Seeking Alpha

lorneb

lorneb
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View lorneb's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Dividend Investment Opportunity Outside The U.S: The Bank Of Nova Scotia [View article]
    I believe emotion based on fear of the unknown is a factor in the prices. I see no reason to panic. In fact I believe now to be an opportune time to buy. I have added to my positions recently. The conservative well managed banking industry in Canada has proven itself in the past and I believe will continue.
    Jan 25, 2015. 12:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Canada's oil sands operators to keep production high, seeing long-term value [View news story]
    Anyone remember the panic about gasoline shortage in the early 1970's?
    How long did that last and what were people saying about its cause and effect?
    Market panic is a benefit to the investor. Just have to figure out where to look for best buys.
    Jan 13, 2015. 06:52 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • White House says Obama would veto Keystone pipeline bill [View news story]
    A pipeline is simply a conduit for the transportation of products the same as are trucking company and railroads. Their function is simply to provide a means of getting products from point of origin to the buyer. That is in the main how they make their money. They don't normally act as marketers of the product. Upon receipt of crude oil the refineries then process it into various products which they then sell to whatever markets are available to them. The refineries employ people, turn a profit and pay taxes. If these statements are true then to say crude from Alberta will be shipped offshore with no benefit to the US is incorrect. If some of the refined products are then shipped offshore that is an export benefit to the refinery and the US as a whole. Shipping processed goods out of the country benefits a country in numerous ways. I think that to suggest TRP's intent for KXL is to export Alberta crude offshore is not realistic.
    Jan 10, 2015. 02:24 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • White House says Obama would veto Keystone pipeline bill [View news story]
    Saratoga, what I expect is that writers have some logic and fact to back up their claims instead of simply presenting emotional rants. There are statements made in this string that are simply incorrect and others that are are based on emotion alone. I responded directly to a couple of those with fact.
    If one has an opinion that is fine but when one makes a statement as if it were fact that is a different situation. It is the responsibility of the writer himself to back up his claims if he can, is it not?
    Jan 8, 2015. 01:53 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • White House says Obama would veto Keystone pipeline bill [View news story]
    Read my last post.

    "this oil will not be used in the US, instead it will be shipped out into the international market"
    What authority or reliable source does that info come from?

    Read the whole string, there are emotional rants throughout.
    For example:-
    "....And because most Americans are too stupid or lazy to understand the nuance of such things, the President is vetoing it under the guise of envirornmental objections, which lazy low information voters can easily understand."
    Jan 7, 2015. 11:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • White House says Obama would veto Keystone pipeline bill [View news story]
    Show us the facts that support up your claims. So far you haven't, probably because you can't. So until you do, don't try to leave the ball in my court. I won't play your game. End of story.
    Jan 7, 2015. 08:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • White House says Obama would veto Keystone pipeline bill [View news story]
    Start with your own statement.
    "this oil will not be used in the US, instead it will be shipped out into the international market. The benefit to the US will be minimal, only jobs will be construction and the maintenance which will be minimal due to automation."

    What factual information is your statement based on?
    Jan 7, 2015. 06:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • White House says Obama would veto Keystone pipeline bill [View news story]
    I am at a loss to find words that adequately describe the unbelievable amount of unfounded drivel in this string by so many who are obviously driven by emotion and who display complete lack of concern for factual investigation before spewing out trash.
    Jan 7, 2015. 06:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • White House says Obama would veto Keystone pipeline bill [View news story]
    hat_trick3,

    The Transmountain pipeline moves product from Edmonton to Burnaby AND TO the Puget Sound region of the State of Washington, USA.

    This is not the only US company owned pipeline that crosses the US/Canada border under similar situations to that of KXL.

    It is time for you do do some research.
    Jan 6, 2015. 07:32 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • White House says Obama would veto Keystone pipeline bill [View news story]
    hat_trick3,
    See below, KMI owns KPM so -----.

    Also, all the pipes from Canada are not owned by US companies! Where do you get your thoughts from?

    Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI) owns and manages a diversified portfolio of energy transportation and storage assets. The Company operates in five business segments: Products Pipelines-KPM, Natural Gas Pipelines-KMP, CO2-KMP, Terminals-KMP and Kinder Morgan Canada-KMP. The Company through Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP) operates or owns an interest in approximately 37,000 miles of pipelines and approximately 180 terminals. These pipelines transport natural gas, refined petroleum products, crude oil, carbon dioxide and other products, and its terminals store petroleum products and chemicals, and handle such products as ethanol, coal, petroleum coke and steel. The Company is a provider of carbon dioxide (CO2), for enhanced oil recovery projects in North America.
    Jan 6, 2015. 04:31 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • White House says Obama would veto Keystone pipeline bill [View news story]
    Hat_trick3,
    How about KMI and the Transmountain pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby and beyond, do you think that is not comparable? Or how about all the smaller pipelines all over western canada that were laid by numerous USA based oil companies such as Imperial oil and others? Is thesituation not the same?
    Jan 6, 2015. 03:40 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Harper slams the door on regulating Canada‚Äôs oil and gas sector [View news story]
    goolneb,

    There is something very familiar about you're two above posts. Ah yes, now I remember, they are word for word from my post @3.51 AM on Nov.22/14 re the subject "Energy East pipeline faces new demands from Quebec". Obviously you liked what I said. Thank you for the compliment.
    Dec 11, 2014. 12:59 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Consider Canadian Banks For Your Dividend Growth Portfolio, Like Bank Of Nova Scotia [View article]
    So, Craig you wish to use the word downgrade to have one meaning only as from buy to hold or from hold to sell which is a typical interpretation in the investment world. However to change a view from positive to negative or to less positive is to downgrade ones opinion from positive to less than positive. If you consider a grade of 10 but then reduce it to a 9 or lower you have downgraded your opinion. If you say something is all good but then change your opinion to whoops let's watch out, that also is a downgrade in your feelings. Do you really think this is such an important issue that you wish to argue?

    If I were to write a detailed review for you saying why I disagree with S&P's conclusions you would then be faced with the dilemma "now there are two differing opinions each with differing but supporting arguments, which one should I believe to be most acceptable?". You would then have to do some research to determine that or hope someone else would give you reason to believe one or the other, then who of the three is right? I simply advised you to not blindly accept S&P's report and to do some research yourself. The only research you can trust is your own. It should be obvious that I disagree with S&P's opinion. It was cautionary for your benefit. Your question was typical of that which one could expect from either a beginner or a person hoping someone would give them an answer because they either don't know how or don't want to do some digging.
    Do you really want to carry this ridiculous argument further?
    Dec 5, 2014. 01:23 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Consider Canadian Banks For Your Dividend Growth Portfolio, Like Bank Of Nova Scotia [View article]
    Craig,
    Re your:-'Please indicate where I was saying that S&P's views should be "blindly accepted" or "taken on faith"!!! Also, please note that S&P did *not* "downgrade" the Canadian bank stocks; it placed them on negative watch, which is not the same thing.'
    I did not say you said "blindly accept" or "taken on faith"!! Those were my words. As for placing an entity on "negative watch", it has the same effect as downgrade.
    We can argue over semantics if you wish but the result is the same.

    I could give you detailed reasoning behind my beliefs but that would be doing nothing more than what analysts do when they give an opinion. You still have to do your own investigation otherwise you are going on "blind faith".
    Dec 4, 2014. 04:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Consider Canadian Banks For Your Dividend Growth Portfolio, Like Bank Of Nova Scotia [View article]
    I consider S&P's reaction to the subject of proposed "Bail In" provisions to be an excessive unwarranted knee jerk reaction. While it may be worthy of some consideration I cannot see it being justification for a "downgrade".

    As for S&P in general, I have over many years read a lot of their reports and tend to consider their reports as I do others, just more insight and "food for thought". By that I am not suggesting S&P's words are not of value. It is just that I don't believe from experience that I would blindly accept their views either. No matter how respected any one or any organization is there are always errors in judgement.
    I recently attended a luncheon where the topic of discussion included the Canadian banks. It is interesting how apparent experts have differing opinions about the same subject. At least I know who those individuals are and their qualifications whereas I have no idea if the S&P report was prepared by a junior or----?, nor do I know how carefully the report was vetted before publication. I generally have more faith in my own judgement after considering several points of view from numerous sources.
    I have never had reason to fear the quality of the major Canadian banks although there are some for which I have a preference.
    Please remember, my comments are only my opinion so please consider them as such.
    Dec 4, 2014. 04:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
188 Comments
255 Likes