't bet if this will take 15 or 50 years. I would go ahead and develop the industry, create jobs and reduce the deficit today for a better tomorrow.
    Among other things, this includes infrastructure such as K-XL and other pipelines, and safer rails which may require manufacture of new stronger rail tanks. There are so many industrial jobs that can be created to replace those lost to China and other counties with low labor cost. There is also a potential huge tax revenue for the governments - no need to borrow or print money.
    28 Jul 2013, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • Blue22
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    Only Valero and very few other refiners on the Florida Gulf Coast are able to crack the sour sands crude and provide it to our markets and South America. Kicking Valero in the face is really a bad idea.

     

    Valero has 8 or more ethanol plants and their service support to back Obamas E-Whatever growing demands. They are the leader in bio-fuels from waste fats and super-low sulfur diesel fuels and on and on. Blocking the pipeline's Northern leg does nothing except cost the US billions!

     

    The administration is also working with the Greens to block TRP from working on about $20 billion in projects, which add up to many thousands of jobs here and Canada.

     

    Valero also has huge capabilities in providing the now coveted CO2 for the DOE's dreams of the California shales.
    28 Jul 2013, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • arbtrdr
    , contributor
    Comments (237) | Send Message
     
    Very simple - Either the heavy oil goes to the USA or it goes to China. As to the environment which is more concerned with pollution. End of story.
    28 Jul 2013, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • EK1949
    , contributor
    Comments (1479) | Send Message
     
    "There is also a potential huge tax revenue for the governments - no need to borrow or print money."

     

    Tax revenue means lower deficits and a lower private sector surplus. How does this mean no need to borrow or print money? I mean really, this is nuts, taxes sucking up huge resources from the private sector and This Means No Need For Additional Spending! If the government goes into surplus who the hell is supposed to go into deficit? Are we all in surplus? Wow!
    28 Jul 2013, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • Energex
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    I have no clue what are you trying to say... OK. The governments will have to borrow less (or print less) if there is a higher economic activity and more people are employed in the private sector.
    28 Jul 2013, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • EK1949
    , contributor
    Comments (1479) | Send Message
     
    If the government doesn't spend the private sector can only grow by borrowing up to the limit. It might be able to do this if incomes rise but net new financial assets must enter from the government to sustain an expansion. We won't get it from the foreign sector, even if exports improve it won't be that much. It turns out that "thin air" dollars, that is new dollars, are important to growth.

     

    The private sector can't create net new financial assets, it can only exchange them. I can't expand the money supply, my bank can't, only a currency issuer can create new financial assets for the private sector to expand in a sustainable manner. Currency issuers, unlike households, can increase their indebtedness forever as they expand the economy, which is good because they will, and if they stopped it's the private sector that would grind to a halt. The expansion of the private sector, not to put too fine a point on it, is the purpose of the deficit. Amen.
    28 Jul 2013, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3079) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/pvlWQ9

     

    A really simple way to look at this is that the money supply needs to increase as a function of population increase. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury do not function like the personal checkbooks of individuals. The system survives on demand and trust.
    28 Jul 2013, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • The Long Tail of Finance
    , contributor
    Comments (695) | Send Message
     
    Does this country, let alone the earth, really need to be transporting sh*tty tar sands oil across the U.S.? To you conservatives, I guess any job is a good job, not matter what other harm might be caused.

     

    If we're talking about job creation, how about undertaking some useful infrastructure projects for this country like fixing the electrical grid, the roads, the crumbling bridges, and laying more fiber optic cable to allow high speed internet transmission. These are all public goods, are party affiliation-neutral, and we should have no regrets undertaking them. Could even try to do this via some typed of public/private initiative if we want to share the financial burden and risk.

     

    If Obama said the sky was blue, Boner would say it's red. There's no pleasing him or the republicans and they are royally screwing up this country with their political deadlock. They really are the political equivalent of the fundamental Islamists of the Middle East in their dogmatic and usually uninformed (except maybe by religion or the tea party minions) views they hold.
    28 Jul 2013, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    I'm all for infrastructure projects. Fix bridges, improve ports, put in a new electricity grid, etc, etc. Lets ramp it up. Spend big - and lets cut back elsewhere to pay for it. Like military spending on weapons, overseas bases. Like federal bureaucrat pay scales and benefits. Like consolidating at least 4 federal agencies. And lets not forget it was Obama and Reid and Pelosi that ran things for two years and passed a "stimulus"- where were those electric grids, bridges, etc, etc??? Oh, that's right - it was a political giveaway. But lets blame the Republicans for that?

     

    And lets also get the government out of playing mommy and daddy. No more handouts for able bodied people - and lets throw the folks on disability that can somehow go to the gym but not to work off of the program. No more subsidizing housing. No more government picking the "correct behavior" thru the use of the tax code - pick a rate and pay it - no deductions.

     

    I don't remember too many kind words coming from Tip O'Neill when Reagan was President and I also don't recall Reagan running around the country whining and crying about it.

     

    I'd agree that some of the Republicans in Congress are idiots....as are many of the Democrats. And as for deadlock - seems to me it was Obama that broke the deal he reached with Boehner regarding spending a few years ago. Sometimes you reap what you sow.

     

    Finally, the last time I looked - we recognize Canada as a sovereign state and ally. Why are they somehow unable to determine whether or not to develop the tar sands? Its laughable - we have crumbling cities, out of control government, an education system set up to benefit adults before children, a broken health care system - And WE THINK WE SHOULD DECIDE HOW TO RUN CANADA???????

     

    We have a D- president. Things are on autopilot and we drift while other countries do the hard work and make the hard choices to continue to advance. And this American puts an awful lot of that on the plate of the president (and make no mistake I judge GW's 8 years to be equally awful).
    28 Jul 2013, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    "If we're talking about job creation, how about undertaking some useful infrastructure projects for this country "
    And where do you propose we get the fuel to power these energy intensive projects?
    28 Jul 2013, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • RM13
    , contributor
    Comments (710) | Send Message
     
    I'm neither a Republican or Democrat, but Obama is trying really hard to outdo Bush jr as one of the lousiest presidents in history. At the time when US and the world needs real leadership, this is not good.
    29 Jul 2013, 01:12 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    It's good to know we have a President that isn't handcuffed by the oil industry and instead is deciding what to do based on what is best for the country. That is something a Republican president would simply be incapable of doing.
    28 Jul 2013, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    How exactly is this for the benefit of the country???

     

    Fewer jobs? Less oil from Canada and more from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia? Less tax revenue? Keep using 50 year old pipelines instead of brand new ones? Let China obtain more resources - this time from our own backyard? Weaken our alliance with Canada? Expose the horrendous bureaucracy and regulation that can bottle up economic development for almost a decade? Reduce future foreign direct investment in the USA?

     

    The only real issue here is the broad use of eminent domain - something happening more and more to benefit business. The rights of the individual seem to be shrinking virtually every day.
    28 Jul 2013, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (1828) | Send Message
     
    Obama Relevance Countdown : About 15 months and one week.
    28 Jul 2013, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • shacking
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    Oil is priced globally. And I agree, this pipeline does nothing for us. I feel nothing about the pipeline... go ahead let the Canadians lay some pipe.
    28 Jul 2013, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • shacking
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    The "BIG PICTURE" here is this. The "pipeline debate" isnt about the pipeline. Its about Global Warming and releasing carbon, it gives Green Democrats a focal point to bring up global warming again, and gives Republicans ammunition to shoot back, and play the Obama blame game (which they love to do). The pipeline itself is pretty insignificant, and if it is blocked, the Canadians will just pick a different route to sell their oil to China. Ironically, if Green Democrats stop the pipeline, they will have accomplished nothing. The oil and gas will be pumped, piped, and burned either way.
    The pipeline debate doesnt matter, it is just more posturing.
    Like George Carlin said, when you are born into this world you are given a ticket to a Circus Show, and when you are born in the U.S., you get a front row seat.
    28 Jul 2013, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • RM13
    , contributor
    Comments (710) | Send Message
     
    Even if global warming is real, it will be tough to pinpoint CO2 as main culprit. Look, global climate has changed throughout Homo sapiens history - sometimes by several degrees C in span of 100 years - much more than 'anticipated' 1 C raise in global temperatures. Global ice age is just as much of a fear - we are overdue for one.

     

    And thought that stopping the pipeline is somehow environmental is ludicrous. Oil will be pumped and transported by rail to US or via pipeline to China - all of which will be much more environmentally and economically more costly. This must be Buffet's payback.
    29 Jul 2013, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • fafatooey
    , contributor
    Comments (358) | Send Message
     
    It became clear a long time ago that Obama actually wants America to fail. If you disagree, please give me an example.
    28 Jul 2013, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    I really believe Obama wants to weaken the alliance with Canada to the point it is antagonistic. I can not believe the USA needs another enemy in this world.
    1- insult the contribution of the Canadians in Afganistan, thereby marginalizing the deaths of Canada's sons.
    2- Cutting Canadian based companies from bidding on infrastructure projects that have a federal component.
    3- KXL and the insults to the nation about how development is done in a soverign state.
    WTF are you trying to do to your friends Mr. President? You talk to your non friends with much more respect!
    28 Jul 2013, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Energex
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    Approving the K-XL is not just to please Canadians. Most refineries in the gulf need heavy grade, either from the middle east, Nigeria, Venezuela, etc., or from Canada which is a more reliable source.
    29 Jul 2013, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  • TGC004
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    There is only a need for Barry's approval for the 10 ft piece of pipeline that goes over the Canadian border. What needs to be done is to build out the US portion of the pipeline, build a terminal just over the US side of the border with storage and continue to use trains to ship the oil over the border, then put in into the pipeline once it is over the border.

     

    Simple end run around the Kenyan. Once he is in jail, build out the remaining part of the pipeline.
    28 Jul 2013, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (3505) | Send Message
     
    Time for your meds.
    28 Jul 2013, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4504) | Send Message
     
    After it's built (if it is), what are the benefits to the US if all of it is going overseas?
    28 Jul 2013, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3079) | Send Message
     
    Balance of trade. Profits for refining companies. Increase in the dependence of South America on supplies of refined products.
    28 Jul 2013, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4504) | Send Message
     
    If it's all Canadian oil, how does that help the US balance of trade?

     

    And how does increasing SA dependence help us? Most of them are dictatorships that hate the US anyway.
    28 Jul 2013, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    "Along with transporting crude oil from Canada, the Keystone XL Pipeline will also support the significant growth of crude oil production in the United States from producers in the Bakken region of Montana and North Dakota."

     

    From TRP's website.
    28 Jul 2013, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3079) | Send Message
     
    Refiners get the oil. Refined products are shipped to other countries at a profit. Money goes into US economy through refineries.

     

    South American countries, regardless of political make-up, want trade partners. If they need refined products (not just gasoline), then they will have an incentive to do business with the United States. Venezuela hates the US, but still ships Orinoco heavy crude there to be refined. Citgo is an example of a Venezuelan company in the United States. Even if some of them truly "hate" the US, they still want to do business.
    28 Jul 2013, 11:17 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    rlp,

     

    The refiners would expand in the Southeast. Those are "blue collar" jobs that pay well. Port facilities would be expanded - those are also "blue collar" jobs. It would also add to the industrial complex in the area focused on chemical production, refining, processing, etc. The more the merrier - more investment - more jobs - more training of workers - more growth - concentration of talent - more research and higher education.

     

    Also, from an environmental standpoint (in the US), we'd be replacing some of the oldest pipelines for a brand spanking new state of the art pipeline. I'm not the expert but that seems like a good thing to me. Its not up to the USA to decide to exploit the resources in the Western part of Canada - its up to the Canadians. What is up to us - is whether or not we'll get some benefits from it - or we'll allow the Chinese to march into our backyard and capture the benefits of additional resources heading to China.

     

    There are things that this administration could do as part of this project to give small jolts to the economy. Why not approve it but require US manufactured pipes/materials to be used in the build out? Use it as the opportunity to update (and simplify) our regulations around pipeline maintenance?

     

    What I do know is that no pipeline means absolutely no benefit for the US.
    29 Jul 2013, 03:00 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4504) | Send Message
     
    With all the oil coming from the Permian, they don't need Canadian oil to expand. Do we need cheaper oil to displace domestic oil?

     

    And it won't be carrying much Bakken oil (I called them and they could not tell me how that was going to occur - Bakken oil is a much different consistency and would "contaminate" the tar sands oil) as there will be other means to move it.
    29 Jul 2013, 06:56 AM Reply Like
  • Scooter-Pop
    , contributor
    Comments (1987) | Send Message
     
    Great point RLP!!!!
    29 Jul 2013, 07:34 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Harumph.....I think you got that backwards. Bakken oil is superb quality!
    29 Jul 2013, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • rlp2451
    , contributor
    Comments (4504) | Send Message
     
    Has nothing to do with quality.

     

    Tar Sands Oil is pretty much what it sounds like: Tar. It is very thick and has to be heated and/or diluted in order to be transported.

     

    Bakken oil is light, sweet crude and can be put directly in a pipeline without dilution or heating.

     

    There are not going to be two pipes running side-by-side - just one pipe.

     

    So, they cannot be mixed as one would contaminate the other.
    29 Jul 2013, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    rip,
    You are somewhat mistaken in your statement: "Tar Sands Oil is pretty much what it sounds like: Tar."

     

    There are different grades coming out of various plants some of which is lighter than others depending on what upgrading is done at the various plants. It does not all have to be heated or diluted to transport by pipeline.

     

    Had you ever seen the raw product "in situ" you would understand that it is oil, not tar. To call it tar or to use the terminology Tar Sands is incorrect. The correct term is Oil Sands. It just happens to be Heavy Oil.
    29 Jul 2013, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • Guest1234
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    Have you ever heard of the branding Western Canadian Select (WCS) http://bit.ly/13prgHg, that is essentially the emerging upgraded bitumen standard at about 20 degree API and 3% sulfur (vs. 40 API and <1% sulfur for WTI)

     

    I think its a good thing if the pipeline is designed for heavier crude oil. Canadian Producers/US refineries will benefit without dramatically effecting the prices US producers receive for their oil which is primarily higher API. Obviously light and heavy oil are somewhat substitutable, but should be a good thing.
    29 Jul 2013, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • Energex
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    Guest1234: You are correct, WCS grade would flow in the pipeline.
    The guys above don't understand that most refineries in the gulf have switched to heavy oil from Saudis, Venezuela, etc. because the easy light sweet was in short supply. That was before Bakken.
    To upgrade back to light will cost billions... These refineries need heavy grade, either from Canada or others.
    If light oil production from Bakken and other formations keeps going up, marketing that oil may become problematic. But that's a separate issue.
    29 Jul 2013, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    Oil is shipped in batches. So there will be no cross contamination.
    4 Aug 2013, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4008) | Send Message
     
    The President is correct, of course. He is,perhaps, the smartest man to hold the office since Jimmy Carter and his advisors are brilliant as well. The American people have spoken. Obama has twice been elected to satisfy the wants and desires of millions of well informed voters who understand that this country needs to live up to its promise of equality for all. This requires the dismantling of Big Oil and Big Coal which are destroying our planet. Wind and solar energy can supply all our energy needs if the carbon polluters can be stopped. And don't let natural gas fool you. It only enriches Big Oil. Obama is fighting an uphill battle against old school capitalists who have no intention of sharing their wealth. When the rich have been reduced to the level of the rest of us, we will have won.
    28 Jul 2013, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • fafatooey
    , contributor
    Comments (358) | Send Message
     
    Bwahahahahaha!
    28 Jul 2013, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    Pass out the red shirts please!
    18 Aug 2013, 08:18 AM Reply Like
  • billiwilli
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Can't wait till obamanomics is over. Just hope the middle class survives.
    29 Jul 2013, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    President is right, cancel the pipeline and lower gasoline prices in US.
    29 Jul 2013, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • wawanosh
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    That's rich ........ Obama lecturing another country about environmental issues. You know the guy that leads the country that consumes the most energy per capital on the planet !
    29 Jul 2013, 10:21 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    The following two articles give an interesting perspective regarding the Canadian political environment concerning export of oil from the Alberta and Saskatchewan oilsands deposits through East and West Coast Canadian port.

     

    http://bit.ly/1cbS8mG

     

    http://bit.ly/1cbS8mJ

     

    This is not to say that there are not many people, especially in British Columbia, who oppose the Northern Gateway route as currently proposed or that many in BC, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada do not oppose oilsands development generally for a range of reasons. On the other hand, it is premature to assume that pipelines to the West and East Coasts will not proceed, especially if export through the proposed Keystone route is blocked.

     

    Much will depend upon whether the pipelines, port facilities and coastal shipping lanes are deemed safe and well managed to limit spillage and respond quickly and effectively should an accident occur
    30 Jul 2013, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4555) | Send Message
     
    This is an interesting follow up to my earlier post.

     

    A third route to the open ocean, albeit not for Oilsands oil, is now under active consideration in Canada. This would potentially benefit access to foreign markets for conventional oil both from Western Canada and from North and South Dakota and Montana. See the following two articles for details:

     

    http://bit.ly/1eNMTGE

     

    http://bit.ly/1eNMTGG
    15 Aug 2013, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    Bob: The more the better. These projects will be well reviewed and re-engineered before there is a permit and financial commitment. Then the weak points and the strengths will be known. In the future we will be working with knowns and will be ble to procee much faster.
    18 Aug 2013, 08:33 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:

|