Seeking Alpha

The recent NYT editorial calling on Pres. Obama to "say no" to the Keystone pipeline (TRP) is...

The recent NYT editorial calling on Pres. Obama to "say no" to the Keystone pipeline (TRP) is tantamount to a declaration of war of Canada's oil sands, Financial Post's Terence Corcoran asserts. "Tar sands oil should be among the first fossil fuels we decide to leave alone," the Times says. "This is war somebody is going to lose, and [the Times] has decided on Canada," Corcoran answers.
From other sites
Comments (28)
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    Except they won't be "left alone". They'll still be developed and transported over rail. Which will burn even more fossil fuels, but help Berkshire Hathaway quite a lot.
    12 Mar 2013, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (2509) | Send Message
     
    Wrong, only two railroads in Canada, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. BNSF would be a small player only and only if CNI and/or CP could not make the delivery to the refinery.
    12 Mar 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    I'll grant you the fact that I haven't analyzed how much Berkshire would benefit from the pipeline being denied. Still doesn't change the fact that the oil sands would still be exploited (as stated in the State Department report) and transported over rail which would produce more carbon than simply building the pipeline.

     

    But as usual, you don't really care about the actual effects of your policy. You just care about the vision of you standing up to big bad evil oil companies and for the environment.
    12 Mar 2013, 11:21 PM Reply Like
  • iceman321_2k2
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    How do you figure BNSF to be a small player?

     

    Bloomberg: "Burlington Northern carries about 25 percent of the oil from the Bakken, said Krista York-Wooley, the railroad spokeswoman. The company can carry higher volumes from North Dakota or Alberta, she said."
    13 Mar 2013, 01:41 AM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (2509) | Send Message
     
    That is way wrong, I favor the pipeline and I own XOM.

     

    My comment was related to your comment about Berkshire.
    13 Mar 2013, 07:24 AM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (2509) | Send Message
     
    BNSF does not go to Alberta, there are only two railroads in Canada. Take a look at a BNSF system map. http://binged.it/Yan4so
    13 Mar 2013, 07:28 AM Reply Like
  • iceman321_2k2
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    So you know the company better than BNSF's own spokeswoman? Just because they don't have a railroad that goes directly to Alberta, does not mean that can't transport commodities from it.
    13 Mar 2013, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (2509) | Send Message
     
    To transport oil you need a terminal to fill the trains, the terminals are usually built near the oil source, in this case, Canada. BNSF does not have track in Canada. The other possibility is connecting to a pipeline and as we all know, there are very few pipelines crossing the Canadian U.S border The few that do, already connect to a refinery without the assistance of rail.

     

    The only way I see BNSF adding Alberta crude to their cars, is through a joint venture with one of the Canadian rails. CNI in the last conference call stated they like carrying oil because it is long haul, in some cases from Alberta all the way to Mobile AL. So I don't think the Canadian rails are looking for partners, but may have to if they don't have lines to the right refinery.

     

    BNSF will pick up some car loads if a refinery in the West or Midwest requires some of the heavy oil (bitumen). However, the refinery will have to be calibrated for the heavy oil, not all refineries are.

     

    The big winners of the Keystone is rejected will be CNI and CP. The U.S. rails will have some benefit, but not a great impact.
    13 Mar 2013, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (239) | Send Message
     
    Thank goodness the NYT is becoming irrelevant in the world. Ever wonder why?
    12 Mar 2013, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    The problem here is that's it's not clear if this editorial was from the editorial board or just a writer or even letter to the editor.

     

    Not top of the list for news sites which goes to Yahoo!, CNN, HuffPo, The Weather Channel, Reddit, BBC, and Then NYT.
    12 Mar 2013, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    It's clear. It is purely an opinion piece. People need to learn to separate news from opinion. There is a disclaimer on op-ed articles that the ideas expressed are those of the writer.
    12 Mar 2013, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • rjj1960
    , contributor
    Comments (1370) | Send Message
     
    Wow, for over 300 years, Canada has sided with the US on just about every major national decisions and this is how you repay them. Canada, grow a pair and redirect every drop of your oil to Asia and close the valve that points south.
    12 Mar 2013, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • Philip Marlowe
    , contributor
    Comments (1067) | Send Message
     
    I've got news to you -- the tar sands oil is going offshore even if the pipeline gets built. Especially if the pipeline gets built. Have you ever wondered why they need a pipeline to go across the entire US all the way down to the Gulf coast? Has it occurred to you that places in the middle of the US might also need gasoline and might also have refineries that require oil?

     

    The reason they need to go to the Gulf coast is so that they can refine it there and ship the resulting product (low sulfur diesel) off shore. The refineries where the pipelines are going specialize in making the low emission diesel required in Europe.
    12 Mar 2013, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    Philip.... that's my understanding as well.
    12 Mar 2013, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (2509) | Send Message
     
    Wrong, the oil will go to the Gulf refineries because those refineries are calibrated for heavy oil, which is what Venezuela ships to the U.S. The mid-continent refineries have all the light sweet crude oil they need from the Bakken and other shale plays. The crude will be refined and shipped to the place it gets the best price, that is capitalism. See link which shows where all refined products goes and BTW, the U.S. has shipped refined product for years, we have the best refineries in the world.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/13Uxvre
    12 Mar 2013, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • Philip Marlowe
    , contributor
    Comments (1067) | Send Message
     
    Yes, those refineries are calibrated for heavy oil. They are also calibrated to make low sulfur diesel which is used in Europe but is not yet prevalent in the US. It is funny how selective your mind is.
    12 Mar 2013, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (2509) | Send Message
     
    Did you look at the link which showed where product is exported, if you did you would see Europe is not the big recipient of our exports, South America is. If you think low sulfur diesel is the only product those refineries will make with oil from Canada you are greatly mistaken. If you think the majority of product from the Gulf is going to Europe you are also mistaken.
    12 Mar 2013, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • Heinz Doofenshmirtz
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    The US saves the Canada Tar Sands
    But Canada scores on the rebound to China
    12 Mar 2013, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    Having mitigated the original environmental water issues I suspect they'll let this go through. Not sure meddling in Canada's policies should be our priority.
    12 Mar 2013, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (1013) | Send Message
     
    So the ignorant environmentalists running the NYT would prefer the extra emissions of trucks & trains carrying the Canadian oil instead of a much cleaner pipeline. Idiots.
    12 Mar 2013, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • Uncle Pie
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    It's bizarre that they demonize the heavy oil coming from Canada when America imports 960,000 barrels/day of the same stuff from Venezuela, and who knows what is going to happen down there.
    12 Mar 2013, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    So what's the hurry anyway??? How about this: wait 50 years, the permafrost will melt from global warming, and then they can ship it out of Newfoundland. ; )
    12 Mar 2013, 11:30 PM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (374) | Send Message
     
    Are you kidding? The tar sands is our witch. And, what do we do with witches? Burrrrn!

     

    I don't really care at this point. I already sold my rail stocks, the people of B.C. will never let this crude get to market without a fight, and I still own (SU) which will be at a disadvantage with the pipeline (but not by much). Hell, I'd prefer it if the planet were much less inhabitable by humans, so I say burn everything.
    13 Mar 2013, 01:09 AM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    This whole debate is deep into ridiculous territory
    13 Mar 2013, 01:10 AM Reply Like
  • TakeFive
    , contributor
    Comments (5204) | Send Message
     
    Has that even been platted yet?
    13 Mar 2013, 02:22 AM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (10743) | Send Message
     
    You have to ignore the Times and their far left editorial bent. Remember they won two pulitizers in 1929 and 1931 describing what a workers paradise Stalin was building in Russia, predicted the next mini Ice Age coming in the late 70's and heartily endorsed Mondale for president in 1984 (he lost 49 states). A good policy regime would do the opposite of what the Times editorials are calling for 90% of the time.
    13 Mar 2013, 07:09 AM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (799) | Send Message
     
    The NYT have some blind ideological nut bars writing for them and this article is by one of them. If they were really concerned about green house emissions, they would be writing about all the coal burning plants instead - they produce 100 times more green house emissions than the oil sands ever will.
    13 Mar 2013, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • rattar
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    Canada they should just sell it to China if we don't want it. This will help China expand Then China can loan USA more money that's the Obama way than he will raise more taxes to pay the growing debt.
    13 Mar 2013, 10:27 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector