Exxon Mobil (XOM) now says 12,500 barrels of oil and water have been recovered from a pipeline...


Exxon Mobil (XOM) now says 12,500 barrels of oil and water have been recovered from a pipeline that ruptured Friday in Arkansas. Predictably, the spill has turned into political fodder for opponents of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey says the Arkansas spill demonstrates "that transporting large amounts of this corrosive and polluting fuel is a bad deal for American taxpayers."

From other sites
Comments (91)
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4288) | Send Message
     
    Ed Markey must only use solar and wind-powered methods of transportation, I guess. Maybe he rides a bicycle everywhere he goes...
    31 Mar 2013, 04:11 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    he's a congressman so unlimited hot air (wind power) is always available.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:24 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4288) | Send Message
     
    Ah, dirigibles. The US Congress could power a nationwide fleet of those.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • Amena Holder
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    his name should be Malarkey.
    1 Apr 2013, 12:23 AM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (2076) | Send Message
     
    Thirty years ago he was on the war path against nuclear power. He is one of the main reasons why nuclear power is all but dead in this country.
    31 Mar 2013, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • George Fisher
    , contributor
    Comments (1911) | Send Message
     
    I can't wait for Ed Markey to be elected to the Senate, sitting right next to the part-Indian, Ms Warren. Ed has never seen an energy project that is not either wind or solar that he likes. And why is it that the current spill is a taxpayer event? I think the subsidies of wind is a far bigger problem.
    31 Mar 2013, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    It would be great if the energy companies refused to sell or transport any form of energy to the state of Massachusetts. then lets see how their fair citizens react.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • ACNG
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Jon,
    you're absolutely right solar and wind cannot touch natural gas.
    1 Apr 2013, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • Brett22
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    Ed Markey is a headline grabbing hack who, like other uber liberals, is anti anything fossil fuel. He was a huge supporter of battery maker A123 and look how that turned out (US taxpayers gave millions of subsidies, the company went bankrupt and then the technology was purchased on the cheap by our friends the Chinese; sounds like a great deal huh?).
    31 Mar 2013, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    You all need to go check out some of the before and after pictures of the Alberta forest that's been clearcut, burned, and dredged for tar sands extraction. It is truly sick:

     

    http://bit.ly/16qpWqT

     

    That's what this is really all about. Are we willing to pay an extra $.01 per gallon for gas to avoid environmental destruction on this level. I, for one, am. If you're not, then shame on you. There are non-monetary values in the world that are worth fighting for.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    hp

     

    you are aware that the author Larry krotz was castigated for that and other articles?
    you also might use google earth to review claims of clear cut.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Basically your saying that the Canadians aren't capable of looking out for their own natural resources.

     

    Why? Do you feel that Canadians are inferior to yourself?
    31 Mar 2013, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (972) | Send Message
     
    $.01 per gallon? Hey man, that adds up over time....
    31 Mar 2013, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Yes david, I do. I also feel that those who employ child laborers in sweatshops are inferior to myself. There are lots of unethical ways to increase profits.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    If it hurts that much, then drive a smaller car (or move closer to your place of employment).
    31 Mar 2013, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (972) | Send Message
     
    Hmmm, I think I'll just continue being inferior. Much more comfortable that way...
    31 Mar 2013, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    NYC, you can't extract the tar sands oil without a clearcut (at least, not cost-effectively). The trees are physical obstacles that get in the way. It's a process very similar to mountaintop removal coal mining, which is similarly disgusting to anyone who has actually seen the effects (and does not personally profit from it). And why would I care if the author got "castigated" for that article? I make decisions for myself, not based on the opinions of others.

     

    Bottom line? Nothing says we must extract all fossil fuels, everywhere, regardless of environmental cost. If you hate environmental regulation so, feel free to move to China (but remember to bring your own packaged food, bottled water, and a respirator).
    31 Mar 2013, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    I must have missed the child labor in Canada?

     

    What a stupid dumb statement that you feel Canadians are inferior to yourself

     

    Really pathetic.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Sam Liu
    , contributor
    Comments (3711) | Send Message
     
    "feel free to move to China"

     

    I moved over, but unfortunately, or rather, fortunately, because of visa restrictions, had to come back to the SF Bay Area, for a renewal.

     

    Better be over there and not bullied or antagonized by legal ambiguity here.

     

    One thing no matter where people are, ought to scrutinize the inputs (food, air, relationships) that are taken in.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Are we so morally relativist all of a sudden? I didn't say there was child labor in Canada. I said there were lots of unethical ways to make money. Child labor is one, tar sands extraction is another. Armed robbery would be a third. I could go on...

     

    As for Canadian inferiority, let me clarify; if you didn't vote for Stephen Harper for prime minister, I'm not talking about you. But if you did, then yes, you are morally inferior to me. Wait, you disagree? I'm shocked!
    31 Mar 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • silverscreen
    , contributor
    Comments (239) | Send Message
     
    HPBunder, it's true that some trees have to be chopped. But what you have missed is the trees are replanted after. Of course they don't show the world those pictures. Now, admittedly there is a drawback with the re-planting. The eco-system is not quite the same as it was before. It will take years before the eco-system is restored to the original state; but it's far from the gloom and doom that some extreme environmentalists throw about.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    It's all the trees that are "chopped", not some. And only about .2% of the tar sands mined so far have been reclaimed (approximately 0% of the wetlands). As for soil and water contamination, I'm not sure we really know. Stephen Harper seems about as interested in monitoring such things as the Chinese government.

     

    Anyway, this is a moral issue for many, including myself. If you're long XOM and care about nothing other than profit, then drill, baby drill! But what an empty life that is...
    31 Mar 2013, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • silverscreen
    , contributor
    Comments (239) | Send Message
     
    Not sure what you mean by "all"? They surely don't clear the whole forest! The newer fields use other techniques (steam-assisted, horizontal drilling, etc.) that have a lot smaller footprints. Like anything else, they start out crudely (puns intended), and then they refine / improve it as time goes on. I sure hope you don't use any gasoline / oil-based products for the sake of your moral hazard.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Yes, I drive a car. And yes, I will happily pay more for gas in order to leave the tar sands oil in the ground. You know what else? I made the smart decision to live close to my job, so I don't have to commute 50 miles each way. Also, I bought a sedan that gets 30 mpg, rather than an SUV that gets 12 mpg. Anyone can make such decisions. If you choose not to, then budget more for gas. Wrecking the Canadian boreal forest so you can live in a McMansion in the exurbs and drive an F-150 to your office job in the city is the true insanity here.

     

    P.S. If you're long XOM, then this spill is a lesson in what we call "political risk". Look it up.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    HP
    if you were in banking in the 80-90's in NYC you really had to live outside the city to make sure the kids got a good education. and for the same reason a smaller car was not a real choice. You might want to improve your knowledge of true cost accounting and it may
    improve your attitude for understanding that everything has monetary value.
    1 Apr 2013, 08:26 AM Reply Like
  • xomstock
    , contributor
    Comments (386) | Send Message
     
    Glad your speaking for yourself and not me.

     

    My smallest car is a half ton suburban and I like my f350 for work.
    On the beach my 87 three quarter ton fwd suburban does very well.

     

    Mileage suffers on the beach however and is about 8mpg compared to its normal 13. I live in TEXAS so that I can feel proud to own such trucks and EXXON stock. I am working so hard to help feed all the deadbeats so I kinda feel entitled to have safe large trucks for my family and since I work hard in the south TEXAS sun everyday I like to have it cold in my house when I get home.

     

    I live in a modest home at this time but only because I hate to pay property tax. By the way the ecoboost ford f 150 gets some good mileage but I will never own one just to damn small for me!

     

    You can live in the a small cold dark room and eat scraps the way Obama wants you to but for me I am going to live in the light, enjoy the fruit of my labor and live off the fat of the land the way freedom loving Americans were intended to. Keep cutting back and leave more for Me
    1 Apr 2013, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    HP
    My problem is with people who make false claims like Krotz. I've been lucky enough to travel this great land and seen West Virginia. Seeing you suggested that people read the article you should have mentioned how his claims were exaggerated (make a full disclosure)We should allow people of the area make their own decisions of whether or not to extract the fossil fuels. I would not use a writing by a guy from Toronto versus a guy from Calgary

     

    .
    1 Apr 2013, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    NYC, To cite your own example, if you're a banker in NYC with a house in the suburbs, I'm guessing you can afford gas. If you want to drive a big car, go for it (but expect to pay for your choice at the pump). As far as telling other states/provinces/count... what to do with their natural resources, that isn't really what this is about.

     

    It is entirely within the rights of Americans not to allow the Keystone pipeline. This is US land we're talking about. It is also within the rights of BC residents not to allow a new pipeline through their province, from Alberta to the Pacific coast. So while only Alberta can stop the tar sand extraction in Alberta, those who see this as an ongoing environmental tragedy are entirely within their rights (even from the perspective of diehard Libertarians) not to facilitate the process by allowing pipelines to cross their land. Are we really in disagreement on this point? Are you (or anyone else) really arguing that the US has some sort of moral obligation to facilitate the export of Alberta crude oil?
    1 Apr 2013, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    HP
    I started as a banker from 1962 as a p/t after high
    school classes, to working for various institutions until I finished the Y2K project in 1999.(less 2 years as a army draftee). I retired because of malignant cancer which I did beat. True as I rose through the ranks I could afford to drive but I mainly used public transportation most of my life in NYC metro area. . What I've seen by way of many post is the incorrect opinion that just Cda oil will flow through the keystone pipeline which is incorrect. domestic supply will add to the flow. To some extent people believe oil flows freely around. Not true
    Here is a question for everybody. Can I ship oil by tanker to NYC from Houston or Port Arthur. Now most people will say yes but they would be wrong because the US government regulations state that the oil can be sent inter-city only by US flag ships. One problem we have no US flag tankers. Therefore shipping must be to a foreign port. Some of our domestic oil producers in OK would be able to send their oil to the gulf refineries. I want people to have jobs either construction or long term. We all do better when people are employed.
    1 Apr 2013, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • George Fisher
    , contributor
    Comments (1911) | Send Message
     
    NYC,

     

    You could hire the Bouchard Transport Co to have one of their barges do the task for you, but I don't think you would like their fees because all their workers speak English. In fact there are 56 US-flagged oil tankers in service under the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920). However, there are 4,300 oil tankers worldwide which are larger than 1,000 long tons deadweight.

     

    I know of Bouchard as they were the subject of an oil spill in Buzzards Bay at the south end of the Cape Cod Canal

     

    I get your drift
    2 Apr 2013, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (12752) | Send Message
     
    Meanwhile Fisker Automotive and its $192mm loan as part of the crony capitalism stimulus package of 2009. is about to follow Solyndra into bankruptcy...
    31 Mar 2013, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • Revanche
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    Most Americans think the Keystone oil is meant for...Americans. But it's not. Its Canadian oil being piped thru US territory to foreign-flagged ships docked in Houston for use by other nations. The Keystone oil is NOT for US consumption. Building it will have no net effect on US gas prices. None. Zilch.

     

    What it will do is provide temporary American jobs (5,000 to 6,000, was the last estimate [Hargreaves, Steve (2011-12-14)]). Even more American jobs if it ruptures on American land.

     

    Of course, hard-working American landowners absolutely need to give up their land (via eminent domain) so that this Canadian oil can be shipped to China. Its a sacrifice some politicians demand of these ranchers, farmers and similar ilk.

     

    BUT the indisputable good news: if this increases the price on 'sand' oil, there would be a positive impact on the development of the industry in Alberta, Canada. So that's good for the Canadian workers who need better-paying jobs. And there's a less likely chance of a huge blow-out, because the huge existing Canadian network already means Keystone will never run more than at half capacity (which also saves TransCanada, as it won't have to pay as much for transit fees to the American landowners).[Vanderkli... (April 23, 2010)]
    31 Mar 2013, 05:34 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4288) | Send Message
     
    Eminent Domain is profitable for the land owner. They pay well above market value in most cases, and if a home or business is located in the path, it can spell big bucks.

     

    Don't nit-pick over the number of jobs it will create. The point is, it will create jobs, and those we need.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • Revanche
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    I'm not sure I am understanding you correctly...5-6k temporary construction jobs are worth anything this project requires?

     

    I realize you said don't nit-pick, but...why not? Wouldn't something of this scale and value to a foreign entity be worth 50,000-60,000 full-time jobs for the US workers?

     

    And as for eminent domain, shouldn't the seizure of land be for the common good? How does providing it to TransCanada meet that? Afterall, it's not permanent jobs being gained. And there are reduced tax incomes, because TransCanada is safe from being taxed $50 million years for 10 years. How does the one-time value (of any possible) profit outweigh the profits of successful ranching & farming and taxing of that land?

     

    I don't know: as a conservative American, it feels like big-government to have private land seized for a foreign company.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Revanche,
    I agree with you on eminent domain. Trans-Canada should have to negotiate with private land owners and pay substantial money to use their land.

     

    But in regards to the jobs, I disagree. Not only do the pipes have to be built and then installed. But they also have to then be maintained. Also, some of this oil will undoubtedly be exported. But that means additional port jobs. Some of it will be refined - thats more refinery jobs. And lets not forget that there will be levies paid which will also generate revenue for local and state governments.

     

    Beyond all of that there is the issue that Canada is one of our closest allies. Are we to turn our back on them? And then what happens - not only do they turn elsewhere but we look like a really weak ally. Other countries will have to re-evaluate their relationship with us - after all if we can't help out our closest ally on something they want to accomplish what else will we turn our back on?

     

    Alliances are two way streets.
    31 Mar 2013, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • Revanche
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    I can respect all that you said, davidbdc. In fact, absolutely...new port jobs have to be recognized. They won't be significant (much less than 6,000 by my estimation), but far from being temporary. You're right.

     

    However, the argument /for/ Keystone has not been couched in those terms you've brought up. How you've stated it seems honest and fair, but the arguments for it have been that this will bring cheaper gas prices to the US and 20,000 permanent jobs. Ok, they never actually said 'permanent' but the recipients of the pro-Keystone message, hungry for more US job growth, believe it to be implied. That's the important thing: let's promote it as something the US owes Canada as an ally by many definitions. Let it be understood Americans are expected to sacrifice to provide this service/support.

     

    I just don't accept that raising real issues could be at all conceived as anti-American (and I'm not accusing you of this) . It's simply proper American responsibility to question why big government needs to blunder in and seize lands, withhold income and affect the regional environment without demonstrating the common good. Federal government not providing common good is not good government. It just reeks of cronyism and corruption at the expense of multiple individual American families.
    31 Mar 2013, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • Ray Merola
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    The Keystone pipeline would provide many thousands of skilled American jobs. It would also provide transportation revenues to ancillary pipelines for years to come. The project would de-bottleneck Cushing, OK. The reason West Texas intermediate is lower priced versus Brent is largely because of that bottleneck. The Keystone pipeline would offer Canadian crude to American refineries. It would also provide transportation for U.S.-origin Bakken crude.

     

    Having worked for many years in the hydrocarbon pipeline business, I used to say, "Pipelines cannot control end markets, they can only serve them."

     

    Energy finds its way to user markets. One way or the other.

     

    31 Mar 2013, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (1347) | Send Message
     
    So you're against jobs?
    31 Mar 2013, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    We're Canada's ally, so we have to have their pipeline run through our country? What a joke.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • Sam Liu
    , contributor
    Comments (3711) | Send Message
     
    "We're Canada's ally"

     

    USA or Cn?

     

    I remember in 1994, watching Vancouver TV. There were public service advertisements that Canada was proud to be the sister country of Cn.
    31 Mar 2013, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    Revanche
    Phase 3

     

    This phase, known as Cushing MarketLink, is part of the Keystone XL pipeline. This proposed phase would start from Cushing, Oklahoma

     

    where domestic oil

     

    would be added to the pipeline, then it would expand 435 miles (700 km) to a delivery point near terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace
    Also proposed is an approximate 47 miles (76 km) previous pipeline to transport crude oil from the pipeline in Liberty County, Texas to the Houston, Texas area.[1][39] Domestic oil producers in the USA are pushing for this phase so the glut of oil can be distributed out of the large oil tank farms and distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma
    1 Apr 2013, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (8668) | Send Message
     
    Here is a different take on this:

     

    Let taxpayers decided what is a good deal and what is a bad deal FOR THEMSELVES!

     

    This is all Mayor Bloomberg needs to be his next "I know what is best for you because I am a billionaire" campaign.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Bloomberg is right on so far. If I'm paying for your Medicaid-funded diabetes treatment, I don't want you spending your food stamps on soda. Sorry, but you surrender some freedom when you sign up for government benefits.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • Sam Liu
    , contributor
    Comments (3711) | Send Message
     
    "Surrender some freedom when you sign up for government benefits."

     

    not SSI.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Problem is he wants to take freedoms from everyone!
    31 Mar 2013, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (1347) | Send Message
     
    Well, I'm paying for your defense and I don't agree with much of anything you say. So, should you be left undefended?
    31 Mar 2013, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Yes! I will happily furlough all the US military assets currently assigned to my protection. I am willing to risk invasion by the combined forces of Canada and Mexico. As an aside, I assume that I am now free of paying taxes toward the defense budget?
    31 Mar 2013, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    The one place where we might agree, david, is on gun control. I think Bloomberg is purely nutty on that issue. But heck, if you want a 32-ounce soda at a restaurant, you can still have it! Just order two 16-ounce sodas. Is it really so hard?
    31 Mar 2013, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4288) | Send Message
     
    Costs more. Generates more taxes. Inconvenient. Why should anyone have to?

     

    Typically restaurants have free refills, anyways. As someone who works out of a van, why should I be inconvenienced and have to buy three sodas in separate cups after a particularly hot, sweaty job in July? Just because some jackass is on some kind of personal crusade to "save the people"?

     

    Bloomberg is an idiot who thinks he knows what's good for people. You pointed it out yourself - just buy more. People will, and it will do nothing but cost them more money and raise more revenue for an already bloated government.
    31 Mar 2013, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    I think you're wrong John, empirically that is. A lot of people consume food and drink on a subconscious level, which is to say, they just finish off whatever is on their plate or in their glass. Give them less, and they'll eat (or drink) less. This isn't about actual hunger (or we'd have no obesity); just a reflexive desire to consume what we see in front of us. So it really does reduce consumption to reduce allowed portion sizes.

     

    But hey, it's a democracy. If you live in NYC and you don't like Bloomberg, vote him out (actually, I don't think he's running again). Call the next mayor and tell him you want access to 96-oz. sodas. Heck, why not gallon jugs? Never mind that cold tap water will quench your thirst much, much more efficiently than carbonated corn syrup (also known as soda).
    1 Apr 2013, 02:21 AM Reply Like
  • Sam Liu
    , contributor
    Comments (3711) | Send Message
     
    aren't there 2-liter bottles of soda at the supermarket ...

     

    or were they banned too?
    1 Apr 2013, 02:26 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    HP

     

    bloomberg 30 years ago had some great ideas. Today Nanny B
    is a joke. What percentage of diabetes treatment will be given to people who never drink soda. He also forgot to address where most sodas are bought. Your trying to argue a cause and effect which has no science to it.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    HP
    On the other side I would be prepared to use the Darwin method toward ALL SOCIAL programs. I assume in 36 months we would have
    a 60% reduction of population. I assume you would not be paying taxes but odds are you wouldn't be around either.
    I can make ridiculous post also.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    NYC, I'm sorry to see you reduced to ad hominem attacks. I have never taken a dollar of government funding for anything (save my elementary and high school education), and I'm quite confident that I would survive the ending of government wealth redistribution programs. Bring it on.

     

    Here's what you Libertarian types don't understand. Medicaid and its like are here to stay. Like it or not, there are more than enough voters to keep these programs around. The question is whether it makes any sense to have taxes cover food stamps, those food stamps be used to buy soda, the soda (and other unhealthy foods) cause obesity and diabetes, and then much, much more taxpayer money be used to cover the resulting health care costs. That is true madness.

     

    So I'll make all you Libertarians out there this deal: get back to me once you've ended Medicaid, and I'll use all the lobbying clout at my disposal to convince Bloomberg to roll back his anti-soda crusade. Until then, I wish him all the best.
    1 Apr 2013, 04:59 PM Reply Like
  • Hillbilly Stock Star
    , contributor
    Comments (743) | Send Message
     
    STR had some problems like 1980's ish, the way I recall, from 1950's ish pipe, they dug up entire line put in state of the art pipe. Lesson is if you screw-up fix entire system.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Ok, tell me this conversion of pristine forest into blasted hellscape is worth it:

     

    http://bit.ly/XRq9xH

     

    And yes, I do feel superior to Alberta residents. I also feel superior to the Taliban. I do not believe that any person has the right to inflict ecological damage on this scale in pursuit of oil (or anything else, frankly). Regardless, the US has no obligation to facilitate the process by allowing the pipeline to run through our land.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    Those are some horrific photos HP. Reminds me of the Mt St Helens blast and Tungusta. Of course, man has shown himself to be a destructive lightweight compared to nature. Meanwhile, termites are eating my house, the thunderstorms are flooding my street and hailstones have dented thousand of cars in my city. I'm not getting too worked up about it though, I have my eyes glued to the skies. One of these days a big meteor or comet will obliterate everything except my mile deep bunker where I have stashed plenty of food, water and DVDs. Ed Markey is providing an unlimited supply of tax payer funded clean energy powered by ... Oh well is doesnt really matter. When I run out of gold and ammunition, I'm going to my local WalMart. They have everything you need to survive the end of the world.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Everyone should have a secure bunker loaded with food and ammunition (I'll admit to not having built mine yet). But good news! There's lots of newly excavated, formerly forested land in Alberta, just waiting to be claimed by bunker-builders. The bad news? The topsoil is gone, the water will be toxic for a generation, and aboveground the view is not exactly pretty.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    At least you're starting to look at the bright side. There is no need to reclaim the land. Just sell lots to the bunker builders. Pretty views are so overrated.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • BILL KENNEDY
    , contributor
    Comments (95) | Send Message
     
    HPB: Roger the food and ammunition. I am a partner in nearly 500 acres of timber in the southeast US. It is about to be harvested for the third time in my life ( 64 ). This is MY land, land that has belonged to my family for nearly 180 years, and I assure you nobody is going to be allowed to do anything that harms it so long as my name is on the deed. I just signed a conservation easement with the Nature Conservancy for protection of a river designated "scenic" ( Duck, Tn.). that protects a 300 ft. boundary out from the average low water mark. This is, essentially, forever and I did it gladly.
    Now....clearcutting is a technique used in the proper management of hardwood forests. In the name of brevity I'll spare you the explanation but I can give it to you if you like. This isn't to say clearcutting can't be or hasn't been abused but the point is forests and trees, like people, are born, mature and die. A tree or a forest can be cut and reappear tall, green and healthy in just the same place or elsewhere a generation later.
    Mr. Markey's green is phony as can be. Mine's real.
    Cordially
    31 Mar 2013, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Bill, It's good of you to leave a forested area adjacent to the river, and to place a conservation easement over the land. But there is a big difference between the clearcutting you describe, and tar sands oil extraction. For one thing, to recover tar sands oil, not only the trees, but also the topsoil is removed. The land is left utterly barren. It will be many generations before that land is what it once was, and some of the soil and water contamination will last far longer than that. This is essentially stripmining, but for oil rather than minerals. And all so we can keep gas prices just ever so slightly lower than they would otherwise be.

     

    If Canada is determined to extract this oil, we in the US can't stop them. But we can deny them a pipeline outlet through the US, which will make transport of Alberta crude more expensive, the end result being that some marginal projects will not go forward at all. Hopefully, the residents of British Columbia will likewise prevent new pipelines from running through their province. Let the Alberta crude be trapped in Alberta. I believe we have a moral obligation to make tar sands extraction as unprofitable as possible, just as we (rightly) prohibit imports of tiger skins, elephant tusks, and "blood diamonds" from Africa.
    1 Apr 2013, 12:02 AM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (1347) | Send Message
     
    "I believe we have a moral obligation to make tar sands extraction as unprofitable as possible" - lol
    1 Apr 2013, 12:14 AM Reply Like
  • BILL KENNEDY
    , contributor
    Comments (95) | Send Message
     
    HPB:
    Yes, it is different but altogether too many urbanites (think most) don't know that. If I described the difficulty in making this point to that group I don't know that you would believe me. Though you know the difference just reading what you posted didn't really make the distinction for those that don't know....or choose not to.
    The area where I live is also rich in phosphate ore. Well before WW 2 extensive mining for the ore started and it continued into the 1990's. This was for all practical purposes strip mining and it did all the things to the land you described in the recovery of tar sands oil. If I took you to some of the areas that were mined early you would still see a landscape that looks like the battlefield at Verdun churned by thousands of high explosive rounds now covered with vegetation but still showing the effects some 75 years later. I do not doubt that this caused localized environmental problems at the time but it has healed. If I took you to places where the ore was mined during the last half or so of the mining period you wouldn't believe me because it looks just as the rest of the area does. It may even be covered with walnut,maple and cherry timber. The land was restored and fairly quickly was healthy enough to produce healthy hardwoods.It takes about 35 years plus or minus in the area for hardwoods to grow to maturity and many of these restored areas have mature timber on them. Think furniture,expensive furniture.
    I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything about the tar sands mining process but I'll wager 500 rds. of 223 ammunition and 90 days freeze dried food for your future bunker that the land can be restored in Alberta, given the will, to produce anything it would have produced prior to mining operations and that it can be done relatively quickly and economically.
    If I lose this bet you have to promise not to tell Mr.Holder before I send you your stuff.
    Cordially
    1 Apr 2013, 01:54 AM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    That it is theoretically possible to reclaim a strip-mined forest, I have no doubt. That it would be done in Alberta, under prime minister Stephen Harper's administration, I doubt very much. If you don't know what this guy's about, allow the Toronto Star to fill you in:

     

    http://bit.ly/YN4ydd

     

    He has gutted every environmental law in Canada, and defunded all the enforcement agencies. So do I trust that he will ensure the restoration of tar sands extraction areas to their original state (wetland/forest)? In a word, no.

     

    P.S. Don't worry about the ammo. Liberal on the environment I may be, but I'm a registered Republican and no fan of Eric Holder...
    1 Apr 2013, 02:07 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    HP
    nice pictures. too many duplicates for me.

     

    They remind me of the pictures of what NYC central park looked like during its construction in the early days. I however remember the softball games I played their for thirty years or the ice skating
    at the rinks in the winter. Its a wonderful park for everyone.
    Now I can't say that they will reclaim those areas in 50 years but I
    have been to many areas in "coal country" that have been reclaimed.
    1 Apr 2013, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    bill
    HP and obama probably believe you stole the land from the natives How could you be expected to take care of the land. As a kid, the only place you could find a tree was in a city park. I'm 66 and have seen many of the wonderful parts of this country and most want it protected.
    1 Apr 2013, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    NYC, you need to read up on Canada's current prime minister, Stephen Harper, and his crusade against all things environmental (even presumably taxpaying salmon fishermen who don't want their livelihoods ruined by logging and tar sands runoff; Harper favors business, but only business that wrecks as much of the land as possible). Trusting that guy to ensure that Alberta tar sands are properly "reclaimed" is like trusting Planned Parenthood to end abortion.
    1 Apr 2013, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • BILL KENNEDY
    , contributor
    Comments (95) | Send Message
     
    NYCTEXASBANKER:
    Yes, it's a surprisingly, at least to me , common sentiment thus my comment about urbanites. Even one staffer at the Nature Conservancy expressed it. Fortunately that wasn't the attitude of the organization at all. As my state fills with people fleeing the north east and California we see more and more of the resentment you refer to.
    I wonder what it would look like after a generation if "they" were made stewards of what they think I own illegitimately.
    Regards
    2 Apr 2013, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    HP
    I couldn't care less about Canada and Alberta
    I have enough worries with the dimwits in DC.
    In my old state NY the clowns wanted to show
    how in tune they were for gun control, they had to amend
    the law the following day because 99% per cent of
    the cops carried guns with more bullets than allowed.
    I'm all for reasonable regulations but the clowns of all
    the governments either write bad ones or don't enforce good ones.
    2 Apr 2013, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    Bill
    Although I'm no where near a tree hugger, I guess the lack of trees in my early childhood gave me a respect for the land which I have successfully passed to my kids. We recycled since I was a teenager.
    My parents taught me before you throw something out see if it can be used by another. Its a simple rule most forget.
    For most people from NYC the greatest gift we gave ourselves is Central Park, in an average week it gets more visitors than most of the states have populations.
    2 Apr 2013, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • Johnstone20
    , contributor
    Comments (101) | Send Message
     
    Newflash to Ed Markey: Unlike he and Obama's numerous green energy boondoggles, taxpayers are not funding the Keystone Pipeline, but all American citizens, taxpayers and non taxpayers alike, will be paying through the nose for much higher priced energy if Ed Markey's cap and tax bill is ever passed.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • George Fisher
    , contributor
    Comments (1911) | Send Message
     
    HP,

     

    That's ok because Pres Obama is on the verge of issuing another executive order. This one demands all federal permits not only require an environmental impact study of the project itself, but add another environment impact study on the world's climate change. For instance, a coal export permit will include both an environmental impact study of the port facilities but also the global impact of burning coal by its clients, such as China. I would expect the "climate change" study of the pipeline in the USA to include the impact of mining the oil sands in Canada.

     

    This world just gets more and more loony.(no pun intended with the Canadian currency)
    http://seekingalpha.co...
    31 Mar 2013, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    This is good news indeed. Someone has to serve as a counterweight to nutjobs like Canada's Stephen Harper. Again, if you want to live in a country devoid of environmental regulation, China's your place. It's right across the Pacific, and on a good day, you can almost swim through the urban smog and walk across the sludge-covered rivers. Have fun!
    31 Mar 2013, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • Buddy Canuspare
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    HP,
    But what about those cheap iPhones?? We've got to have cheap toys from China! Who cares about environmental damage (or child labor for that matter) when set against how much an American-made iPhone would cost! After all, as another comment mentioned, even $0.01 per gallon - or $1.00 per iPhone - adds up.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Given the current state of urban air pollution, water contamination, loss of arable land, etc. in China, perhaps the Chinese are having some second thoughts about those cheap iPhones too. Luckily for them, they are freed from the burden of democracy (no Obama-style environmental extremists over there!), and so can relax, knowing that not a penny of GDP will be sacrificed in the name of nutty ideas like breathable air or drinkable water.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • Sam Liu
    , contributor
    Comments (3711) | Send Message
     
    " breathable air or drinkable water."

     

    Read an article that there are environmentalists in the CCP, just that is not measured as economic growth so it is not very appealing to pursue.

     

    Shanghai is a lot better than Beijing. Lots of filters for the water.
    31 Mar 2013, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • Johnstone20
    , contributor
    Comments (101) | Send Message
     
    I see. Obama wants to unilaterally expand the powers of his Employment Prevention Agency, otherwise known as the EPA.
    31 Mar 2013, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • George Fisher
    , contributor
    Comments (1911) | Send Message
     
    You were forewarned:

     

    2013 State of the Union: " But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. (Applause.) I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."

     

    http://bit.ly/Ns67Va
    31 Mar 2013, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • Sam Liu
    , contributor
    Comments (3711) | Send Message
     
    When Jp or Kr were the world's manufacturer, how was environmental standards upheld?
    1 Apr 2013, 12:32 AM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Why exactly is the EPA so threatening to some people? It doesn't do nearly enough, and the only "employment" it prevents is at the extreme margin in a handful of dirty industries (largely mechanized and employment-light in the first place) that make up a tiny portion of our services-based economy. In return for this insignificant reduction in GDP, we get to have at least a little faith that, for example, our drinking water won't give us cancer.
    1 Apr 2013, 02:11 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    j 20
    thanks
    I never heard of the epa that way
    1 Apr 2013, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    HP
    assume the epa closed down those industries how many people would become unemployed? Give a specific number

     

    you sound like the clown from Massachusetts who was all for the upping of the state minimum wage. only to see over 40% of the teenagers loose their jobs. Giving kids jobs teaches respect and responsibility.
    he also wonders why crime went up in some areas.
    1 Apr 2013, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    NYC, you seem confused so let me help. I'm not an economic liberal. Throwing out all this crap about liberal economic policies is entirely irrelevant. This idea that if I favor environmental regulations, I must also be a communist is purely ridiculous.

     

    Regarding the EPA, they have never closed down an industry, ever. They regulate industry (though not enough). We still have logging, mining, drilling, all that good stuff that you love so much. Anti-environmentalism, including hatred of the EPA, is nothing more than a religion for rightwing nutjobs.

     

    You want to improve the fiscal health of this country? Slash defense spending, end farm subsidies, cut Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI. That's where the money is. Ending the EPA tomorrow wouldn't add 1/10 of a percent to GDP, unless you counted the surge in health care spending caused by the resulting spike in pollution (again, may I direct you to the anti-environmental utopia that is China).
    1 Apr 2013, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • BuildingBlocks
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    I am for the energy companies to do what they do while preventing environmental destruction. How to do that is another question.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • rogerp
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    It is my understanding that any and all oil from the Keystone Pipeline gets shipped overseas. We don't use it ourselves. So the argument that this would make Oil cheaper for us is very misleading and not correct. It would benefit big oil and not the people of the united States.
    Wake up everybody.
    1 Apr 2013, 12:33 AM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (217) | Send Message
     
    Correct rogerp, but it's hard to make the "drill, baby, drill" folks understand that. You tell them "it's a global oil market; increasing North American production by 5% does not drop North American prices by anything close to that amount" but they refuse to understand. Oil is a fungible commodity. If the price in the US drops significantly, then oil moves overseas. There is a marginal cost to tanker transport, but currently the shipping market is glutted with excess capacity and rates are highly favorable for the oil companies.
    1 Apr 2013, 02:16 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    rogerp
    Phase 3

     

    This phase, known as Cushing MarketLink, is part of the Keystone XL pipeline. This proposed phase would start from Cushing, Oklahoma
    where domestic oil would be added to the pipeline
    YES READ AGAIN
    WHERE DOMESTIC OIL WOULD BE ADDED TO THE PIPELINE.
    , then it would expand 435 miles (700 km) to a delivery point near terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.[1]

     

    Also proposed is an approximate 47 miles (76 km) previous pipeline to transport crude oil from the pipeline in Liberty County, Texas to the Houston, Texas area.[1][39] Domestic oil producers in the USA are pushing for this phase so the glut of oil can be distributed out of the large oil tank farms and distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.
    1 Apr 2013, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • mpbosua
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    No crude oil is exported from the US. The US is a net importer and will be after the Keystone XL pipeline is built. The crude will be refined in the US into finished products. Those finished products are and will be exported after value added through the US manufacturing process. This creates US manufacturing jobs, lowers our trade deficit and strengthens the US dollar. This is already occurring in the US, and has contributed significantly to the recovery, additional manufacturing jobs, and strengthened US dollar.
    2 Apr 2013, 01:14 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    mpbosua

     

    sorry, but you have been misinformed as the USA has sent crude on a spot basis for 20 years and on a contract to Canada.
    The following is from Platts (mcgraw-hill)

     

    US sends oil exports to China for first time since 2005: EIA

     

    London (Platts)--28Mar2013/550 pm EDT/2150 GMT

     

    The US exported crude oil to China for the first time since November 2005 in January, according to data the Energy Information Administration released Thursday.

     

    US crude oil exports to China averaged 9,000 b/d in January, the EIA's data showed, representing 12.3% of the US's total crude exports.

     

    The other 87.7% of US crude oil exports -- 64,000 b/d -- was sent to Canada.

     

    January's crude shipments mark the first significant exports not bound for Canada since Costa Rica received 334,000 barrels of US crude in July 2011, EIA data shows. Mexico received 5,000 barrels in May 2012. This marks the first shipments to Asia since September 2006 when 24,000 barrels were exported to South Korea.

     

    Exports of crude oil have been heavily regulated in the US since the oil embargo in the 1970s. Monthly crude exports ticked up through much of the 1980s and 1990s, but fell back sharply in 2000.

     

    Between 2000 and 2008, US crude oil exports were negligible. However, exports -- primarily to Canada -- have gradually moved up as domestic production has boomed.

     

    In January, US crude oil production stood at 7.005 million b/d, down 59,000 b/d from December's 7.064 million b/d, but still at levels not seen since 1992.

     

    --Paula VanLaningham, paula_vanlaningham@pla... --Edited by Carla Bass, carla_bass@platts.com
    2 Apr 2013, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • mpbosua
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    NYC Texas Banker,
    I stand corrected but it is nitpicking as less than 1% of the crude oil produced in the US is exported. We are and will be a net importer.
    Crude oil exports are restricted to: (1) crude oil derived from fields under the State waters of Alaska's Cook Inlet; (2) Alaskan North Slope crude oil; (3) certain domestically produced crude oil destined for Canada; (4) shipments to U.S. territories; and (5) California crude oil to Pacific Rim countries.
    If you look at Petroleum Products Export Charts (http://1.usa.gov/13QHzT1). You will see that my statement on the increase in Finished Products exports is correct and that is my main message.

     

    Bringing Canadian Oil into Beaumont, Texas, and all the other refineries along the Keystone XL route will create jobs. Nearly all the majors have record capital budgets to expand refinery capacity in Beaumont to refine Canadian Crude. There is not a plan nor desire to export crude oil. Natural Gas now that is a different story .
    3 Apr 2013, 05:55 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    mpbosua

     

    I agree that in the world of oil its small but its between 1 and 3 billion
    a year in revenue. Back in the early 80's when Sunoco bought a Philadelphia refinery from a Dutch company, the head guy for Sunoco on the transaction said to me "kid invest in businesses that own refineries because no ones going to build a new one for 25 years". As a young banker with a HS diploma because I was drafted out of college and never got back. I ran with that information and now my portfolio has more than a dozen
    companies with refiners. I also agree with you on the export of natural gas. my portfolio ranges over good and bad as I had XTO (NOW XOM) and CHK ,SD
    3 Apr 2013, 08:27 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