Seeking Alpha

Executives warn Obama against Keystone rejection

  • U.S. corporate heavyweights including GE's Jeffrey Immelt, AT&T's Randall Stephenson and Boeing's James McNerney - not the usual Big Oil suspects - are among 165 top business leaders who expressed strong support for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline (TRP) in an Oct. 9 letter to Pres. Obama.
  • The business leaders say the U.S. economy is at an inflection point, and whether growth remains modest or picks up speed depends on maintaining investor confidence and strengthening America’s competitiveness; they say the decision on Keystone will affect both.
  • The sentiment may raise the stakes for Obama, who is expected to decide early in 2014 whether to allow the project.
From other sites
Comments (22)
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1109) | Send Message
     
    One way or another the oil will get to the refineries. Whilr Obama waffles on Keystone, the industry moves forward with other alternatives to deliver the product as per the news in the link below:

     

    http://bit.ly/1ec45Ht

     

    For some reason, common sense makes sense to most people but not Obama!
    10 Oct 2013, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (561) | Send Message
     
    If it is for the good of America Obama will be against it.
    10 Oct 2013, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (635) | Send Message
     
    After what GE did to the Hudson River with PCB's, you think they would have learned their lesson about destroying the environment.

     

    Maybe it is time to employ different penalties: you do something as heinous as destroying a river for generations, you lose your company.

     

    Perhaps that would deter some of the enthusiasm for these life threatening projects.

     

    After all of this time, while are we still farting around with carbon fuels?

     

    Oh, because GE and Boeing 163 other corporate types get wildly rich from them; the environment be damned.
    10 Oct 2013, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • Arnold Layne
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
     
    Look around and get a clue. The US runs on oil, and will not and can not change as quickly as you fantasize. Or are you also in favor of trashing the economy?
    11 Oct 2013, 01:32 AM Reply Like
  • DonSimon
    , contributor
    Comments (109) | Send Message
     
    That ge thing happened when we were not aware of the damage pub can do. Most Americans used DDT to kill Mosquitos until it became known what environmental damage it did. We buy about 500,000 barrels per day from our "friends" in Venezuela. That pipeline will allow us to get it from our friends the Canadians. If we don.t get it from then, the Chinese will. This pipeline us a no brainer
    11 Oct 2013, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • Marine85
    , contributor
    Comments (267) | Send Message
     
    Ted bear, I am sure you are consuming a number of products created by or from petroleum products. The plastic on your computer is one of them. Please educate yourself.
    11 Oct 2013, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • smarton
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    The pipeline to you is a no brainer. Not so simple for the Indians dying of cancer in mass, or your grandchildren who won't have the same standard of living they could with a stable climate. Get a clue. Electricity is way cheaper for transportation than fossil fuels. Look at real. Owning an electric or plug in car today saves you tremendous amounts on fuel costs. We just need to scale up storage, and shift electricity production away from fossil fuels, and there you have it. None of this is impossible or hurts the economy as it's been done already. The only thing keeping us from a sustainable energy future is big oil and ancillary industries.
    11 Oct 2013, 03:53 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    Most of our electricity comes from COAL!!!
    Face it what ever we do has a downstream effect. We need to go ahead with all renewables and soon. Until then (maybe 50 years) we will need to use what we have available in a wise manner.

     

    No easy answer.
    13 Oct 2013, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1619) | Send Message
     
    The XL would likely be the safest pipeline ever built. There's a strategic importance for the US with this pipe. The more the world comes to depend on the US as a distillate supplier (diesel and gasoline), the less they depend on Russia and the Middle East for crude. That helps align other countries interests with our own.
    10 Oct 2013, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (870) | Send Message
     
    Keystone will increase gasoline prices for Americans. Pipeline will greatly increase exports of petro to other countries, less for Americans and a price increase.
    10 Oct 2013, 09:04 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1619) | Send Message
     
    Terry, gasoline prices are tied to Brent with or without the XL. We've already crossed the export bridge.
    11 Oct 2013, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3946) | Send Message
     
    So much left wing garbage in market current already lol
    10 Oct 2013, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (650) | Send Message
     
    Too bad we can’t convert hot air and delusion into energy; we could power the Universe.
    11 Oct 2013, 05:47 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (650) | Send Message
     
    It truly is a fantasy to believe you can flip a switch and go from carbon based fuels to alternative energy sources, all in the name of man-made ‘Global Warming’; which does not exist. If anyone does believe the very slight uptick (stalled for the last 15 years) in temperatures is man-made, please explain to me the rise in temperatures on Mars. There are no Hummers or coal fired power generation plants on Mars.

     

    I believe in protecting our environment but it needs to be done in a responsible way.
    11 Oct 2013, 04:44 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3946) | Send Message
     
    " It truly is a fantasy to believe you can flip a switch and go from carbon based fuels"

     

    Yup. The physical and chemical properties of hydrocarbon fuel CANNOT be re-created via alternative energy. If the libs on this forum don't believe me, maybe they can be restricted to solar and wind power the next time a hurricane comes through and they have to run a generator :)
    11 Oct 2013, 07:28 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Just ask the Residents of Lac-Megantic what they think about shipping by rail.
    11 Oct 2013, 08:14 AM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    Remember the war with Japan? Japan was dependent on the USA for most of it's energy. Better that than the other way around! Export of refined product is GOOD. You can always not load the tankers if there is a reason.

     

    Carbon based energy use will subside as other forms become cheaper and more reliable; and they will as mainstream companies do more research and development. Companies like GE and TransCanada already do a significant amount of that.

     

    I do not believe Obama wants to destroy the USA. He is pressured by people who are one trick ponies. I just think Obama is not smart enough to recognize that. He is also very much a "my way is the way" kind of guy.

     

    Now if the AFL would be more vocal about what they say in private we might be getting some place.

     

    BE RESPONSIBLE BUT GET THE JOB DONE!
    11 Oct 2013, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • smarton
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Look, you can't say you have a climate change policy and then encourage the exploitation of the most polluting and dangerous form of fossil fuels with a direct pipeline. It's just asinine. Just like Stephen Harper when he promises to be good and "reduce" Canada's emissions if only Obama approves his pipeline. "I promise to paint the kitchen if you just let me demolish the house".

     

    Yes, the sands will be exploited for a while either way. But economics is all about incentives, and cares not about externalities. We need to think seriously about incentives. Even if we don't care about pipeline safety, environmental damage from extraction and transportation, or the wishes of the people directly affected by it.
    11 Oct 2013, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    "the most polluting and dangerous form of fossil fuels"
    That is just a silly statement.
    13 Oct 2013, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • smarton
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    ""the most polluting and dangerous form of fossil fuels"
    That is just a silly statement."

     

    Ok... I guess coal still emits 0-30% more carbon per unit of energy than tar sands oil, depending on how you count. If using bitumen to fuel refinement it's the same as coal. If using renewable energy, it's roughly the same as conventional oil, so 30% better than coal. Good luck on the latter.

     

    The "danger" factor is harder to quantify. Oil sands derived crude used to be accepted as being more corrosive to pipelines than conventional crude, but there has been a lot of denial recently. Even so, suppliers are hard at work designing more corrosion resistant pipeline components. From a different angle, seeing the environmental destruction in Alberta, the incidence of cancer, etc., it's hard to find a more destructive form of fossil fuel extraction.
    14 Oct 2013, 03:37 AM Reply Like
  • pigeonguy
    , contributor
    Comments (131) | Send Message
     
    Where do you think the electricity comes from to run those electric cars? The bulk of power isn't coming from the wind mills or solar panels but rather coal, natural gas, nuclear and water power. So if you are using an electric car you are burning carbon fuels like it or not. China, Russia and India are building more coal power plants and consumption of carbon fuels will continue to rise world wide.
    12 Oct 2013, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • smarton
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Correct, the bulk of electricity production today is from fossil fuels. But it doesn't need to be, and my point was that it's already economically advantageous for transportation today! Besides I already addressed your concern in my post: "We just need to scale up storage, and shift electricity production away from fossil fuels [to solar and wind], and there you have it."

     

    The fact that the current trend is increasing fossil fuel use indefinitely into the future doesn't mean it won't destroy or way of life as we know it, and we shouldn't TRY to change.
    12 Oct 2013, 09:36 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs