Column: Jeff Immelt is the American Canada needs to lead oil sands clean-up


The problem facing Canada isn't the Keystone pipeline or Pres. Obama or environmentalists - it's the oil sands, and they've got to be cleaned up and the head-in-the-sand denials chased way or the country will be stuck with a "baby seal hunt" image, Diane Francis writes in the Financial Post.

The columnist thinks she knows the right person to lead the clean-up: Jeff Immelt - "an American leader with stature in Washington, on Wall Street, in the oil patch and in Silicon Valley" - who said this week that GE will help companies clean up the oil sands.

The only way to stop the environmental excuses, Immelt believes, is for the industry to collaborate and voluntarily establish lower emissions targets that would make the oil sands competitive with any other fuel source in the world - without such a promise to provide cleaner energy, "all bets are off."

Some related companies: XOM, IMO, SU, RDS.A, RDS.B. ENB, TRP, CNQ, CVE, CVX, COP, BP, KMP, WPZ, TOT, STO, CEO, SNP, PTR, HUSKF, ATHOF, COSWF.

From other sites
Comments (197)
  • vireoman
    , contributor
    Comments (1159) | Send Message
     
    I'm not sure how seriously to take the opinion of this columnist. If GE or some other entity can't "clean up" the oil-sands, the country will be stuck with a "baby seal hunt" image. The oil-sands extraction process can't be "cleaned up." It is inherently destructive to the environment. The writer portrays the topic as simply a public image situation that can be (and apparently, in her eyes, should be) massaged away. The hard facts speak for themselves. In an evolving reality of carbon-related climate change, the oil-sands have no place.
    12 Jul 2014, 12:54 AM Reply Like
  • JANFA
    , contributor
    Comments (178) | Send Message
     
    Well then what other source of energy to you recommend?
    12 Jul 2014, 04:33 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    $GE is developing new ways to frack away at the environment w/o pumping a bunch of water or other shit into the ground.

     

    I am sure, or hoping, that is what the article above is referring to?

     

    But what does that have to do with a columnist who appears to have her head in the sand?
    12 Jul 2014, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • littlerico
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    JANFA, you are correct. Until solar becomes more efficient and it's use much more widespread, carbon will still be the energy choice. In my mind, it is precisely because of the oil sands and the extraordinary revolution in fracking, that the USA no longer has to spend billions protecting world oil interests in the Middle East. We are no longer held hostage by hostile countries. We are not Europe, dependent upon Russia, Libya, and Iran for their energy needs. Our energy industry is the envy of the world creating an unbelievable number of high paying jobs and keeping energy quite affordable.
    Most of the world is a mess trying to figure out how to grow and employ an increasingly disenfranchised population. I sing the praises of our energy industry!
    12 Jul 2014, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • DrP79
    , contributor
    Comments (2371) | Send Message
     
    Many of the "greens" are just anti-capitalists and are really "red". some are against ALL sources of energy. Some complain about wind energy killing birds, the nuclear energy for the radioactive decay, coal is just bad and even natural gas requires pipelines or shipping to move it.

     

    Give the author some credit that there may be a free market solution to environmental clean up
    12 Jul 2014, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • hhmcdon
    , contributor
    Comments (323) | Send Message
     
    A greater priority should be for Jeff to help his buddy Barack clean up the mess on our Southern border. Things above the Northern border, seem to me, just fine.
    12 Jul 2014, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    VIREOMAN

     

    How about expanding on why from a scientific point of view,
    The oil-sands extraction process can't be "cleaned up."
    12 Jul 2014, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    littlerico

     

    The only way solar will become efficient is when the building codes require
    solar panels to be incorporated into all new buildings. In many cases with out taxpayer assistance retrofitting is too expensive. It is my understanding that it cost 1/3 less to build a house with solar than to retrofit the same style house.
    12 Jul 2014, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    hhncdon

     

    with tongue in cheek

     

    I suggest that Jeff and GE the maker of Gatling guns could solve the problem quickly.
    12 Jul 2014, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (3831) | Send Message
     
    I wish climate changers would make up their minds For years it was global warming
    12 Jul 2014, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (3831) | Send Message
     
    Supply and demand. As long as employers keep hiring em they'll keep coming and coming. Just another version of the so called war on drugs
    12 Jul 2014, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • Ooi
    , contributor
    Comments (427) | Send Message
     
    You don't like coal?
    12 Jul 2014, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • Exercisestellarhealth
    , contributor
    Comments (403) | Send Message
     
    Solar is advancing very steadily via innovation and increasingly cost effective. I rotated my funds out of Suncor at 33.50 range even though I knew it had lots of room to move up into Jinko and Sunedison, they are very volatile hence good trading stocks.
    12 Jul 2014, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (601) | Send Message
     
    It takes a lot of energy to make solar panels. So maybe they're not so green after all.
    12 Jul 2014, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (601) | Send Message
     
    That's why there's a polar vortex coming down next week in the middle of summer!
    12 Jul 2014, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • stockdunn
    , contributor
    Comments (450) | Send Message
     
    Right. Just remember, the Keystone pipeline is for oil to be sent to Texas for EXPORT, not for use in the U.S. Why would we take all the risks of transporting the oil, fracking, water usage during massive droughts, etc., to enrich private companies, but not ensure the U.S. stays energy efficient?
    12 Jul 2014, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    stockdunn

     

    Could you tell us who said the keystone pipeline was for ONLY export.

     

    Second question assume it is for export how many Americans will be employed short term for the building and long term for the maintenance.
    12 Jul 2014, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (3831) | Send Message
     
    Don't know about affordable. Gallon of gas was $1.14 in 2000, $1.48 during Bush years vs $ today. Don't think energy independence did much on that front.
    12 Jul 2014, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    june1234

     

    how about the $2.30 in 1973 for a gallon of gas.

     

    those who forget history are doomed to repeat it
    12 Jul 2014, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • rykard77
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    You really need to weigh the oil industries "taxpayer assistance" or non-paying of taxes by the oil companies. You can also include, wars, spill clean ups, carbon pollution and terrorism from the Middle East in the equation. Maybe then you will see "taxpayer assistance" for solar retrofitting a screaming bargain.
    I like your idea of including solar in new construction and backing it up with building codes!
    12 Jul 2014, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    positiveprosperity

     

    the solar panel is over 125 years old
    so your comment
    Solar is advancing very steadily via innovation
    is a true joke.

     

    have any on coal?
    12 Jul 2014, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • Keith001
    , contributor
    Comments (626) | Send Message
     
    fuel cells
    13 Jul 2014, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • ocala
    , contributor
    Comments (138) | Send Message
     
    We are not taking "all the risks of transporting---"the pipeline is mainly in the US
    The line is for transporting bitumen from oil sands, not fracked product.
    What water usage are you referring to?
    The companies involved in the pipeline (TRP) and the oil sands (SU) (CNQ)EnCana EXXON to name a few are not "private companies--they are public companies.
    Your final comment --"but not ensure---"is unintelligible and/or a non sequitor.
    13 Jul 2014, 04:33 AM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1504) | Send Message
     
    The industry itself is already doing what the columnist is proposing and has been for some time. That is why the practices an technology used now is a lot different and cleaner than it was 20 years ago. The article shows a lack of knowledge by the author and Immelt (if he is saying that). As the industry has always been very collaborative when it comes to safety and the environment and has many initiatives under way. Makes me wander if the article is nothing more than a "soft attack" on the industry from those who are against it. Then on the other hand, If Ge and Immelt are interested in joining the effort, it would be a win/ win situation as GE could make lots of money selling the industry technology and product and the industry could make that much more selling with less of a monkey on their backs.
    13 Jul 2014, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1504) | Send Message
     
    Can't be cleaned up??? The industry has been making steady improvement for years as far as cleaner and environment improvement is concerned.
    13 Jul 2014, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1504) | Send Message
     
    Its one of the miss conceptions that the greens have been spreading. They also conveniently leave out the security of supply part. Keystone oil would be displacing Venezuelan heavy oil for the most part and once refined ( they also leave out the part about the transporting and refining on American soil creating American jobs and paying American taxes) some of the refined products will be exported and some used in North America (no different than now). also fracking is not used to produce oil from the oil sands.
    13 Jul 2014, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    keith
    the fuel cell was invented in 1838 nearly 50 years before solar.
    13 Jul 2014, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    rykard77

     

    Are you aware that the oil industry pays more taxes than any other industry.
    If you take away the subsidies from mass transit you could rebuild the whole interstate system too
    the government panders to the masses to get elected not do the right thing.
    13 Jul 2014, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    The oil industry certainly receives enough subsidies, and rakes in enough gross revenue, that yeah we should tax them, but it would be nice

     

    to just regulate them instead.
    13 Jul 2014, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • Patent News
    , contributor
    Comments (1458) | Send Message
     
    canadians wont be convinced this easily
    13 Jul 2014, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DJKIDM

     

    What subsidies and how much are you talking about.
    13 Jul 2014, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • duhaus
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    NYC
    Seriously ? When are all you "patriots" gonna drop the "more jobs" myth to support every self-serving, greedy scheme ? Self delusion may be necessary to help those that play along to continue to feel right even though facts prove otherwise but the intelligent humans aren't fooled by this nonsense. As soon as these phantom jobs are created another selfish self proclaimed capitalist will be screaming about the huge labor costs, demonizing the workers as the problem and calling for labor cuts to increase the almighty margins. We know the strategy painfully all too well. It's been played to death and if you're still buying into this bs then you either have no memory or zero comprehension of what's going on.
    13 Jul 2014, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • duhaus
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    "Its one of the miss conceptions that the greens have been spreading." Pulled straight from "Demonize, divide and conquer 101". "The Greens" . . really ? Has another race of beings suddenly arrived on our planet ? No. These are humans who actually care about the planet, the children and all our futures more than trying to justify hoarding every last cent possible. Trying to villify others just because their view shows the greed and selfishness inherent in yours is is just self delusion.
    13 Jul 2014, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • Jack Hutchison
    , contributor
    Comments (510) | Send Message
     
    And before that is was global cooling. And before that is was lake eutrophication. And before that . . .
    13 Jul 2014, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DUHAUS

     

    MARX koodaid is too strong for you
    13 Jul 2014, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    duhaus

     

    I guess your limited knowledge doesn't go back to all the lies Gore said or maybe your not familiar that of the people who helped create the national
    parks were wealthy people. It has always been the lowest 10 of the economy whined while the left never acknowledges that 99% of that 10% got there because of what either they or their parents did. I'm from the lower middle class my parents could not afford a car because of my mothers back problems. They taught me to work hard and I would succeed. how many people are third generation welfare people.

     

    I believe government should help those who can not do for themselves.
    I also do not like corporate welfare either.
    13 Jul 2014, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • lj32
    , contributor
    Comments (154) | Send Message
     
    That's why the "problem" was changed to Climate Change!!! from Global Warming!!!
    Every extreme event -- hot, cold, hurricanes, no hurricanes, rain or shine -- can be blamed on fossil fuels.
    After all, the science is settled so all that's left for us to do is shut up and get in line.
    LJ
    13 Jul 2014, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (2348) | Send Message
     
    "Don't know about affordable. Gallon of gas was $1.14 in 2000, $1.48 during Bush years vs $ today. Don't think energy independence did much on that front."

     

    Why do you guys keep forgetting about $4.15 (in Texas, more most other places) a gallon in July 2008 during Bush years? Politics? Most folks on SA remember the facts.
    13 Jul 2014, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    LJ

     

    Actually that's what the greens say however ask a scientist and the answer is ash from volcanos. Go back to the explosion of Mt St Helens in 1980. More carbon based gases go into the air from other sources than fossil fuels. Just look at methane from cows.
    13 Jul 2014, 02:48 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    bgold

     

    On 11 July 2008, the price of crude oil reached an all time high of US
    $147.27 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange. By
    November 2008, this price had tumbled below US$ 50 a barrel due
    to the global economic crisis.1 Slower demand replaced high oil prices as the greatest menace to the airlines. On the supply side, after benefiting from the high oil price levels attained in early 2008, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced in October 2008 that it was cutting oil production for the first time in almost two years to support prices.2
    Pure investor speculation, driven by funds leaving the US real estate
    market is one popular theory for the oil price spike3, which is supported by
    the subsequent price collapse. On the other hand, others ascribe the
    situation to supply side conditions and warn that production and supply of
    oil may soon reach a worldwide peak, which would trigger a new and
    permanent spike in price.

     

    feb 2008 $2.96 july 2008 $3.97 and 6 months later hit 1.48 in texas

     

    http://bit.ly/1nkXYT0
    13 Jul 2014, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1504) | Send Message
     
    No - they are humans who are misguided would about sum it up. For some reason, they feel a need for a cause or something?? The cause being right or wrong seems to be a secondary concern. ;-)
    13 Jul 2014, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • stockdunn
    , contributor
    Comments (450) | Send Message
     
    NYC: Here are a variety of assertions on the subject. In fairness, I am also linking to TransCanada's comments regarding export.

     

    http://bit.ly/1oC2Hkt
    http://bit.ly/1e1LmLT
    http://cnnmon.ie/1oC2HkD
    http://bit.ly/1oC2JJ6

     

    http://bit.ly/1oC2HAV
    14 Jul 2014, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • stockdunn
    , contributor
    Comments (450) | Send Message
     
    Ocala: There were several conversations going on, including the pipeline and fracking; i lumped them together; I can see where that would be confusing. The pipeline risk, as I understand it, is possible leaks and water table contamination.

     

    Re: "Why would we take all the risks of transporting the oil, fracking, water usage during massive droughts, etc., to enrich private companies, but not ensure the U.S. stays energy efficient?"

     

    1. Yes, these companies are publicly traded, but they will not be enriching the public at large. Very few are fortunate enough to be able to invest in these companies and reap the rewards. And when they have a major disaster (BP oil spill comes to mind), the taxpayer always gets stuck with at least part of the bill. Private gain, public pain.

     

    2. I meant energy "self-sufficient". Gee, I knew what I meant, why didn't you?! :)
    15 Jul 2014, 12:30 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    stockdunn

     

    Interesting reading it amazing how diverse the views were. The funniest was by doom and gloom Hargreaves of CNN. I'm still trying to figure why CNN keeps him based on his predictions.

     

    Thanks for the research
    15 Jul 2014, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    I will take issue with the idea that "very few are fortunate enough to be able to invest in these companies to reap the rewards", unless by "fortunate" you meant "knowledgeable".

     

    With the opportunities offered by very low cost brokers (like FolioFN which I use) the vast majority of Americans can invest directly in those companies (many already do indirectly through their pension funds, should they be so lucky as to be vested in one).

     

    Many people consider stock investing an alien and foreboding world (in no small part because of the coded verbiage known as Wallstreetese) but thankfully the options now do exist for most to invest should they understand the potential.
    15 Jul 2014, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    Prophets of doom and gloom are never punished by the media.

     

    Haven't you noticed all the talking heads that have been telling us to be "careful" about the market ever since in bottomed. Those people have tried their best to scare us away from the 2009 to today bull market. They've been wrong all the way, but are they off the air? Of course not. They are considered "thoughtful and prudent" when in point of fact they were destructive to all who listened to them.
    15 Jul 2014, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2529) | Send Message
     
    Yes as we both well know some of them are even "Prudent Investors"
    15 Jul 2014, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DIV LA

     

    I know I going off topic but what do you think of the proposal to make six states out of calfornia?
    15 Jul 2014, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2529) | Send Message
     
    Yes, leave the nut cases in the San Francisco state and let the other areas actually take care of themselves. Certainly would change the Senate and House composition.
    15 Jul 2014, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    saratogahawk

     

    My guess they change 1 blue state into 2blue 4 red
    15 Jul 2014, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2529) | Send Message
     
    Boy that would be great. I vote for breaking up California. NY also. One for NYCity the other for upstate NY.
    15 Jul 2014, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djkidm

     

    I wish you paid taxes like the oil industry does and then you would know what's going on. Find out what ACTUAL taxes are PAID and what industries pay them. then you can go back to you kool-aid
    15 Jul 2014, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    HI NYC. :)

     

    I hadn't heard of that one.

     

    I knew of one to make it into three States, which geographically would not be entirely silly as Northern, Central and Southern California have vastly different needs and economies.

     

    Of course, this would, at least at first, be a disaster for Southern California as it is bleeding jobs and owes what little stability it has to money flowing into the State coffers from Silicon Valley.

     

    That said, once it has to finally face the music, there's no doubt, the potential is there for a rebound which seems never to come with the way things are now.

     

    In short, ten years ago I'd have said it was a stupid idea, but now I'd be tempted as I've seen the business climate collapse over the past 20 years in Southern California.
    15 Jul 2014, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2529) | Send Message
     
    No government can expect to give everything to everybody as California has and survive. The forces of economics are like the forces of an avalanche. the farther it rolls downhill the larger and more destructive it becomes. Right now California faces an economic avalanche and really has no way out until its citizens choose to stop giving everything to everybody for nothing.
    15 Jul 2014, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DI LA

     

    On my block here in Texas we have two other New Yorkers and 5 Californians and three other east coasters. Would you believe that central Texas has more computer engineers than silicon valley. And with Austin so close you can have all the music you want.
    15 Jul 2014, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    saratogahawk

     

    I so agree with you.
    15 Jul 2014, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    The way I see it, California is suffering from the early stages of "European economic disease": with each recession, the rebound is slower and lower.

     

    20 years ago, California was widely considered the engine of America. Today it weighs heavily on the country's economic growth and it is a self-inflicted wound.
    16 Jul 2014, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    Sadly (for us) I would entirely believe you. Californians (or perhaps it's just people in L.A.) generally have a completely deformed view of Texas and don't realize how dynamic it is.

     

    Was it Nissan that moved its US operations to Texas from L.A.?
    16 Jul 2014, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    di la

     

    It was Toyota out of Torrence, CA

     

    interesting demographic since 2006 California had citizen an non citizens come to California but more citizen are leaving than coming. Based on citizenship California is going down in population for the last 8 years although the overall total is up
    16 Jul 2014, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    Thanks NYC. It was Toyota. I'll try to remember it next time.

     

    I read that the population went down for the first time over the last Census period. I seriously recently got an email from my State Senator telling me that Government spending had been increasing wildly because of population growth... That's how informed the people we elect are... :(
    16 Jul 2014, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    di la

     

    Next time you speak to the Senator just say

     

    "it's the dole stupid"

     

    good luck
    16 Jul 2014, 09:36 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    She'll think it's Bob Dole's fault! ;)

     

    Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
    17 Jul 2014, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    di la

     

    After I made the comment, I asked myself if he's as whacky with comments like I am some time

     

    I love it

     

    WELCOME to the club.
    17 Jul 2014, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2529) | Send Message
     
    DivLa I had an old girlfriend that worked as an aide to Sen. Dole. Boy does time fly.
    17 Jul 2014, 04:46 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    "Bob Dole don't like that"... ;)

     

    Thanks for the funny comments.
    18 Jul 2014, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • pdinfull
    , contributor
    Comments (44) | Send Message
     
    It has to be seen to believe, i don't think most people have any idea of the environmental disaster until they see it with their own eyes. pay now or pay later, but you will pay...
    12 Jul 2014, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (3126) | Send Message
     
    Annoys me to no end that people comment on oil sands with no real knowledge of the operations and the extent to which some companies, like Exxon, go to limit environmental damage. Below are two videos that give you some idea the work they are doing to limit environmental damage.

     

    http://bit.ly/1oQSKTk

     

    http://bit.ly/1oQSL9A

     

    12 Jul 2014, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    pdinfull

     

    You should go see the love canal in NY, you are aware of the disaster however you will see nothing from the scene. Yes IF we have a disaster we will pay. The problem is how many times do we hear from the media of a disaster that is not even close to a real disaster. Fracking is 65 years old but if you listen to the tree huggers its brand new. Progress by humans always cause additional problems because they are human.
    12 Jul 2014, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Uain53
    , contributor
    Comments (1808) | Send Message
     
    NYC,
    You are fighting the good fight against the lemming hoard.

     

    The anti-fracking nonsense and anti-pipeline hysteria is lavishly funded by middle east cash.

     

    I wonder why....?
    13 Jul 2014, 01:09 AM Reply Like
  • Currant85
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    Oh yeah? Check out these:

     

    http://bit.ly/1m6JFkD

     

    http://bit.ly/1m6JFkF

     

    http://bit.ly/1m6JFkD
    13 Jul 2014, 07:45 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    LOL,

     

    Yeah, they are replacing a lake with a man-made lake. So yeah, from the video, probably a company PR video, they are making a new lake to replace the old one that was destroyed/comprised from....

     

    Oh, never mind, you're right. It's obvious that fracking has no environmental impact whatsoever.

     

    I am a young investor, with very limited Market knowledge.
    But I know BS when I smell it, I know company double-speak when I hear it, and I can see hypocrisy a mile a way.

     

    Pee You :-()
    13 Jul 2014, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    UAIN 53
    In NYC.
    For many they were born with gold spoons. They try to pontificate because they are academics who have never had a real job.

     

    If to teach you needed 10 years of non affiliated business work(can't work for mom or dads company) we would have a better education systems without a lot of BS science.
    13 Jul 2014, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    current 85

     

    Center for American Progress john podesata

     

    you should know his as the front man for bill Clinton
    while clintion was lying and mark rich bought a pardon
    he is also the clown behind Obama's environment policy.
    13 Jul 2014, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djkidm

     

    If you want to lean about man made lakes you need to visit Texas.
    We have only one lake that nature made. The rest are all man made.
    13 Jul 2014, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    NYCTB

     

    I'm originally from Nevada. I know all about man-made lakes, cyanide/leech ponds, underground basins, thermo-nuclear testing, war-games flying above our school, roads blown away in the middle of the night by government agencies, etc...

     

    Good Times
    13 Jul 2014, 10:09 AM Reply Like
  • Uain53
    , contributor
    Comments (1808) | Send Message
     
    Seems like typical anti-fracking Luddite, middle east psycho-religio-despot loving drivel.

     

    OK, an "unprecedented" flood dislodges oil storage tanks on a drill pad, cited according to State and Federal regulations (hows that big government workin' for ya'?) and some how fracking is to blame???!!!??!

     

    They would still have oil in them if it was a classical Vertical well.
    14 Jul 2014, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  • Uain53
    , contributor
    Comments (1808) | Send Message
     
    Amen Bro'

     

    As a scientist I am grieved by the proliferation of junk scientists these days.
    I keep thinking of the lessons of Mary Shelley's original "Frankenstein" and "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" by Robert Louis Stevenson.

     

    Smart men so consumed with pride that they never saw the folly of what they were about to unleash.

     

    Today's junk scientists ply their trade for the approval of corrupt politicians and big money looking for a politcally contrived advantage in the market place, however fleeting.
    14 Jul 2014, 01:24 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    currant85

     

    There are more holes in those articles than in swiss cheese.
    15 Jul 2014, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djkidm

     

    I was referring to the lakes made to swim, play and use as reservoirs.

     

    They use to quip that Las Vegas has so many light so you couldn't see that the natives glow in the dark.
    15 Jul 2014, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    NYC: You have identified the cause of the poor education dispensed by our schools and universities.

     

    90% of the good professors and teachers I've been lucky to have were people with "real life" experience in what they taught.

     

    Most of the bad ones were "lifers" who stayed in school teaching right after they got their degrees.
    15 Jul 2014, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DI LA

     

    At CCNY
    we had a marketing professor who taught 1 class at night.
    his pay was $1
    and people would kill to get into his class.

     

    His day job paid him 300k in 1967 when asked why he gave up to nights a week for us. He said 20 years ago I was here as a student and I'm just paying back for those who taught me.
    15 Jul 2014, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like a great guy!! Wish there were more like him in higher ed.
    15 Jul 2014, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • FleetUSA3226
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    I'm not sure BHO's buddy Immelt is the one for any job.
    12 Jul 2014, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • riggle99
    , contributor
    Comments (226) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Immelt can't seem to handle the job he has very well. Doubt if he needs to take on anything else. However if this job would take him away from GE I would be all for it.
    12 Jul 2014, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • chipmunk2greysquirrel
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    Certainly an intriguing idea. That's one way to get rid of an incompetent executive. I was going to suggest he'd be an excellent candidate to be commissioner of the Women's NBA, FIFA or the Professional bowling tour. Anything to get him out of GE.
    12 Jul 2014, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • bernief7744
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    This must have been written by Immelt's publicity agent.I'm amazed he can manage a bowel movement.
    12 Jul 2014, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (601) | Send Message
     
    I think Iraq is looking for a new leader.
    12 Jul 2014, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (4475) | Send Message
     
    immelt will screw this up too, just like he did with GE.

     

    He is an untrustworthy and myopic thinker, at best.

     

    Vote him out and let him fade away !
    12 Jul 2014, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    Bahamas

     

    I've been voting against Immelt for nearly a decade.
    13 Jul 2014, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Football Geek
    , contributor
    Comments (102) | Send Message
     
    While I agree somewhat that the oil sands has the perception of being "dirty", I'm not sure other areas of energy are really alot cleaner. As for Immelt, he needs to focus on his own company that has underperformed for so many years. I'm not holding my breath that 18 million will make a huge difference when you think of the total future impact of the oil sands could reach a trillion dollars. This is more of another PR stunt. Why would a ceo concern himself with such a small venture, unless It helps his tarnished image.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    $GE or Immelt have not underperformed. In fact I would argue the opposite, and I don't care to hear the same old tired arguments about cut dividends, 2009, $6 a share, etc.

     

    Because if all of that happened to you as a $GE shareholder you would be up big now if you had stuck with your convictions!
    12 Jul 2014, 09:15 AM Reply Like
  • robgra
    , contributor
    Comments (839) | Send Message
     
    Immelt took over in Feb 2001, with GE at a stock price of around $33. It has been in a downtrend ever since, never exceeding $37 under his "leadership". Anyone who bough GE in 2001 would still be in the hole (not counting currency devaluation in the intervening 12 years). Immelt has underperformed. Just compare Honeywell over the same time period if you don't think so.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    And the company ($GE) survived the financial crisis despite having GE Financial tied to its ankles.

     

    If the dividend wasn't cut, there would be no $GE.

     

    Just my 2sense.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • jimdaniels100
    , contributor
    Comments (55) | Send Message
     
    I agree. Instead of adding value to the company by innovation and leading edge products, they buy back stock. How is that really adding value to the company?

     

    Immelt is part of the DC CRONY CAPITALIST GANG. He is the LAST person you need from whom to seek answers. If anything he stands in the WAY of good solutions.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • losbronces
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Thats the same financial group (ie., GE Capital) that was used to such great effect to show increased earnings quarter after quarter when Jack Welch was CEO. You can't have it both ways.

     

    And GE Capital received at least $139 billion in bailout money. So its not like Immelt worked his way out of the problem.
    12 Jul 2014, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djkidm

     

    I been a shareholder of GE for over 40 years, you make a comment concerning only part of a persons history with the firm and don't seem to know any of the facts that without the FEDS help GE would be like GM
    bankrupt and still making some POS products. your profile says you don't like big banks then why did you invest in GE since GE CAP is won of the worlds biggest banks. The bottom line is that if Jeff had put a stop to the excesses of GE CAP in 2005 the stock would be around 50 today.
    12 Jul 2014, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djjkidm

     

    The point is without the FEDS help GE could not have survived.

     

    read about the commercial paper issued by GE.
    12 Jul 2014, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Ooi
    , contributor
    Comments (427) | Send Message
     
    "anyone who bough GE in 2001" got Welched on or maybe Jacked up, hard to tell which
    12 Jul 2014, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    OOI

     

    rich
    12 Jul 2014, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • Rinascimento
    , contributor
    Comments (1391) | Send Message
     
    Wasn't GE stock on its way down from the $50s under Welch before Immelt inherited the mess?
    12 Jul 2014, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    rinascimento

     

    In 2001 when Inmelt was chosen the price went down to the 40s however
    because of splits many people become confused.
    During the Welch's term if you bought 1 share at the beginning you would have 48 at the end of his term.
    1981 1 share
    1983 2 shares 2 for 1
    1987 4 shares 2 for 1
    1994 8 shares 2 for 1
    1997 16 shares 2 for 1
    2000 48 shares 3 for 1
    12 Jul 2014, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • berloe
    , contributor
    Comments (2051) | Send Message
     
    You wouldn't be up if you bought @ 40!
    12 Jul 2014, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • Bobcat9
    , contributor
    Comments (3252) | Send Message
     
    @djkidm "GE and Immelt have not underperformed"?

     

    What planet are you from? Apparently one that was created in Q1 2009.
    12 Jul 2014, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djkidm

     

    the term is my 2 cents
    12 Jul 2014, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • Bobcat9
    , contributor
    Comments (3252) | Send Message
     
    @robgra

     

    GE stock price was around $40 when Immelt took over in Sep 2001.
    12 Jul 2014, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • thomasjmartin
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    You must be a GE employee. The only thing GE stock is good for is
    employee bonuses. Any other investor can do much better than GE.
    12 Jul 2014, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    thomasjmartin

     

    I've been a stockholder for over 40 years and can tell you GE has been very good. If Immelt had not taken over I would be twice as wealthy with my GE stock. Now can you tell me how many other securities in the last 5 years who have done better than GE has? And how many have not done as well as GE.
    If the process that does not use water in fracking works it could add $25 alone to the stock over the next three years
    12 Jul 2014, 05:44 PM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    No I meant 2sense, like a kitty cat. And yes I don't know as much about the stock $GE as the rest of you, but...

     

    From my calculations if you had stuck with, reinvested your dividends with, and/or by god added to your position in the bad times then I think you would be,

     

    rich.

     

    Just sayin
    13 Jul 2014, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • thomasjmartin
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    Why pick 5 years, pick 7 or 8. Better yet, start when Immelt took over.
    15 Jul 2014, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    I agree with you Thomas. It seems strange to say Immelt is a great manager just because his stock has recovered from the 2008 crash.

     

    That fact alone would make almost every CEO appear to be brilliant.

     

    Jeff Immelt has been a great destructor of wealth and while he is in power at GE, I will find better opportunities elsewhere even if I may miss a trade when the market over corrects to the downside, then the upside.
    15 Jul 2014, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9103) | Send Message
     
    Must be a slow news day.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (446) | Send Message
     
    A mine is a mine! Most oil sands production is not produced in mines. The formations are too deep for an open pit and are SAGD operations or equivalent. No surface disruptions, no settling ponds, no reclamation issues. Every operator looks for improvements in operations, and emissions are one of the measurements. So that is a focal point not the real issue.

     

    The real issue is our ability (or not) to move from a carbon based energy supply to renewable or alternate supply. The technology improves every day. - ask TESLA. Just the price is still very high - ask TESLA. we can get there but there is a price to pay and it will take time. Some say 50 years, others say longer. In between time we need carbon sources, and the oil sands are a hug part of that supply.

     

    In the mean time do not count on plugging your vehicle into cheap hydro or coal fired electricity.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • hhmcdon
    , contributor
    Comments (323) | Send Message
     
    I had to Google SAGD as I was not familiar with this initialism . It stands for: Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage. To learn more there is a good explanation on Wikipedia.
    12 Jul 2014, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • dancing duke
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    Diane is usually a real good business writer. Maybe it is time for her retirement.Her candidate to clean up the tar sands is worse that Steven Harper, Both are so far over their heads in what they do and how they lead and you can tell by the roaring Canadian economy and the incredible rise in share price in GE shares under Jeff leadership.
    Sorry Diane you could have done a lot better.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:13 AM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    The comments here on SA in regards to coal
    And oil sands are some of the most close minded on the entire site
    I find myself posting conservative bent posts on the NY Times and "left leaning"
    Posts here. I guess that makes me on the middle somewhat
    Everything isn't about Money and I support the conscious capitalism
    As proposed by Whole Foods and Apple and
    Invest accordingly

     

    Here is a link to an article the gives a brief
    Look and lists the pros and cons of bitumen
    Granted it is an environmentalist website
    http://bit.ly/1oQKUZG

     

    I am proud of Jeff Immelt for showing
    Some leadership here and I for one would
    Support oil sands companies if they atleast
    Came up with a plan to reduce greenhouse gases
    A made the whole thing less toxic

     

    I am a very enthusiastic investor in natural gas, pipeline companies
    Oil companies and GE and Apple. I pay extra for my electricity so it is
    100% clean energy so I can simply support solar and wind and water in Washington State I do not invest on coal or tobacco and never
    Will. I think these industries would be better
    Off smaller. However I would be willing to
    Consider Investing in oil sand industry if they clean up
    The process and reduce the carbon foot print

     

    I for one applaud Jeff Immelt
    12 Jul 2014, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • apetera
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Jeff Immelt couldn't clean up the men's room on the Staten Island Ferry.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    2 points for the funniest comment
    12 Jul 2014, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (601) | Send Message
     
    > I pay extra for my electricity so it is 100% clean energy<

     

    I hate to break it to you, but unless you're off the grid with a solar power or wind source, it's not 100% clean energy.
    12 Jul 2014, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2529) | Send Message
     
    Joe, even more no form of energy is 100% clean. Solar requires mining of minerals for solar panels and the coverage of large areas of the surface with these panels. It changes the microclimates and the heat balance and often eliminates the native flora and fauna for large scale solar farms. Wind is unpredictable so is not reliable for baseloaded electric generation. Large wind farms alter microclimates and are pervasive killers of bird and raptor populations. Many wind farm areas are remote from the end user so require large transmission systems crossing miles and miles of open lands. Wind farms are so unreliable that they are difficult if not impossible to factor into the baseload demand response so really serve more in peaking.

     

    Until substantially more efficient electric storage and transmission systems are available neither solar nor wind will be able to provide a large percentage of the baseload capacity throughout the country.
    12 Jul 2014, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • Rinascimento
    , contributor
    Comments (1391) | Send Message
     
    You mention Apple but do you know what RREs are used on its products? they are some of the most toxic elements and mined in China not without environmental collateral damages
    12 Jul 2014, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    tgar 13

     

    I think you should hold your applause for Inmelt.
    the guy who made the calls is Mark Begor
    12 Jul 2014, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    Once again, you let actually facts get in the way of nonsensical thought, Saratoga. :) Prepare for angry replies. ;)
    12 Jul 2014, 11:46 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1504) | Send Message
     
    Reality is that the industry is already doing everything mentioned in that article. If GE can add to it, I am sure they would not mind. And if GE comes up with something useful, they can both make a lot more money.
    13 Jul 2014, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • User 7723231
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Jeffrey Immelt!!!!!!! The Chairman and CEO of has brought the share price from $70 to $26.00. The same guy who is Obama's job guru? Why would anyone listen to him.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • romilar
    , contributor
    Comments (751) | Send Message
     
    The "baby seal hunt" analogy is so over the top, it defies consideration. Diane, you having a dull day? Mr. Immelt, take a look at the patents held by a little co. ticker - OOIL. I hope the solution presents itself to your vast resources...Rom
    12 Jul 2014, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • BOB 135524
    , contributor
    Comments (115) | Send Message
     
    Who needs Immelt?
    Check slide 4 from end.

     

    http://bit.ly/1jmk10u
    12 Jul 2014, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • jurkojc
    , contributor
    Comments (197) | Send Message
     
    Looking at the comments and the article, does this sum it up?
    One 'Failing' American transplant recommending another American 'Failure' transplant into Canada? What has Canada done to deserve this? The USA was all over the oil-sands during the oil crisis in the 70-80s, and Canada stood by the USA even to the point of a signing mutual energy policies. Those same oil-sands were very much a part of this agreement.
    Suggest we propose someone capable. Fore-go rubbish like this article.
    12 Jul 2014, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • hhmcdon
    , contributor
    Comments (323) | Send Message
     
    I checked out Diane Frances on Wikipedia and found this right away: "She also a regular contributor to the Huffington Post" I did not need to read any more. Same old lefty BS.
    12 Jul 2014, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • smurf
    , contributor
    Comments (5454) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, I guess that GE would have a lot of experience cleaning up environmental disasters. They learned well after polluting the upper Hudson River for decades, and only taking action when forced to do so by govt. entities.
    12 Jul 2014, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • jgchittick
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    The Oil Sands development IS the cleaning-up of the largest "natural" oil spill on the planet. Like all industrial activities in North America today, its operators fall under stringent environmental regulations and internal management systems.

     

    Francis has lost it (cheerleader for China's one child dictate) and now appears to have adopted the green theocracy mantra. Immelt excels only at rent seeking.
    12 Jul 2014, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • Anasazi101
    , contributor
    Comments (2625) | Send Message
     
    Not even sure why this is a published article on SP....
    Just to evoke responses or clicks...??
    And cause additional controversy..?
    12 Jul 2014, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • Brianw7128
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    My wife and I just returned from an Alaskan cruise. I have been interested in investing in oil-sands companies so I asked the Canadians we met on our trip how they felt about the projects.

     

    I know the sample size is very small (~15) but every Canadian but 1 was in favor of the projects. They cited Canada as being a big country that is driven by natural resources. They also cited the number of well-paying number of jobs created too. They acted like Canada was so large that the oil-sands (as they noted had been previously called tar-sands in a mini p.r. move) were just a dot on the map. Canada is huge and this area is relatively small. (Remember, I'm recalling what they said).

     

    As an aside I also talked to a lady who was working towards becoming a petroleum engineer. She too was in favor of oil-sands. I asked her about fracking and her reponse was also favorable. She did say she thought the best place for fracking would be underwater (oceans I assume.) We never got into the details of that comment. I assumed oceans to avoid the drinking water debate. She did say that it was best for the fracking to occur horizontally and not vertically. Hmmm, those thoughts never occurred to me. I never thought it could make a difference.

     

    When I asked about the CO2 costs to various people they looked at China as being a major polluter because of their coal plants. They admitted the high costs involved with oil-sands but thought, and hoped, that these processes would be cleaner as technology advanced.

     

    In summary, with my very limited survey, the Canadians I surveyed were almost all behind oil-sands. (The one lady who was opposed to the oil-sands was really wacky though. She kept saying Canada needed to take care of their own first (I didn't understand that statement). She also thought America should have nuked Iraq during the first war. After that comment I pretty well disregarded the rest of her thoughts.

     

    I'm not technology savvy about these processes. I just thought it would be interesting to poll our friends to the north and then post the results.
    12 Jul 2014, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • Brianw7128
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    My wife and I just returned from an Alaskan cruise. I have been interested in investing in oil-sands companies so I asked the Canadians we met on our trip how they felt about the projects.

     

    I know the sample size is very small (~15) but every Canadian but 1 was in favor of the projects. They cited Canada as being a big country that is driven by natural resources. They also cited the number of well-paying number of jobs created too. They acted like Canada was so large that the oil-sands (as they noted had been previously called tar-sands in a mini p.r. move) were just a dot on the map. Canada is huge and this area is relatively small. (Remember, I'm recalling what they said).

     

    As an aside I also talked to a lady who was working towards becoming a petroleum engineer. She too was in favor of oil-sands. I asked her about fracking and her reponse was also favorable. She did say she thought the best place for fracking would be underwater (oceans I assume.) We never got into the details of that comment. I assumed oceans to avoid the drinking water debate. She did say that it was best for the fracking to occur horizontally and not vertically. Hmmm, those thoughts never occurred to me. I never thought it could make a difference.

     

    When I asked about the CO2 costs to various people they looked at China as being a major polluter because of their coal plants. They admitted the high costs involved with oil-sands but thought, and hoped, that these processes would be cleaner as technology advanced.

     

    In summary, with my very limited survey, the Canadians I surveyed were almost all behind oil-sands. (The one lady who was opposed to the oil-sands was really wacky though. She kept saying Canada needed to take care of their own first (I didn't understand that statement). She also thought America should have nuked Iraq during the first war. After that comment I pretty well disregarded the rest of her thoughts.

     

    I'm not technology savvy about these processes. I just thought it would be interesting to poll our friends to the north and then post the results.
    12 Jul 2014, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • Brianw7128
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Sorry for the double post! I don't do this very often!
    12 Jul 2014, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • dreiser139
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    the reason i would never own ge is jeff immelt
    putting him in charge what a joke
    another obama know nothing supporter.
    was in his administration re; jobs and did nothing.
    how he got his job at ge a mystery to me.
    hes the last person i would hire to do anything.
    dreiser139
    12 Jul 2014, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • bjamesh
    , contributor
    Comments (227) | Send Message
     
    Whatever happens within the Canadian oil sands you can be certain that American opinions and judgement will have decreasing influence. The handling of Keystone XL (both southern and northern) has indelibly etched itself in many minds. The learning curve to develop that resource economically and not be detrimental to the enviroment goes on every day, as we speak. The misinformation being thrown around gives one pause. Whether it's the open pit resource or the SAGD one. Ms. Francis (born in the USA) lost her credibility with many Canadians when she promoted the $US dollar as the sole Canadian currency. 'Nough said.
    12 Jul 2014, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • robgra
    , contributor
    Comments (839) | Send Message
     
    You are no longer an independent Nation if you agree to use someone else's currency. Just ask the Greeks and the Cypriots...
    12 Jul 2014, 03:14 PM Reply Like
  • ocala
    , contributor
    Comments (138) | Send Message
     
    Tell that to the US and Canadian "First Nations". They can't get enough of somebody else's currency
    12 Jul 2014, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2529) | Send Message
     
    What expertise does Jeffery Immelt offer that hasn't been offered by the dozens of mining and oil companies operating in western Canada? Jeff Immelt is merely a CEO of a multi-national conglomerate. He isn't a Canadian and isn't a internationally recognized energy expert in oil recovery and mining nor is he an international expert in hazardous materials management so what does he bring to the table and why should an "American" be needed to manage Canada's oil industry? In reading her background it is clear that this woman is merely a journalist and perhaps a little left leaning. She doesn't make a case for Immelt's unique expertise nor does she make a case why an American should do this versus a Canadian doing it. Our Administration has messed up its energy priorities beyond belief and I certainly don't want the President's buddy, Jeff Immelt, managing our neighbor's oil industry. I think Canada can do that perfectly well without our screwing it up. We can't even make simple decisions like the Keystone XL pipeline. Right now America is AWOL on energy. Thank goodness that the States don't need federal approvals for development of private lands for energy or our country would be in even more trouble. In my 40 years doing environmental and energy work this last few years is by far the worst I have seen. The degree of incompetency and downright subterfuge and ideology in government has left me agape at times.
    12 Jul 2014, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • wmateri
    , contributor
    Comments (571) | Send Message
     
    Saratoga - As a Canadian, I have to agree. This article was reminiscent of the worst kind of American arrogance to think that is the only country that can 'save' the oil sands. The oil sands engineers I have met and the sites I have visited are representative of some of the best engineering in the world when it comes to efficiency and waste water recovery.

     

    An earlier comment about the difference between fracking, mining and SAGD methods of extraction was completely correct. I would also add THAI (Toe-to-Heel Air Injection). Most oil sands are not at the correct depth for fracking to work so that process is not employed except for the deeper sands.

     

    That said, I think of oil sands as a way to convert cheap natural gas into oil. A lot of natgas is burned to heat water, either for washing the oil out of mined rocks (it looks like asphalt when dug up) or for injection. But oil sands companies have investigated using nuclear and even solar power to heat water. If natgas was more expensive, these other methods might actually get used. It should be noted that around 90% of used water is recycled in the various processes.

     

    It should also be noted that the province of Alberta (where the oil sands are found, mostly) charges $15/ton for all CO2 emitted over 100,000 tons per year. That applies to almost all oil sands operations. This money is given to the CCEMC which funds CO2 reduction and research programs across the country (to the tune of $65M per year or more).

     

    Much research is already being done to improve operational and transportation efficiencies. A lot of this is being done in the Engineering faculties at the Universities of Alberta (in Edmonton) and Calgary and at the National Institute for Nanotechnology in Edmonton. This is world class research as was the initital research done at the Alberta Research Corporation to get the oil sands out in the first place. As well, the companies involved have their own programs. So, I doubt that GE is going to suddenly be the game changer in this field though they are a player.

     

    One other note: Diane Francis is well known in Canada for her Right Wing (not liberal at all) views. She probably represents 'balance' at Huff Post.
    12 Jul 2014, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    I second that opinion (as I often do :) ) Saratoga. I fail to see why Canada would need to import expertise from the US on oil.

     

    I also fail to see why Jeff Immelt (the reason I don't own any GE) would be the right person.
    12 Jul 2014, 11:43 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2529) | Send Message
     
    The Canadian National Materials Lab (CANMET) concludes after an extensive corrosion study that pipelines carrying conventional crude and diluted bitumen corrode at essentially the same rates thus dilbit is not more corrosive to transport than conventional crudes.

     

    "Adjustment of the Alberta and U.S. pipeline failure statistics to compare similar crude oil
    pipeline systems on an equivalent basis indicated that the Alberta systems (with a large
    percentage of dilbit lines) experienced comparable internal corrosion failure rates than the
    U.S. systems (predominantly conventional crude lines)."

     

    Citation to the actual report:
    http://bit.ly/1jn1voS

     

    The idea offered by the greens is that dilbit is inherently worse for pipelines than conventional crudes. That is not borne out by scientific fact.
    12 Jul 2014, 04:11 PM Reply Like
  • Hemmer
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    hey robgra ... nice try... but first GE was $42 in oct of 07 and second I bought GE in 2001 late dec and with the reinvested dividends it now above what I paid .. has GE been somewhat dead money for some years, maybe if you didn't buy it in march of "09 at $6 .. In summary .always check your facts, this group knows there stuff.....
    12 Jul 2014, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • Marcelobozo
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    I don't know what Jeff I. could do about the Canadian tar sands issue. Oil sands or tar sands as is better known in the industry is just another source of energy that requires some amount of clean up upstream and downstream the electrical generation process before the waste gasses can be released to the atmosphere. these cleanup processes are costs that make or break the electrical generation venture. Nowadays with the lower cost of natural gas the clean up process for tar sands oil may make it too expensive, similar to high sulfur coal. So it all comes down to economics. I would put my bets on nuclear power as the most environmental friendly and reliable power and GE is well equipped to handle this effort.
    12 Jul 2014, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (677) | Send Message
     
    GE came damned close to destroying the Hudson River by using the river as a dumping ground for PCB laden waste. After giving the Government the "who, us?" defense for a couple of decades, they are noew a few years into the cleanup.

     

    Lets watch over the next decade as this project crawls forward before we go handing out lucrative fracking clean up contracts to one of the nation's most vile polluters.

     

    Jack Welch must be smiling every time he gets another few million from his GE retirement plan: Use the River as a dump, delay cleaning it up for decades; and now get paid to clean up other people's mess'.
    12 Jul 2014, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    ted bear

     

    Do you remember the politician's who allowed the dumping into the Hudson river or those who allowed the building of homes over the love canal near Niagara falls? Fracking has been around almost as long as the dumping of the PCB in the Hudson. you act as if it the flavor of the month.
    These things happened 60 years ago when no one knew as much as today.
    Science improves daily.
    As for the jack welch comment the dumping happened at GE before he was in charge but don't let a lack of knowledge hamper your pontification
    12 Jul 2014, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • ChasesPlace
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    No Credit for the Author. Just another Pinko, get the rope! We have not warmed to speak of, the temperature has seen no meaningful rise since 1998, so now they call it Climate Change instead of Global Warming, the models failed the Scientists have been scolded in Europe. The climates change and shift and are not man made. Did you see the island country Hoax leadership saying the ocean is rising. No just current change due to bridge and beach construction and coastal erosion. Poor countries are on board with this Hoax crying "Send us money." Scientists for the grants and the left is on it for the taxes, fees and the seizing of power in the name of it. Suck the oil sands dry for the needed products and cover it over. "Move on, nothing to see here." Sell it to someone that wants it for something.
    12 Jul 2014, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • David G G
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    It's time Canada said good buy to the keystone P/L and concentrated on developing P/L's from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to the East and West Coast of Canada. Asia and Europe will welcome a reliable energy suppler.
    GG
    12 Jul 2014, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • David G G
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    "Jeff Immelt is the American Canada needs to lead oil sands clean-up"
    Typical American Arrogance.
    Don't need any of the BP/ Gulf spill tech.
    GG
    12 Jul 2014, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DAVID GG

     

    I agree with you. You don't need Immelt in Canada you have more than enough guys who have screwed up your environment.
    12 Jul 2014, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • MisterJ
    , contributor
    Comments (1059) | Send Message
     
    I find that patronizing too. Canada has enough good leaders.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    The subject article is not the first of Dianne Francis' ridiculous articles that are lacking in knowledge and fact. To suggest GE is capable of doing more than the oil companies are and have been doing is absolute stupidity. I experienced first hand some of GE's capability during the construction phase of the Syncrude plant. I was no more impressed with GE or their performance than any other like company. What the oil companies have and are doing is more than some misinformed narrow thinking people would like to believe.
    12 Jul 2014, 09:50 PM Reply Like
  • Sidrico
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    You got to be kidding me. This is the same guy whose company pays no taxes, gets my tax dollars for his green agenda and laughs about no shovel ready jobs after billions of stimulus..loser!
    12 Jul 2014, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (4475) | Send Message
     
    Any of the above contributors that have a positive view of immelt and own GE stock are not seeing this loser for what he is. You are living on hope...which is not an investment strategy. Or is it the hope that immelt is voted out ?!

     

    Whichever, GE is presently , and for the last 5 yrs, a loser position.

     

    Also, Any company that has a Sneaky tenure policy of 20 yr terms for ceo's (and this just recently became public knowledge) is not worth owning, especially if you get stuck with an immelt !!!!!!!

     

    Look at your last 5 yr results GE shareholders compared to the S&P.
    Do the MATH.
    Enough said !
    13 Jul 2014, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    BAHAMAS1

     

    I don't like IMMELT but your math is way off in 2009 the low was 5.87.
    the low for 2014 is 24.32 so far.

     

    That a 400% gain in 5 years how many companies have that record

     

    Now I believe if Immelt was replaced in 2005 when GE Cap really started to go off the reservation the stock today would be in the 50's but that's just my guess
    13 Jul 2014, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    Exactly!

     

    Bahamas1, Do the Math! It's obvious you can't. My only argument is the math. If you were in it, you would be making $$$, despite the price fluctuations....
    13 Jul 2014, 10:13 AM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (4475) | Send Message
     
    NYCTEXASBANKER & djkidm

     

    That can be said about most stocks, because Most stocks were at at multi year lows in 2009.

     

    However, some history for you to look at:

     

    Since immelt took over GE on Sept.7, 2001 GE stock has LAGGED behind the more than 65% GAIN for the S&P 500 index and as of early May 2014 the stock was 37% below where it was when he took over !
    That's OVER a Minus 100% difference from the S&P 500 !!!

     

    So I suggest YOU DO THE MATH !

     

    The fact that the "market wave" brought GE back to the current mid $20's (WOW mid $20's ) says nothing of immelt and his lousy board ! The math is what it is, and the company leadership's record is what it is...unfortunately for GE shareholders.

     

    Also, at more than 13 years as ceo his tenure is nearly double the 7.2 year average for chiefs in the stock index of companies last year. There are only 11 ceos' of S&P 500 - excluding founders - who have held office more than 15 years.
    That is also BAD MATH and says volumes for the lousy complacent GE board.

     

    Imo, the stock is not investment worthy until immelt & HIS board are kicked out by true GE investors who aren't worried about backlash because of his political ties.

     

    In summary, GE was a great company that was introduced to its own "Peter Principal" by immelt. A great company that has been without a leader since Sept. 7, 2001.
    13 Jul 2014, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    bahamas1

     

    I agree with your statements in the above comment.
    if you read my previous post I'm no fan of Immelt.
    when you said

     

    Look at your last 5 yr results GE shareholders compared to the S&P.
    Do the MATH.

     

    I did 400% for GE around=<100% for s&p

     

    The S&P gets revalued when stickily speaking should never happen unless a company goes bankrupt.
    it's a game Wall St play not to shop how bad some companies are run.

     

    In the future just write you feelings about the company but when you ask people to do the math expect to get slapped down if the numbers are not what you thought
    13 Jul 2014, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (4475) | Send Message
     
    NYCTEXASBANKER...

     

    Not "slapped down" at all, but good try with words.

     

    The fact(s)/is / are simple, as are the numbers as I stated above.

     

    You can twist them any way you wish.

     

    Since immelt took over GE stock has gotten "SLAPPED DOWN" along with its shareholders by the S&P 500.

     

    If you can't see that then you have a problem. Chart the numbers from when immelt started in 2001 to early May 2014 , it may help you see how the patterns greatly digress from each other, showing GE -37% to S&P +66%. So your last 5 yr number, which every stock participated in, does nothing to the overall losses shareholders experienced since immelt started.

     

    And btw, your math is wrong,which I hesitated to tell you earlier , but $18.45 "gain" based on $5.87 is 314% not 400%.

     

    GE is a loser till immelt and his minions are booted out. Wallstreet knows it which is why it has and will go nowhere but trade sideways at best and hasn't had a bona fide buy rating in a long time. The last rating it had was on 6/23/14 a downgrade from Goldman to neutral.
    13 Jul 2014, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    bahamas1

     

    I must admit my 400% was wrong however I only need 100%
    to counter your statement.
    I said low not the high price which was 28.09 also within your 5 year period now tell me if it closer to 375%

     

    2] go back and use the s&p 500 of 2008 to check your numbers.
    just so you do an apple to apple comparison
    the S&P500 is always changed by Wall St so their numbers aren't as bad as they usually are.

     

    Reuters list them as outperform
    I trade GE so ratings are not that important to me

     

    if however they do have a no waste water process for gas wells as mentioned last week mid 40's by next year.

     

    .
    13 Jul 2014, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • panorth
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    I've always been perplexed by the opposition to the XL pipeline. Canada is responsible for their own environmental activity not us. For some reason people think they can tell Canada what to do, when they do not think we can tell China what to do, or Somalia what to do.

     

    If all the time and energy spent on the XL pipeline was redirected to either exporting natural gas to China, or helping them frack for natural gas, we would all be better off from environmental perspective. The oil sands are a miniscule compared to the coal plants in China.

     

    Wanting to clean up the oil sands should not be a reason to deny piping oil from another country. Any environmental concern should be focused on the environmental impact of pipeline construction in our country. If I lived in Canada I would be extremely pissed at the US green busybodies get in my business. The laws involved were not designed to control climate change.
    13 Jul 2014, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • Uain53
    , contributor
    Comments (1808) | Send Message
     
    Basically the whole tar sands issue as discussed is BS.

     

    The junk science enviro-types call it "dirty oil" (umm, it comes from the ground) when actually it is just higher in sulfer compounds. The sulfer needs to be removed from the oil (to create desireable petro-chemicals). and reduce sulpher in the resultant diesel or gasoline.

     

    So let's see, the Gulf Coast is home the the largest and most advanced petro-refinery complex for high sulpher crude in the world.

     

    Only problem is, our "friends" in the Middle East don't want competition for their duck parade of supertankers bringing their high sulfer crude here. So the proper corrupt politicos are bought and the correct pseudo-enviro types are bought off, and Canada will sell their tar oils the China. I wonder how good they are at refining high sulpher crude?

     

    Meanwhile our purchase of Blood Oil from the ME funds murder and mayhem across northern Africa ... where there is lots of oil/ gas for the taking.
    14 Jul 2014, 02:03 AM Reply Like
  • romilar
    , contributor
    Comments (751) | Send Message
     
    Uain53, I couldn't agree more. Between the Demublicans or Republicrats or mega business, does it really matter who is operating the smoke machine?

     

    It's all about the money - all the time....Rom
    14 Jul 2014, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • DavidHart
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    Highlighting Immelt and GE as some sort of savior is just hyperbole written by a clueless article writer. From a bit of research, the Oil and Gas industry has been incrementally improving the Oil Sands process resulting in better efficiency and lower emissions. In other words, doing exactly what Immelt was discussing. All Immelt was saying was they they were working with Oil and Gas partners to continue this process.
    14 Jul 2014, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    Politics, have very little to do with investing.

     

    But thanks for sharing all of your slanted and enchanted political stances.

     

    But in the long run none of that matters.

     

    Because President Obama is in charge, like it or not. Things are changing, like it or not.

     

    Unfortunately, an investment site is a lot like a locker room....

     

    And just because you care about the environment (OH! Canada!), you are NOT a Socialist, but like i said it stinks in here, in this comment section...:-P

     

    But you all can have your say, and you can all spout about how it should be....

     

    Change is here to stay; that includes health care, environmentalists, green people, immigrants, red and blue and green states, organic mandates, etc,

     

    SO Invest accordingly, or be stuck with the laggards...

     

    Good luck :-)
    25 Jul 2014, 08:20 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djkidm

     

    If you think Politics, have very little to do with investing.

     

    You have failed history 101, economics 101 and finance 101.

     

    Its naïve people like yourself who do not understand the adage

     

    The more things change the more they stay the same.
    25 Jul 2014, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    As Blake said,

     

    It's the same dull round of the universe.
    25 Jul 2014, 09:15 AM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    NYC, you'll be surprised i agree with you again ;) but you have to understand the political environment (whether you like it or not) as it impacts investments.

     

    For instance, the reluctance of the current Administration to back unconventional oil and exploit the newfound nat gas to maximum impact is actually great news for offshore drillers as it makes their services all the more valuable.

     

    Just an example.

     

    It's not about whether you agree or like political decisions. it's about profiting from them by reacting accordingly.
    25 Jul 2014, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DI LA

     

    In 2009 I was all for the FED printing money by the middle of 2010 I was against it but also knew that as long as they kept printing all investments would rise. That the kept the presses running until now the kids will pay for it. You'll notice the whine right now about tax inversion however no one mentions that when it happens you the stockholder has to pay tax on the price of the conversion. Example you bought in January a stock at 10 and its converted when the price is 25 in September, well you owe taxes on the $15 as ordinary income even thought you still hold the exchanged stock.
    the new stock get the 25 set up price but mail your check it uncle sam next april 15

     

    It's going to come as a shock to the shareholders that they technically sold the US stock and bought the foreign stock.
    25 Jul 2014, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    That reminds me of when I found out that if I had the same stock in my IRA and taxable accounts, capital gains would remain on my taxable account and capital losses be attributed to my IRA (for those of you wondering you do have to do buys and sales to trigger that little-known fiscal trap).

     

    Ever since, I've had to cover more stocks just to not have duplication.

     

    How's that for the law being investor-friendly?!
    26 Jul 2014, 12:32 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    di la
    Are you thinking of the wash sale rule that some idiot at the IRS said a couple of years ago? While I was at US Treasury we discussed how it was unenforceable because the IRS has no way of seeing the portfolio. You are not required to match trades as to p+l for taxable gain or loss. The tax occurs upon request for the asset to be removed from the ira.

     

    26 Jul 2014, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    NYC: That's exactly what I'm referring to. Sadly, since both my account are with the same company, they enforce that rule (applying the capital loss from the taxable sales to the buys in the IRA) and I found myself declaring a higher capital gains (not much so it was no big deal thankfully) than I really had experienced before I figured it out.

     

    I am saving so much money with that broker and it so matches my investing temperament that I was unable to find an alternative. So I must carry more stocks than I'd really like to...
    27 Jul 2014, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DI LA

     

    Sorry to hear, I would drop that broker out the window.
    27 Jul 2014, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    NYC:

     

    I am saving thousands a year(at least). Not dropping them out of anything!!! There's no way I could manage my account the way I do with any other platform.

     

    Certainly can't blame them for following the law given, especially since they were formed by former SEC Commisioner...
    28 Jul 2014, 01:09 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DI LA

     

    How many securities do you have?

     

    I have 12 accounts, 1300 positions, 325 securities, 5 brokerage houses.

     

    approx.at any one time

     

    I don't believe they are follow the regulations and I said certain parts we felt were wrong as an example you have no requirement to keep P/L
    in an ira so when you sell in theory you have no p/l . tax is based on removal of funds. There is also the Trustee question. Assuming you sell in the IRA a portion of your position and buy in the taxable does he ask you to assign or do they use FIFO against the IRA?
    I never herd of anyone being taken to tax court on the basis of a taxable account versus an IRA.

     

    I was wondering if the SEC commissioner was one of those who watched porno videos during the Madoff scandal.
    28 Jul 2014, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    di la

     

    Schwab is required to track and report wash sales that occur for the same CUSIP number in the same account. When this happens, Schwab is required to:
    •Disallow any loss from the original sale, and add it proportionately to the cost basis of the repurchased shares. The disallowed loss is reported to the IRS on Form 1099-B.
    •Adjust the buy date of the repurchased lot(s) to reflect the acquisition date of the original lot(s) that were sold plus any days that the position was not held (the number of days between the sell and the repurchase that triggered the wash sale).

     

    Spoke with a friend at Schwab, he believes like I do no crosses of accounts are allowed and as the copy above mentions SAME ACCOUNT.
    28 Jul 2014, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    I have generally roughly 20 in my taxable and 8 in my IRA (19 and 7 at the moment) and use FolioFn. Feel free to check them out.

     

    For what I do, they're perfect. I could get a broker that would make sure I don't pay Canadian withholding of ERF for instance, but I'd pay so much more in fees, it makes no sense for me to move my money elsewhere.

     

    On the wash sale rule, most people at SA who cared to comment seemed to think the only way to avoid it was to have the IRA in a different account ans it became impossible for the brokers to enforce and, as you say the IRS doesn't seem interested either.

     

    That said, I think the question is "why do we have that crazy rule in the first place?!". Also, "how do we get rid of it?!!"
    30 Jul 2014, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    I think that's my situation at Folio. Certainly, that's what happened in practice.

     

    Thanks for talking to your friend about this. :)
    30 Jul 2014, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DI LA

     

    no problem. Like most things the wash sale was put in to stop manipulation as to taxes paid. then some clowns come along and think they have a better mouse trap. like dropping the up tick rule shorts.

     

    good luck with your trades
    30 Jul 2014, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    Dropping the uptick rule may have been one of the dumbest decisions ever made (and of course it still hasn't been corrected).
    31 Jul 2014, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (4475) | Send Message
     
    djkidm-
    you used this space which you said -"it stinks in here"- to promote your viewpoints and wag your finger at others who do the same.

     

    In fact you have used this site to "spout about how it should be "- your words- 335 times.

     

    Hypocrisy lives through your "comments".
    25 Jul 2014, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    I am not promoting my viewpoints, except the ones that disregard and/or call out racist and/or nationalist statements (disguised as politics) and are allowed to proliferate web slash blog places everywhere....

     

    I am just telling you how it is, and not how it should be, and you should know the difference.

     

    I am an academic, so I could care less about politics....

     

    But I don't mind raising some blood pressure and/or points every now and then,

     

    stay tuned :_)
    25 Jul 2014, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3667) | Send Message
     
    With all due respect, nobody appointed you guardian of this discussion board. If you see objectionable posts, by all means report them.

     

    Otherwise, all you are doing is pushing the discussion away from investing and into discussing your opinions, which, frankly, there's plenty of other places on the net for you to do.
    25 Jul 2014, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • DrP79
    , contributor
    Comments (2371) | Send Message
     
    I am an academic, so I could care less about politics....

     

    hahahahahahahahaha
    25 Jul 2014, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djkidm

     

    You may have heard the expression
    Those who can not make it in the business world Teach.
    you also know from statistics/history
    That academics are poor teachers and politicians'
    25 Jul 2014, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (4475) | Send Message
     
    djkidm-
    Ponder this point "professor":

     

    Since you feel "it stinks" in this site and you are "spouting about how it should be" why don't you just teach to the few unfortunate ears that you may have and stay out of this business site.

     

    Apparently you can't discuss business without putting down this site, its contributors and their viewpoints. So go back to your safe "academic" world.

     

    And btw, you haven't raised my blood pressure at all, BUT you sure did give me and others a few good laughs today .
    25 Jul 2014, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    Bahamas1

     

    Amen!!

     

    American Civilization suffers from poor k-12 schools and colleges that produce 1/3 of the graduates, who can not get a job in their field of study.

     

    Does it surprise anyone that the buffoon in the White House is a constitutional lawyer professor. He was the one who said ACA was not a tax
    and the same yoyo who got spanked for making appointments illegally.
    25 Jul 2014, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (4475) | Send Message
     
    NYCTEXASBANKER-

     

    Amen is right and well said !
    26 Jul 2014, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    I'm not putting down this site, just some short-sighted comments.

     

    "Does it surprise anyone that the buffoon in the White House is a constitutional lawyer professor. He was the one who said ACA was not a tax
    and the same yoyo who got spanked for making appointments illegally."

     

    So I offered up some of my own :<)

     

    The last time I voted was for Nadar, that's how much politics matter to me...

     

    Better to vote my conscious then win. If I invested like that I'd own something like $WFM.... but I don't.

     

    Like I said, if you can't beat them join them ,!,
    27 Jul 2014, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • BAHAMAS1
    , contributor
    Comments (4475) | Send Message
     
    djkidm-

     

    Hey professor, Please try to have the courtesy to use spell check or a dictionary.
    27 Jul 2014, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • bernief7744
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    now,lets talk about the good things he's done
    29 Jul 2014, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djkidm

     

    I assume you meant Ralph Nader the guy who has never said a word against corrupt lawyers.
    You mean conscience I guess.
    Many people are not into politics and that's why they are poor. If you don't try to help the system it starts to deteriorate the buffoon in the White house makes my case.
    27 Jul 2014, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (446) | Send Message
     
    BOYS!
    We are getting away from the original thoughts.

     

    One thing I did take from the last batch of off subject posts. If you want to win as an investor you should be involved in the process that determines the winning and losing stocks. Very true.

     

    One bit of advice If the last time you voted was in a bygone era you are part of the problem. Get with it or be quiet!
    27 Jul 2014, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    bobby44
    amen.
    27 Jul 2014, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    Lol,

     

    Agreed. I just like to kid around and play devil's advocate. I could really careless about someone else's political views, and I know most people don't care for mine.

     

    I blame SA, haha, and these "Breaking News" segments. No just kidding again.

     

    But to get back on point, I have turned moderately bearish on $GE the last couple of weeks. I am not impressed with the terms of the spin-off either.
    So much so that I haven't spent any of my recent dividends from GE, but will keep them in the FRIP account until I get a better price.

     

    Enjoy your Sunday gentlemen, I must get back to my second favorite thing about America, Baseball :-)

     

    I wish I could buy stock in the Dodgers....
    27 Jul 2014, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    djkidm
    you know the dodgers came from New York but you may not be aware that citifield where the Mets play is a decent replica of ebbets field where the dodgers played when I was a kid.
    27 Jul 2014, 11:03 PM Reply Like
  • Market DJ
    , contributor
    Comments (858) | Send Message
     
    I do know that, because I am a baseball dork :-) I remember seeing photos of it a few years ago, a very classic design. Last time I was there I never got a chance to actually see it, maybe next time.
    28 Jul 2014, 02:06 AM 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