Seeking Alpha

The Obama administration's decision on the Keystone oil pipeline (TRP) will not be made until at...

The Obama administration's decision on the Keystone oil pipeline (TRP) will not be made until at least June, a U.S. official tells Reuters, which would delay the project for months and frustrate backers of Canada's oil sands. "It's not weeks until the final decision," according to the source. "It's months."
From other sites
Comments (81)
  • Richard Waldren
    , contributor
    Comments (238) | Send Message
     
    Come on obama, you know what you are going to do. So, tell us. You mean to tell me canada's dirty oil is worse than ours. Lets put America to work and help out our next door neighbor at the same time. Building solar panels (remember that was a $500 million disaster plus) ain't going to get it. And if you think a bunch of ugly noisy windmills are going to do it, forget it. By the way, go live next to them noisy suckers.You are the President of the United States of America. Start acting like one for heaven sakes. Quit giving our hard earned tax money to muslim countries that don't even like us.
    2 Feb 2013, 12:03 AM Reply Like
  • Matt Jonza
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
     
    Wow... honestly Richard, your comment couldn't be more off base. I am going to break down a few things for you... with sources haha.

     

    First off, let's address the put americans to work thing. Congressional Republicancs claim that the Keystone Pipeline would create 120,000 jobs over 100 years. Yes, TransCanada has predicted 570,000 but they are the main beneficiary of the project. Just saying, hardly credible. And even if that is correct? That will not make much of a dent in US unemployment numbers. Let's take a look at a few other studies... US Department of State = 5,000 jobs. Cornell University = 2,500 jobs. No matter how you slice it, the Keystone pipeline will have a minimal impact on US employment figures over the course of the next century.

     

    http://bit.ly/YqKJpL

     

    Now, let's address the supply of oil effect vs. the price of gas for the average consumer. Oil is a GLOBAL commodity. If the Keystone pipeline is made, oil supply will increase which will lead to lower gas prices. And if the Keystone Pipeline is never made? The same result. Do you think that Canada will just sit on their resources, i.e. money? Absolutely not. No matter what, the oil from the Canadian Oil Sands will be added to the market soon and oil supply will increase, meaning that the average consumer will benefit regardless.

     

    Last but not least, let's address the "giving our hard earned tax money to muslim countries that don't even like us" thing. Please. Don't be ignorant on this site. This site is not the proper forum for derogating people. Making the Keystone Pipeline or not making it is not a matter of giving our money to Muslim countries. First off, if we don't make the pipeline, Canada will export it's oil to China. The middle east will not be involved in any fashion. Second, have you taken a look domestic oil production projections recently?

     

    http://cnnmon.ie/WKB7Hf

     

    The US will be the biggest oil producer in the world in due time. Even if their projections are off drastically, we will not be relying on the middle east for our oil very soon.
    2 Feb 2013, 03:56 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3184) | Send Message
     
    Ok, so lets say its 2500 jobs (which I think it low but thats ok). Thats another 2500 men/women with good paying jobs that can support their families.

     

    Second, it costs money to transport oil and refined liquids. Much better to pump the stuff down to Oklahoma and then to refineries in the US than to be shipping oil from Venezuala and Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Not too mention that if we ended up exporting more of it - that would further increase jobs to port workers.

     

    Third, if we took in all of this Canadian Oil its likely the Chinese will be left to get their oil from the Middle East - an area where we expend vast resources. We could cut those expenditures and the Chinese could deal with the mess that is the Middle East.

     

    Finally, I don't see how its ignorant to not be in favor of funnelling money to regimes that would like to destroy our country. How many billions this year will go to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the corrupt government in Afghanistan, etc? Egypt had an open election - and the people voted for a man that denies the Holocaust, openly has spoken in favor of wiping out Israel, believes women are property, and that all should live under Sharia law. While I'd agree it has little to do with the Keystone pipeline its hardly ignorant to acknowledge what is really going on in various part of the world and the beliefs of people in those areas.
    2 Feb 2013, 04:37 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (650) | Send Message
     
    Matt, I’ve spent 2 years in the Middle East and speak from experience; the vast majority of Muslims hate us. That’s not ‘ignorance’ as you put it, it is reality.

     

    Tens of thousands of US Military personnel are currently in or near the Middle East protecting US ‘interests’. Our only ‘interests’ in the Middle East is its oil; they produce nothing else. I have no doubt that tens of thousands of Americans have returned from the Middle East in body bags because of our required need to protect the oil that is vital to US economic interests. Let the Chinese start bringing their sons and daughters home in body bags.

     

    Even though this pipeline can only reduce, and not eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, it is the right thing to do. But, Obama has won reelection and it is time to double down on his previous failures. Why start creating jobs now when you won reelection with a net loss of jobs over the previous 4 years?
    2 Feb 2013, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • JohntheOld
    , contributor
    Comments (201) | Send Message
     
    Rope - have no doubt that tens of thousands of Americans have returned from the Middle East in body bags because of our required need to protect the oil

     

    While I agree with your sentiment, I think the numbers are off; if you are talking about Iraq wars.

     

    I think the pipeline will be approved, but jobs will not be bursting out all over with the approval.
    2 Feb 2013, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • macronaut
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    You've made some good points here, MJonza. I will add that while it has been suggested the US will be able to meet a much larger portion of domestic oil production requirements over the next few years, that situation most likely won't last long. Most of the new production is coming from "tight" shale accesible now due to enhanced drilling and extraction technologies. Drillers used to just go right past that stuff on the way to bigger targets, so it is not held in large resevoirs as in the Middle East or North Sea. As the old saying goes "we don't pray for rain till the well runs dry", and it will run dry faster than a jackrabbit trying to outrun the buckshot, eventually.
    2 Feb 2013, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • Matt Jonza
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
     
    First off, I am a supporter of the pipeline and I believe it should be made. That being said, I still have issues with the way Richard phrased things...

     

    Obama had a net job loss only because the economy he inherited was losing jobs faster than Kansas City Chiefs lose football games. Plus, 2.2 million jobs in 2012 wasn't too shabby. My main point was that even if passed, the Keystone pipeline will have a minimal positive effect on US employment figures (no one really knows).

     

    As for my use of "ignorant", it was probably too harsh. It bothered me that Richard was implying that Obama and his administration was handing over money to our enemies. It takes quite a bit of imagination to believe a statement like that. Second, my point was that soon it will not matter! If we make the pipeline or don't make the pipeline, we will have enough domestic production to satisfy our own consumption. We will not have to deal with the Middle East.
    2 Feb 2013, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • TAS
    , contributor
    Comments (2503) | Send Message
     
    You completely miss the point.

     

    Keystone having a minimum employment impact OVER THE NEXT CENTURY?????

     

    How daft an observation is that?
    3 Feb 2013, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • Matt Jonza
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
     
    Haha and your point is...?

     

    My point is pretty simple. If people are arguing that pipeline should be made for the purpose if job creation, they are misguided. If you are arguing that we should make the pipeline so that China is forced to deal with the Middle East for their oil soon rather than later, then you are on to something.
    4 Feb 2013, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • jasonjforrest@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    Well, the building of solar panels wasn't a disaster for Obama's backers who mostly walked away with hundreds of millions. The longer this project is delayed the more another of Obama's backers (Warren Buffet) keeps his oil/gas railroad shipping empire in heavy profits with little competition from the pipelines.
    5 Feb 2013, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • melf
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Yes the US may be self sufficient by 2025. How about 2035?
    5 Feb 2013, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • STDvooh
    , contributor
    Comments (641) | Send Message
     
    Isn't it strange that "progressives" are always standing in the way of progress?
    2 Feb 2013, 12:40 AM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    Mr. STDvooh. Great line.

     

    They also block Hope for Change.

     

    By the way, have you tried penicillin?
    2 Feb 2013, 07:32 AM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1465) | Send Message
     
    @STD - John D Rockefeller was building pipelines and fighting railroads with his oil back in 1870s...this is not progress. Conservatives are always wanting to do things "the good old way." Alternative fuels are progress...our grandkids will appreciate developing renewable energy sources, and suspect they will appreciate that more than federal debt issues.
    3 Feb 2013, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • chaz7342
    , contributor
    Comments (114) | Send Message
     
    wow these comments are so off base. The keystone pipeline will only keep the price of oil high and screw the average consumer. You guy need to open your eyes and see the big picture.
    2 Feb 2013, 01:05 AM Reply Like
  • STDvooh
    , contributor
    Comments (641) | Send Message
     
    How will a pipeline that increases the supply of oil, keep the price of oil high and screw the average consumer?

     

    The big picture is that the slim majority, that voted for the affirmative action moron, occupying the White House, screwed the average consumer, by keeping oil scarce and prices high.
    2 Feb 2013, 01:11 AM Reply Like
  • Micah
    , contributor
    Comments (483) | Send Message
     
    Your post is repulsive. Whether you voted for him or not, this is the President of the United States of America.

     

    "affirmative action moron"...We all know what you mean by this statement. I will not resort to name calling, but your veiled intentions by this statement are obvious and disturbing.

     

    "occupying the White House"...The Obama administration is the first president in history to win a majority of both the popular vote and the electoral college...twice. He did this by building a broad coalition of DIVERSE American voters.

     

    Oh yeah, and the President of the United States of Americas does not, nor is he able, to manipulate global oil prices.

     

    Go back to your bunker.
    2 Feb 2013, 07:35 AM Reply Like
  • chriff
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    i feel like this is the first time that people on this site have stood up to the bigoted, small-minded attacks on anything obama and the democrats do. nice to see this site isn't just an extension of fox news!
    2 Feb 2013, 07:48 AM Reply Like
  • BORNAGAIN2007
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    Micah ...

     

    I read your post ... one thought ... you may want to goto to the following web site and read about the man you are defending.

     

    http://bit.ly/TF4MlI
    2 Feb 2013, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • Micah
    , contributor
    Comments (483) | Send Message
     
    HaHa - a religious right website that is read by .00000001% of the angry white male population isn't going to change my mind. I prefer facts and reality. Thanks anyway :)
    2 Feb 2013, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1619) | Send Message
     
    STD, oil is not scarce in the US. We're flooded with the stuff. Bakken crude and sour oil prices are cheap. WTI and gasoline prices are another matter. We have lots of gasoline as well. $4 gasoline is not the governments doing. Have you looked at the refiners profits lately? We might as well let Transcanada build the XL, more cheap crude for the Gulf refiners who can export products at Brent prices. I believe what upsets a lot of us, myself included, is that the US consumer gets no benefit from any of this in the way of gasoline prices. We drive efficient vehicles, the US is producing huge amounts of oil, Cushing is busting at the seams and we get gasoline headed for $4. Phooey.
    2 Feb 2013, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3184) | Send Message
     
    The Obama administration is the first president in history to win a majority of both the popular vote and the electoral college...twice
    ----------------------...
    Uh, lets get some facts straight. prior to 1804 elections included both the president and vice president on the same ballot. ie - George Washington definitely got a majority of electoral votes in each election.

     

    Same is true for James Monroe - two easy wins. James Madison also had two contested but handy victories.

     

    Andrew Jackson won 56 and 55% of the vote and won easy majorities in the electoral college each time.

     

    Grant had two fairly easy victories - each time well over 50%.

     

    William McKinley won twice with over 50% of the vote.

     

    Then there was some guy named Roosevelt, Franklin that did it FOUR times.

     

    Anyone Like Ike?????

     

    Win two for the Gipper???

     

    Now would you like to change your assertion that Obama has been the only president to win the majority of the popular vote and electoral college twice????

     

    It follows the pattern though - win a Nobel peace prize before you bring any peace. Become senator and then president before you actually accomplish anything. And make up grand claims of greatness.

     

    Perhaps if we still taught actual American history in our grade schools you'd know your statement (which I'm sure you heard on tv) is simply untrue.

     

    3 Feb 2013, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS-2.0
    , contributor
    Comments (525) | Send Message
     
    Disagreeing with policy is not bigotry. People that make such unfounded accusations are an even bigger problem
    5 Feb 2013, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • chaz7342
    , contributor
    Comments (114) | Send Message
     
    the oil that will flow through the pipeline will do nothing for the supply in the US. It will be shipped out through the Gulf immediately. Its only a ploy to keep the global price of oil sky high. This whole thing is only about big oil money. That's it. It has nothing to do with what is in American's best interests for low cost energy.
    2 Feb 2013, 01:19 AM Reply Like
  • STDvooh
    , contributor
    Comments (641) | Send Message
     
    Raising the global supply of oil will lower the price of oil. Prices go up based on scarcity, not abundance.

     

    "It's only a ploy to keep the global price of oil sky high." How idiotic can you be?
    2 Feb 2013, 01:24 AM Reply Like
  • yytcheng
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    Could you elaborate on how increasing supply either to the US or the international market will lift the price? I am interested to see the big pictures here. Plus I do not believe US would give anything free. there are tons of ways to claim a share from this project imho
    2 Feb 2013, 01:39 AM Reply Like
  • macronaut
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    Well I'm from Alberta and oil runs in our veins up here. So you don't want to secure oil from a friendly democracy next door, you'd rather buy from nations that support terrorism and have a history of collusion in pricing the commodity, is that right? OK, we'll just sell it to China because at least they have the foresight to understand that securing supplies from a friendly, stable country like Canada is much better that the alternative.
    And as for your conspiracy theories about the price of oil, my advice is to spend some time developing an understanding about how the markets price the commodity via futures contracts, hedging etc.
    2 Feb 2013, 01:43 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3184) | Send Message
     
    the oil that will flow through the pipeline will do nothing for the supply in the US. It will be shipped out through the Gulf immediately. Its only a ploy to keep the global price of oil sky high. This whole thing is only about big oil money.
    ----------------------...

     

    What???? Did you attend the Obama economics lectures while he was community organizing???

     

    First, its likely it will have at least some of it sent to refineries. That might mean..... more refinery jobs.

     

    Second, by its very nature adding this quantity of oil increases the supply. Now it may be that we'll export some of it since it doesn't directly impact demand (though there are good arguements to be made that there is an indirect impact), but that would be a choice. And it will also allow us the choice to decrease our imported oil from less friendly countries.

     

    The only ploy to keep the price of oil sky high is this administration's constant effort to kill and delay this project, to find reasons to not allow fracking, and to basically funnel tons of taxpayer money to their political cronies operating "green" companies that produce even more expensive energy!

     

    Want less expensive energy - get the government out of running energy companies. Let oil and NG driller drill and produce. Spend money on pure RESEARCH and then you might find people innovating to the point where some other form of energy is cheaper than oil - at that time people will switch in droves without it costing the taxpayers a dime. Subsidies and tax breaks for favored businesses keep prices high as folks spend their time maintaining and increasing their subidy instead of innovating and inventing and improving their product/service.

     

    Unfortunately, the world doesn't work the way our community organizer wishes it did.
    2 Feb 2013, 04:55 AM Reply Like
  • rjj1960
    , contributor
    Comments (1371) | Send Message
     
    Simple, the U.S may become the worlds biggest producer but so what. If we produce 10 million barrels a day as a nation, we are using 18 million barrels currently . As of right now, we get 2 million barrels a day from Canada and the balance from all over the place. The delay on this XL only pushes the Canadians to get busy and start laying pipe both east and west. When the XL is turned down, and that is what I believe, pipelines and rail will become a boom in Canada. They need to get busy because the price difference in Brent vs WCS is killing them. Fiscal budgets are going to get cut big and that is what could be needed to wake them up as well. When a major export pipeline is complete, the solution for a very upset nation, is to ship all but 500k barrels a day to the U.S and the rest overseas for top dollar. The crazy thing is that the oilsands have less risk then drilling on the open ocean 2 miles down. Also, as years go by, I believe the technology will only get better to extract and clean up the environment . At that point, when we are gassing up at 5-6 dollars a gallon, we can thank the mindless politicians for throwing away a great deal.
    2 Feb 2013, 07:58 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1619) | Send Message
     
    Oilswell, there is nothing stopping Canada from selling to the Chinese, except that the British Columbians don't want an export terminal and the rest of the country doesn't seem to want a pipeline. And I do understand futures, swaps and hedging. I also understand income statements, like the ones from Tesoro and Valero.
    2 Feb 2013, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    The most significant impact will be to the supplier of oil coming into the gulf coast refiners. (Hugo Chavez) To me this is good sense! USA wins.

     

    The second winner will be production from ND (bakken). With increased income from sales the drillers will be investing in more production. American production, Americam markets, American profits (&taxes), American jobs (did I mention taxes?) no extra costs or goverment bailouts needed.
    We need to aknowledge right now that the price for all energies and plastics etc will be increasing in the future.

     

    This pipeline will mean that in any future supply disruptions the USA will still have access to supply.
    10 Feb 2013, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • joe kelly
    , contributor
    Comments (1799) | Send Message
     
    What constantly amuses me are the pro pipeline, drill baby drill fanatics that actually think this will make a difference. It will help TransCanada and perhaps make the supply of oil a tiny bit less volatile. But dudes, the supply is manipulated. The Canadians will no more more cut us a deal than Kuwait did after we kicked Saddam out of there.

     

    Plus, like it or not, Mideast oil is better than Canadian. Cheaper to refine. Gas won't be any cheaper. If we do get a good week or two the spigots are shut off and it's back up.

     

    The only way this or any pipeline or drill give us cheaper gas is if we nationalize the oil industry and keep what we pump here.

     

    You guys really want that? You like Hugo Chavez now?
    2 Feb 2013, 07:15 AM Reply Like
  • macronaut
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    joe kelly;
    I quote you: "Plus, like it or not, Mideast oil is better than Canadian. Cheaper to refine".
    How do you figure that? How much does it cost to ship via tanker through the Strait of Hormuz and then across the ocean to US refineries? Add to that the massive cost of providing military defense in the region to secure the supplies. The heavy crude that is shipped in the existing pipelines already has gone through a refinery upgrading to push it through the pipe, so when it arrives (securely, I might add) at the refinery, it's not much different than light crude on tankers.
    What baffles me the most is that the oilsands and much of the oil supply infrastructure in Alberta has been developed with US$ capital in conjunction with US scientific and engineering expertise, raw materials and highly skilled labor over the past 90 years. We are almost a US territory here (Calgary goes into standby mode during US civic holidays), and so I don't understand all the fuss about building a damn pipeline to ship the oil your country has spend billions developing!! This is a huge infrastructure project that will provide thousands of high paying jobs and inject billions into the GDP of both countries. Don't make no sense at all, now does it?
    2 Feb 2013, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (375) | Send Message
     
    Oilswell: The shale oil is already coming to the US via railroads (read the refiners earnings calls), and it is not going to go via B.C. pipeline to Asia anytime soon because the residents there aren't interested either. I have a Suncor refinery down the road, and they are refining oil sands product daily. If they can easily get it on the global market, prices will soar (as a Suncor shareholder, I wouldn't mind).
    3 Feb 2013, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • joe kelly
    , contributor
    Comments (1799) | Send Message
     
    Tar sand oil is dirty and corrosive as hell. Thinking it is a panacea to low oil prices is deluded.

     

    The truth is the Canadians need it far more than we do. And any jobs will be temporary and there won;t be as many as your "thousands" Oilswell.

     

    I give the pro pipeline side kudos for it's propaganda though. They have you fooled Oildude.
    11 Feb 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (11170) | Send Message
     
    Amazing how much production has gone up despite the morons in the White House pouring tens of billions into alt energy programs ran by their campaign contributors...
    2 Feb 2013, 07:34 AM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1465) | Send Message
     
    @Bret - isn't the pipeline being discussed just a shortcut? I understood Keystone is operational from Hardisty Canada to Cushing, OK, with the final leg to the coast 40% complete...why all the uproar? J D Rockefeller was building pipeline for his oil in 1870's...isn't a quest for a 21st century energy reasonable?
    12 Feb 2013, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    You oil guys have to understand that this has nothing to do with oil. The Obama reactionaries would block a new 4-lane highway. They would chain themselves in front of any private initiative. It's all about "green power" and by that I mean "red power."

     

    What's amazing is that during Malaise II they continue to get away with pretending this is a matter for the State Department of the United States which needs endless study. Mr. STDvooh put it well above. The Progressives see their job as blocking any and all development and ridding the planet of all destructive humans.
    2 Feb 2013, 07:39 AM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (375) | Send Message
     
    >It's all about "green power" and by that I mean "red power."

     

    The commies are coming to get us? Go on...
    3 Feb 2013, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    But the solar plants displace the natural desert wildlife. The windmill blades kill birds. . The wind farm in Lake Ontario is still getting hassled by the "you spoiled the lake" folks. The protests don't get that much press because there is no "big" enemy involved.

     

    Don't feel like it is only a bunch of Pipiline Bashers. Man they are everywhere.
    10 Feb 2013, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • Uncle Pie
    , contributor
    Comments (3543) | Send Message
     
    The environmentalists demonize Canada's heavy oil while the US imports 900,000 bbls/day of the same stuff from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and no one seems to notice. Does the US really prefer Venezuela to Canada as a trading partner? Is it really riskier to ship oil in a brand new, state of the art pipeline across dry land than it is to ship it across the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico in foreign flagged tanker ships of unknown provenance? Does the US really want to incentivize Canada to sell its oil to Asian markets? If you google "Graphic: Pipelines of North America" you'll see a map of the continent showing all the petroleum pipelines in place already (including a half dozen in Nebraska). You'll see that the continent is already swathed with pipelines. Anyone concerned about a pipeline leak ought to worry about the pipelines that are fifty years old before they get all worked up about a brand new one. This whole debate has now gone beyond the rational.
    2 Feb 2013, 08:00 AM Reply Like
  • amateur_investor
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    Great points UP! Now if only mainstream media would provide balanced news reporting than maybe the general public would see the whole picture (If the public was paying attention that is).
    3 Feb 2013, 06:31 AM Reply Like
  • movies555
    , contributor
    Comments (1089) | Send Message
     
    1. ) Applause for the poster who said that Canada will happy find other customers - Asia, etc. For the CNOOC/Nexen deal, CNOOC said they were trying to diversify to more "politically stable" areas. (ie, Canada.)

     

    2.) This is about helping out one big crony - IE, Buffett. Buffett has a railroad that is doing very well shipping oil. He doesn't want pipelines taking away from rail biz.

     

    3. ) "Does the US really want to incentivize Canada to sell its oil to Asian markets?" Yes. It's clear the president cares more about Buffett than he does relations with our neighbor to the North.

     

    4. ) " It's all about "green power" and by that I mean "red power."" How's that going? DOE director Chu leaving.

     

    5. ) " If we produce 10 million barrels a day as a nation, we are using 18 million barrels currently . As of right now, we get 2 million barrels a day from Canada and the balance from all over the place. The delay on this XL only pushes the Canadians to get busy and start laying pipe both east and west. When the XL is turned down, and that is what I believe, pipelines and rail will become a boom in Canada." Exactly. The Canadian Rails (especially Canadian National Rail at the moment, as Pacific has enjoyed a big run) are still going to be big stories for a while - years, even - longer.
    2 Feb 2013, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (375) | Send Message
     
    > As of right now, we get 2 million barrels a day from Canada and the balance from all over the place. The delay on this XL only pushes the Canadians to get busy and start laying pipe both east and west.

     

    Yes, because there are no Canadians opposing pipelines in their country at all, and these guys will have a pipeline to the West coast in no time...

     

    Please go look at accusations that KMP is price gouging for their pipeline to the West coast
    3 Feb 2013, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • Claude49
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Agree entirely. You are right on the mark. This will not stand.
    4 Feb 2013, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    No strategy! just tactics. Us production will increase, but imports will still be needed.
    IF the economy grows there will be huge needs. If the expected efficiencies and supplimental "green" energies contribute there will be less need. In the mean time lots of political payback and the future of the nation hangs is where???
    The simple tactic - ensure the economy does not grow. Drive the price high to "encourage" conservation. Over finance "green" projects.

     

    A real strategy -- anything else. I have great faith in the American economy but it is tough.
    2 Feb 2013, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1162) | Send Message
     
    Does anyone know how this Canadian oil will be treated under the current US crude oil export ban? Would it be excluded from the export ban since it isn't US domestic production, or just be refined minimally and then shipped out?

     

    Also, not one poster has mentioned that maybe our pals in the Middle East might be "encouraging" the US to block this new source from getting to market for as long as possible? Isn't it a fact that Middle Eastern oil producers require high oil prices to maintain their domestic social programs, much like we depend on deficit spending to maintain the military/industrial complex and food stamps, etc to maintain domestic tranquility (relatively speaking)?
    2 Feb 2013, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Micah
    , contributor
    Comments (483) | Send Message
     
    High prices compared to what? To 1980 or 2080. What if we burn all of their hydrocarbons first and save ours (Canadian) for last?
    2 Feb 2013, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2438) | Send Message
     
    Micah whats your point in this comment?
    2 Feb 2013, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1162) | Send Message
     
    Compared to what it takes to keep the non-productive/margina... percentage of a countries population fed and from becoming an angry mob - at today's prices.
    2 Feb 2013, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Johnstone20
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    The proposed Keystone Pipeline will also include a much needed segment that swings through North Dakota and picks up high quality USA sweet crude to pipe down to the refineries. It would be a huge boost to the Bakken. By the way, If we counted jobs created from or related to the Keystone Pipeline in the same loose manner that the White House counts jobs created from green energy "government investments" and the same loose manner that the White House counted jobs created from the massive government Porkulus bill, the Keystone Pipeline would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. And these Keystone Pipeline jobs are being developed with private capital, not with all the taxpayers' hard earned money.

     

    The environmentalists' claim that all the oil coming in the Keystone to American refineries will be exported out of the USA from now to kingdom come is absurd. Supply, demand, markets and political climate all change over time and certainly having more oil refined right here at home would be huge plus in the USA national security interests. For example, conditions in the Mid East could deteriorate dramatically in the next few years as Obama's Arab Spring potentially turns to Obama's Arab Winter, and importing large amounts of oil from the Mid East could become much more problematic. Were that to happen, we certainly would find it in our national security interests to export less oil.
    2 Feb 2013, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • JohntheOld
    , contributor
    Comments (201) | Send Message
     
    Johnstone20 - swings through North Dakota and picks up high quality USA sweet crude

     

    I also heard that, but wonder about it (no expert and posting to hope for some light to be shed) as 1: the tar sands from canada and the oil from the bakken are very different in viscosity (and therefore: flow characteristics)
    2: The volume of oil being carried is not enough for the Bakken or the tar sands let alone both.

     

    In a darker world filled with evil people, we would approve the pipeline and then when it is completed - nationalize it and use it for Bakken oil.
    just some sunday morning musings on the keystone...
    3 Feb 2013, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    The Bakken on ramp is for 300k BPD. With expansion to 500k BPD.
    The highest flow would not be enough to support the cost of operation. So the government might just operate it. It would lose money, provide good jobs for some supporters, and eventually be of no use.

     

    Classic governmet setup. We have been warned - thank you.
    3 Feb 2013, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • STDvooh
    , contributor
    Comments (641) | Send Message
     
    If it was a total waste of taxpayers money, then Obama would have approved it already.
    3 Feb 2013, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • Bob de'Long
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    President Obama is beginning a radical administration that border on the one where the Bolshevicks took over Russia. This is just one small part of it.
    3 Feb 2013, 06:07 AM Reply Like
  • ComputerBlue
    , contributor
    Comments (879) | Send Message
     
    Warren says keep delaying..I just bought some more rail cars. I don't want to look silly.
    3 Feb 2013, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • Johnstone20
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    Burlington Northern, Berkshire's wholly owned railroad, has seen an increase of oil shipments of 7,000% in five years. They do the most business out of the Bakken according to one article I just read here:

     

    http://bit.ly/Ubt2uy
    "BNSF Railway ships the bulk of oil out of the Williston Basin, which holds the Bakken formation. Over five years, the railroad saw oil shipments soar 7,000 percent, to 88.9 million barrels, the company reported in September."

     

    Nonetheless, I suspect Obama's refusal to OK the pipeline is more tied to his green/socialist agenda than to lobbying by Buffett. JMHO.
    3 Feb 2013, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    Build or not - the world as we know it will continue for some time. The market is smarter than the govt and will find a way. It would just be easier to have some help from our elected officials.

     

    The same with alternative energy. We do not need the govt to tell to do it. It will happen on it's own as the market places legitimate demands. Still it would be nice to have a little help here too!

     

    Does it sound like I think govt is obstructionist? Maybe.
    3 Feb 2013, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1465) | Send Message
     
    Love these comment threads...just watched History Channels "Men who built America" it is bizarre that we are still dependent on oil with the battle between railroads and pipelines...John D. Rockefeller was building his pipelines in the 1870's...GOP does like living in the past. Good thing that fracking is in the middle of nowhere, cause if it was in your backyard you'd be pitching a fit. Check out the satellite night time photo...it looks like NYC in the middle of Dakotas...flaring off enough pollution (and heating for 500,000 homes) to offset any restrictions in populated areas to address the issue. I suspect our grandchildren will be less impressed by the fed deficit discussions and more critical of air and water pollution and finding an energy source after we suck the life out of the earth.
    3 Feb 2013, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    Let them delay it for months. Who benefits most from another pipeline being built from the same place in Canada to the same terminal area in Cushing? Phases 1 & 2 saw completion of the first TransCanada pipeline in June of 2010. Phase 3, the Gulfcoast segment from Cushing to the coast in Texas has yet to be finished. The existing Seaway pipeline was running at maximum capacity, but refineries can't keep up with the pace. Yet Obama has been under immense pressure to release the money for Phase 4, the TransCanada XL. Sure, it will create jobs, just like the Jones Act was supposed to.
    3 Feb 2013, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    OBAMA IS RELEASING NO MONEY FOR THIS VENTURE!!!!!

     

    Wow do I see now how convoluted it gets when people think KXL is like a bank or car company.

     

    What Obama is being asked to do is set the regulations and get out of the way.
    10 Feb 2013, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (6810) | Send Message
     
    How many more times will the can get kicked down the road?

     

    What makes June the time to announce this? Is there any reasoning behind this decision, other than to delay the pipeline?

     

    This is a page from NY Governor Andrew Cuomo's playbook. (see fracking moratorium) Gun Control legislation gets rammed through in days and a decision on natural gas drilling takes years.
    3 Feb 2013, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • macronaut
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    deercreekvols:

     

    I will suggest that this time the can is being kicked down the road to allow for the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, to get up to speed on the Keystone issue. He can then claim that "further study" is needed (how many years of study does it take to approve a pipeline these days?) re the environmental issues and allow time for the well financed "Green" lobby to put up more road blocks.
    Meanwhile, our (Canada's) proposed pipeline route to the east coast should be well on the way to being obstructed by Quebec, First Nations land claims, tree huggers and anyone else that thinks we can perpetuate economic growth with gerbil wheels and wind power. Anyone interested in buying a slightly used electric car (can't find anywhere to recharge it on the road!), real cheap?? (hint: think cost-effective energy distribution infrastructure, Mr. Kerry)
    3 Feb 2013, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (318) | Send Message
     
    Kerry is already up to speed. This will make or break his 2012 plans. He has already counted every electoral district and will either say "he told me too" or " It is my decision" when it come to the announcement. The choice will be on percived payback.
    10 Feb 2013, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Petrarch
    , contributor
    Comments (936) | Send Message
     
    US and North American oil and nat gas production is a major geo-political black swan that by 2020 will have completely altered the world energy and political landscape.

     

    Who knows if price will rise or fall - that is speculative. What is true is that investing in energy infrastructure creates economic and strategic value for the US - similar in par to the highway system in its knock on benefits and effects. Not all is good - clearly this reinforces the fossil fuel economy but that is reality - for the next 20 years there is no better and more efficient source of energy.

     

    If Obama was a leader of any stature he would use this opportunity to change the landscape - fossil fuel infrastructure, drilling rights etc. should come at a price. The price should be a carbon and soot tax - forget cap and trade - that is just a set of subsidies and indirect. Use the market to estblish clear price signals. Eliminate green energy pork subsidies and let the market work its magic.

     

    At the same time leverage the resources to lower domestic energy costs for industry and ultimately - perhaps - impact world energy markets.

     

    By 2020 US dollar will be a "petro currency" - think of the ramifications. At the same time with an effective carbon tax and price signals - it could lead the world in green energy. Further - this tax could be used to reduce the deficit or offset other taxes and support the streamlining and mproved efficiency of the code.

     

    This or something like it - is leadership. Instead we get pandering and abdication of responsibility. We deserve better.

     

    P
    3 Feb 2013, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • amateur_investor
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    And where is the criticism and the questioning from the media? The major networks are silent. When I flip on the mainstream news such as the alphabet networks or CNN, this topic is barely even covered.

     

    I remember seeing Obama pictured standing in front of the almost completed bottom leg of the Keystone pipeline in Oklahoma declaring his support when he had nothing to do with this part of the pipeline. Disgraceful!

     

    The mainstream media continues to show Obama in good light and never criticizes. Even when the President clearly has his own agenda at the expense of the citizens.
    3 Feb 2013, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1465) | Send Message
     
    @am_inv - so you don't consider SA, FoxNews, CNBC, or talk radio mainstream &/or providing sufficient Obama criticism? (If you know of a politically centrist version of Seeking Alpha, I'd appreciate the heads up)
    4 Feb 2013, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • amateur_investor
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    I do not consider SA, FoxNews or CNBC mainstream news outlets, they serve niche markets. I believe Joe Average will turn to the major networks such as NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and I would also include CNN since they present themselves as being in the middle.

     

    If Joe Average wants opinion, then he turns to talk radio, Fox News, MSNBC, and just about any piece written on SA.
    4 Feb 2013, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4029) | Send Message
     
    CNN? In the middle? Hmmm....
    4 Feb 2013, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • amateur_investor
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    Okay...I take that one back:)
    4 Feb 2013, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1465) | Send Message
     
    All those listed should be assumed by Joe Average as "opinion." If they want the truth, they should listen to NPR.
    4 Feb 2013, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • STDvooh
    , contributor
    Comments (641) | Send Message
     
    @ berbno1: National Proletarian Radio? Where our tax dollars are wasted, on anti-American BS.
    4 Feb 2013, 09:07 PM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1465) | Send Message
     
    STDs higher in Red States?

     

    http://politi.co/XJ7NiN
    5 Feb 2013, 08:02 AM Reply Like
  • Claude49
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Yes more includes making sure the Chinese get their pipeline access
    first through Western Canada and West Coast Canada. Such is the
    trade off for our national debt with China, e.g. quid pro quo.
    4 Feb 2013, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • Claude49
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    This delay benefits the railroads, tank cars Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Berkshire Hathaway investors. Plus a lot more.
    4 Feb 2013, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2438) | Send Message
     
    Manhattan Institute for Policy Studies has analyzed safety and hazmat incident data for rail and pipeline transport of petroleum material.
    Crude and refined products transported by pipeline at 629.9 billion ton miles.
    By rail it's 23 billion ton miles.

     

    Hazmat incidents by pipeline is 20.5 per billion ton miles by rail and 0.61 incidents per billion ton miles by pipeline.

     

    There are about 500,000 miles of interstate pipelines in the US.

     

    The data is so overwhelming that pipelines haul more and are more than 20 times safer than by rail.
    4 Feb 2013, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    saratogahawk, interesting data. How many of us here will be around a hundred years from now to verify those job projection numbers? Moving this stuff from one point to the next in a safer and much more efficient way is definitely the answer. If we can't build more refineries here, then existing ones need to be able to expand capacity. Obama temporarily suspended certain protectionist tariffs during the Sandy storm to facilitate movement. Don't know just how difficult it would be to eliminate them altogether
    4 Feb 2013, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • Cogency Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    The real issue here is the discrepancy between the price of oil producers here in North America are getting between what they could get out on the 'open market'.

     

    A pipeline does not increase supply, it merely shifts profits back to producers. The keystone is not going to have a huge impact on the price of oil. It will have an impact on differentials between the different types of oil, but the average consumer does not see that price.

     

    All it will do is shift profits back to producers who have been getting crushed by having to truck, rail, barge their oil to open markets. The price at the end will stay the same because the quantity of oil supplied hasn't changed. All that has changed on the producer side is who gets the profits.
    5 Feb 2013, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • STDvooh
    , contributor
    Comments (641) | Send Message
     
    Without the pipeline, Obama supporter, Warren Buffet's railroad gets the profits. That's why the pipeline is being held up for no good reason.
    5 Feb 2013, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    There is already a pipeline from Canada to Cushing. The Keystone XL is Phase 4. Another pipeline. Cogency Investments just explained, It's a shift in profits. That's why traders were buying Brent instead of WTIC last year. Producers are going to buy whatever is most easily available at the best possible price. Even if there is a glut of oil at the Gulf, if it has to be shipped on a vessel of foreign registry, you're talking about the difference of a couple of bucks per barrel. When these ships carry half a million barrels of oil at a time, that cost is going to be covered at the pump. Your wallet.
    5 Feb 2013, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    joe kelly, didn't know the tar sands oils were that corrosive. Probably the high sulphur content. I can understand the reasoning behind the need for a second pipeline - you can't get coca-cola and tap water from the same faucet, do you know anything about expansion plans for refineries?
    11 Feb 2013, 11:23 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs