Obama blocks Keystone pipeline

[Richard L]

The announcement this week by President Obama accepting the State Department's recommendation to reject the Keytone Pipeline project, understandably has many interested parties angered and baffled.



Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post said today that "rejecting the pipeline is an act of national insanity." Energy interests want it built. Unions want it built. State officials from Nebraska to Texas want it built. Americans who want relief from staggering unemployment want it built.



Samuelson argued that it's an election year and someone apparently believes the environmentalists should be placated, at least until the election is behind us. "So the sop tossed to the environmentalists could be temporary. The cynicism is breathtaking."



According to Bloomberg News, in a phone call yesterday between Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the president of the U.S., Haper told Obama Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports." While 99 percent of Canadas crude exports go to the U.S., that figure could be reduced if Harper succeeds in transforming Canada into a superpower in global energy markets.



The decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market, Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.



While the "shovel ready" Keystone project is stalled, some in Congress are already working to circumvent the decision and its inherent delays.



Additionally, TransCanada said it is now considering moving forward by building the U.S. portions of the Keystone XL pipeline and later seeking approval of the critical Alberta link to circumvent the Obama Administration's rejection of the $7 billion project.



TransCanada may develop a segment between the over-supplied oil hub of Cushing, Oklahoma and Gulf Coast refineries in Texas, as well as a longer line fom Montana to the Gulf Coast, according to the Calgary Herald.



The Herald reminds us that "There is no requirement for a presidential permit to lay pipe anywhere in the U.S. providing the line doesn't exend across th border into Canada." TransCanada would later apply for a presidential permit to link the line with the oil sands in Alberta and complete the Keystone XL pipeline as originally envisioned.



TransCanada's CEO Russ Girling also said that the new application for presidential approval would include the detour in Nebraska around ecologically sensitive areas that has already been approved by the Nebraska legislature.



Where there's a will, there's a way. You can bet on it, especially when there's $7 billion at stake.

I don't think Congress will be so willing to compromise next month after Obama renigged on his promise to hold meeting to evaluate the Keystone Pipeline project. Next month Obama will want Congress to extend the budget for another 2 months, but I doubt that will fly this time. So it sounds like the governement will be shutting down, and Obama will play politics and blame the Republican controlled Congress.



...Rich

 

[TrainTrac]

Nothing more than election year pandering by the President to his far-left, environmental extremist base. Guess he values their votes & support more than all of the support (especially money) that he's received from unions.



Very sad indeed. This would've created thousands of American jobs and probably brought down gas prices just by announcing the approval of the pipeline.



Here's another thought to ponder: Guess who will be a big benefactor of this idiotic decision? Billionaire and big Obama supporter/donor Warren Buffett; who also just happens to own the BNSF railroad. With the pipe project scuttled, the oil will have to be transported by rail.

Billionaire Buffett's Bakken Boom



Posted 11/16/2011 05:27 PM ET



Energy Policy: Killing the Keystone XL pipeline may help one of the world's richest men get richer. North Dakota's booming oil fields will now grow more dependent on a railroad the president's economic guru just bought.



Stop us if you see a pattern here. About the time George Soros Hungarian billionaire and key donor to leftist groups and the Democratic Party invested heavily in the stock of the state-run Brazilian oil company Petrobras, President Obama was curbing U.S. offshore oil production and the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced a $2 billion loan to Petrobras to finance deep-water drilling off the pristine beaches of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.



As he was imposing curbs and moratoria on U.S. offshore drillers, President Obama wished the Brazilians well in the hope we would someday be Brazil's best oil customer.



Apparently, oil tankers coming from Brazil are better and safer than a pipeline from Canada, whose best customer we will not be if they ship their tar sands oil to China instead.



Interestingly, another billionaire, Obama economic inspiration Warren Buffett, stands to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline delay.



As oil production ramps up in the Bakken fields of North Dakota, plans to use the pipeline to transport it have been dashed.



As a result, North Dakota's booming oil producers will have to rely even more on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which Buffett just bought, to ship it to refineries.



Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe in a deal valuing the railroad at $34 billion. Berkshire Hathaway already owns about 22% of Burlington Northern, and will pay $100 a share in cash and stock for the rest of the company.



North Dakota vaulted past Oklahoma and Louisiana in 2009 to be the nation's fourth-largest oil producer after Texas, Alaska and California.



Rail shipments accounted for up to 65,000 of the nearly 343,000 barrels of oil produced daily in North Dakota in December. That percentage is likely to increase.



Many of the rail shipments from the Bakken fields are being handled by BNSF Railway Co., which has more than 1,000 miles of tracks in the region.



Michael Bruce, the railroad's business development director, said BNSF could ship up 730,000 barrels of crude daily out of North Dakota "contingent on facilities being built."



North Dakota pumped a record 113 million barrels of oil in 2010. State officials estimate the state will produce 700,000 barrels daily in four to seven years.



Not only is BNSF shipping oil out, but construction and drilling materials in. BNSF says each drill rig and new well site in North Dakota require about two dozen railcars of materials for construction.



Construction of a Canadian pipeline west to send Canadian oil to China is a daunting task, as it would have to cross the Canadian Rockies. Coupled with the Keystone XL pipeline delay, any tar sands oil sent south would likely be shipped in BNSF railcars.



So far the environmentalists who worried about the Ogallala aquifer being polluted by pipeline leaks have said nothing about the increased risk of derailed railcars filled with crude or the pollution the trains will spew as they chuff down the tracks.



But then the Occupy Wall Street crowd has nothing to say about billionaires, members of the 1%, benefiting from Obama's energy policies, which have killed tens of thousands of jobs for the remaining 99%.



The Bakken oil boom speaks volumes about the potential economic benefit of ending restrictions on domestic and offshore development.



That, coupled with the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, would create a North American economic boom that would make OPEC literally pound sand.



It is the American people who should benefit from our government's energy policies, not just billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffett.



<a href="http://news.investors.com/Article/591960/201111161727/Billionaire-Buffetts-Bakken-Boom.htm">Billionaire Buffett's Bakken Boom</a>

 

[Bo Loo]

Obama must not have conducted inside trading on the companies that will benefit from the pipeline like its' biggest advocate, John Boehner.



"...according to Boehners financial disclosure forms, he invested $10,000 to $50,000 each in seven firms that had a stake in Canadas oil sands, the region that produces the oil the pipeline would transport. The firms include six oil companiesBP, Canadian Natural Resources, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Devon Energy and Exxonalong with Emerson Electric, which has a contract to provide the digital automation for the first phase of a $9.4 billion Horizon Oil Sands Project in Canada.



Bill McKibben, a climate activist and co-founder of the group 350.org, wrote in an e-mail that Boehner has received more than $1 million from fossil-fuel companies, and now we find out that hes got extensive personal investments in companies dependent on tarsands oil.



He was willing to shut down the government in part to prevent enough time for serious environmental review, McKibben added. In any other facet of our public life .&#8201;.&#8201;. this whole list taken together would be seen for the gross conflict of interest that it is.

 

[TrainTrac]

Is what Boehner did illegal under current law? If not, then so what? If it is illegal, then it should be handled accordingly.



As for "enough time for serious environmental review", it's not like this project just popped up in the last few months. It's been in the works for quite some time, so studies have likely been conducted. Not only that, but there are already thousands of miles of oil pipeline running all over the U.S., so I think that it's safe to say the "environmental impact" of such a project is pretty much established and known.

 

[H D]

So Boehner invested in firms that invest in the biggest oil companies in the world...and that's insider trading? Give me a break. Think about what he actually did for a second and then let me know what was "insider." He must have had a big secret revealed to him that oil is commanding high prices. :bwahaha:



Every company is dependent on oil. I don't follow the logic.

 

[TrainTrac]

Every company is dependent on oil.

Exactly. And here's a little info on just who actually owns the "evil big oil" companies-the ones who stand to benefit, or suffer from the Keystone decision, based on the final outcome:

1.5% of the stock in the major oil companies is owned by the corporate management of those companies.



The biggest share of the stock in these oil companies, 29.5%, is owned by mutual funds. Now do you happen to have any of your money invested in mutual funds? Why dont you check with the managers of those funds to see if they have any holdings in Chevron or ExonMobile? Maybe you are one of the people youve been slamming as gas prices go up.



Heres another 27% share of oil company stocks for you .... pension funds. Thats right, pension funds! And were not talking about pension funds for rich capitalists. Were talking pension funds for teachers, firemen, policemen, miners ... what you might call working class people. Lets tax those pension funds a bit more to help us through these tough economic times, right? Thats right tax pension funds. Are you such an ObamaBot that you dont realize that when the government seizes oil company profits through higher taxes, that is money that will not be paid to pension funds and other stockholders through dividends?



The next largest group of owners in oil company stocks? That would be individual investors. Individual investors own 23% of big oil. These are the people who are working with stock brokers looking for places to invest their hard-earned money. They really should be punished for investing in evil big oil, dont you think?



The next largest group is IRAs. IRAs account for 14% of all outstanding shares in big oil. Again --- maybe you think it would be a better idea if the money being earned by these IRAs would be better off being spent by Obama and his pals on some grand new entitlement program.



The last 5%? Theyre listed as other institutional investors. Maybe some of these are foreign investors. Who knows? One thing for sure --- this 5% needs to be punished as well, right?



<a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/may/03/closer-look-those-evil-oil-companies/">A Closer Look At Those Evil Oil Companies</a>

--Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700.



--Twenty seven percent of shares are owned by other institutional investors like pension funds. In 2004, more than 2,600 pension funds run by federal, state and local governments held almost $64 billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural gas companies. These funds represent the major retirement security for the nation's current and retired soldiers, teachers, and police and fire personnel at every level of government.



--Fourteen percent of shares are held in IRA and other personal retirement accounts. Forty five million U.S. households have IRA and other personal retirement accounts, with an average account value of just over $22,000.



<a href="http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/windfall_1105.pdf">The Economic Impact of a Windfall Profits Tax For Savers and Shareholders</a>

 

[Bob Alcaro]

OH WELL, PATRONAGE IS PATRONAGE. NOTHING SAYS THAT POLITICIANS HAVE TO HAVE INTEGRITY. AND NO ONE REALLY SEEMS TO "GIVE A DAMN" ............



Harry's Solar Company



The Solar thing just got a little more interesting.......REALLY!

The Tonopah Solar company in Harry Reid's Nevada is getting a $737 million loan from Obama's DOE.

The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system and employ 45 permanent workers.

That's costing us just $16 million per job.

One of the investment partners in this endeavor is Pacific Corporate Group (PCG).

The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi, who is the brother to Nancy 's husband.

He is also the uncle of California 's Lt. Governor Calvin Newsome

Don't ask any questions, just move along folks.....nuthin' crooked goin' on here.



True according to Factcheck...... http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/ron-pelosis-connection-to-tonopah-solar-energy/



Snopes (Barbara and David Mikkelson's liberal blog) says mostly false because they dispute the cost of $16 Million per job.... http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/tonopahsolar.asp

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Keystone XL has faced lawsuits from oil refineries, and scorn from some Senators. The U.S. Department of State in 2010 extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest, and in November, 2011, President Obama postponed the decision until 2013. On November 30, Senate Republicans introduced legislation aimed at forcing the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days. Hmm Oil companies and Republican politicians.. imagine that!



Based in Alberta CANADA. The pipeline is to TRANSPORT oil to American refineries. President Obama just put off the decision until 2013. Most jobs would have been, of course, Canadian-construction. Why would Obama feel compeled to give the Republicans (Boehner) something they WANT for thier BASE. They have blocked virtually everything he has wanted to pass, since he took office. All the talk about Soros, Buffet, and "far-left Environmentalists" is conspiracy-theory kool-aid. Its politics, and President Obama just postponed a decision.

 

[Bo Loo]

"Is what Boehner did illegal under current law? If not, then so what? If it is illegal, then it should be handled accordingly."



Why is it not illegal?



Because Congress made it legal for them to conduct in insider trading.

 

[H D]

Let's be honest here. Do you really need insider information to know that the value of oil is going to rise and continue to rise? His investments were with firms that invest in oil, as any good firm should be doing. Find me a firm that is not investing in oil and I'll tell you which firms not to invest with.



Get real, people.

 

[Bud Williams]

Fire them all! I say....

Disban the Federal Government!

 

[H D]

Figured my reasoning was just too logical to receive a response. Bleeding hearts, no brains.

 

[TrainTrac]

On November 30, Senate Republicans introduced legislation aimed at forcing the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days.

If by this statement, you're attempting to infer that this was the first time that the administration & State department had looked at the issue and had only 60 days to study & decide upon it, you're wrong. The first application for this pipeline was submitted back in 2008.



<a href="http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/Fact%20Sheet.pdf?OpenFileResource">State Department Keystone XL Pipeline Fact Sheet</a>



Oh, wait, now I get it: Since this was first submitted back in 2008, it's all Bush's fault, right?:bwahaha:



And like I said before, look who stands to make big bucks as a result of this decision:

Warren Buffet Cleans Up After Keystone XL

by John Hayward (more by this author)

Posted 01/24/2012 ET

Updated 01/24/2012 ET



When President Obama, who is normally a great proponent of infrastructure projects, made his bizarre decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline project, I wondered if he might have been induced to create those thousands of American jobs if the oil could be moved by his beloved high-speed rail.



As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety. Fortunately, as Newt Gingrich pointed out during the Monday night Republican debate in Florida, the oil is on private land, so Obama cant shut production down.



Shipping the oil with a pipeline would have significantly reduced costs, as an <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57363033/more-nd-oil-will-be-railed-with-no-us-pipeline/">Associated Press</a>

Associated Press report explains:



Billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements have been made in recent years to allow North Dakota's oil shipping capacity to keep pace with the skyrocketing production. North Dakota is the nation's fourth-biggest oil producer and is expected to trail only Texas in crude output within the next year.



Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources, said the state's so-called takeaway capacity is adequate, though producers and the state were counting on the on the Keystone XL to move North Dakota crude.



Shipping crude by pipeline in North Dakota adds up to $1.50 to its cost, compared to $2 or more a barrel for rail shipments, producers say.



"Oil that would have moved by the Keystone XL is now going to shift to rail transportation," Ritter said.



Amusingly, a spokesman for the Sierra Club admitted there is no question that [transporting] oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than a pipeline, but that didnt stop the zero-growth eco-fanatics from calling in their chips with President Downgrade to kill that pipeline.***



Those rail shipments are expected to increase exponentially with increased oil production and the shortage of pipelines, according to Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. Thats going to be quite a windfall for the railroad companies, isnt it?



As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffetts company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. What a coincidence!



For some reason, nobody from BNSF or Berkshire Hathaway would return the APs telephone calls, but oilman Harold Hamm told them he was sure this was just a wonderful lucky break for Barack Obamas favorite billionaire, who is certainly favored by this decision. Ive heard Buffetts famously overtaxed secretary will be a guest at the State of the Union address tonight. Maybe someone could ask her about it.



The tax me more refrain from liberal billionaires is one of the oldest sucker games in the book. For the well-connected, the money that can be made through government power whether by influencing corrupt politicians, or merely predicting what theyre going to do - dwarfs whatever income they offer to cough up.



<a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036">Warren Buffet Cleans Up After Keystone XL</a>



***See this article: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/28/politics/obama-donors-pipeline/index.html">Green donors warn Obama: 'Do the right thing' on Keystone pipeline</a>

 

[Richard L]

It has nothing to do with Warren Buffet or his railroad, it's about jobs for Americans. With all the train derailments while shipping hazardous cargos, I think a pipeline with electronic leak sensors is far more environmentally safe than a train running on old, poorly maintained tracks, with a human driver who is likely to be texting or drunk while driving the train.



Obama knew he was not going to approve the pipeline when he accepted the Republican compromise to get the budget extended. Now he is claiming that here is not enough time to do a proper evaluation, and he will not be pressured by the Republican's arbitrary deadline, that he agreed to as part of the compromise. Even some Democrats think Obama's nixing of the pipeline was stupid!



...Rich

 

[TrainTrac]

I'm not saying that Warren Buffett directly influenced this moronic decision; just that as owner of BNSF, he stands to benefit the most as a result of it.



This should really come as no surprise. During the 2008 campaign, Obama stated that he would enact policies to drive up the price of energy.

"Today, American oil production is at the highest level in eight years, and last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years," Barack Obama said to the 38 million people watching on Tuesday night.



While he has no problem, three years into his presidency, whining about the "mess" he inherited from George W. Bush, he also shows no shame in taking credit for the accomplishments of GWB's energy policy.



The administration's decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline is the latest acknowledgement by Barack Obama that jobs are unimportant, but it is only one of many. The administration has turned the Gulf of Mexico into a "no drill" zone, ignoring court orders and using the permit process to halt development.



Recent regulations from the EPA are a naked attempt to shut down coal-fired electrical generation, responsible for 50% of America's electricity.



Shell Oil, having spent $4 billion trying to develop tracts, already leased and paid for, north of Alaska, gave up when the EPA denied permits to begin exploratory drilling.



At every available opportunity, Barack Obama has waged war on energy, shutting down future drilling off our coasts and in the interior. Production is up, but this is despite Barack Obama, not because of him.



The president has now announced an auction of 38 million acres of oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet any company willing to pay for a lease under this president would have to be either stupid or confident that 01/20/13 will be the end of an error.



The president had little interest in the 20,000 construction jobs that the Keystone XL pipeline would have created, or the 20,000 jobs lost due to his moratorium in the gulf, or the tens of thousands of jobs that will be sacrificed eliminating coal-powered electricity.



Mr. Obama gives not one frack for jobs in natural gas production, despite what he said in his SOTU. Anyone who thinks that a re-elected Barack Obama will allow any substantial new energy production in America has another think coming.



A job is a job only when Obama says it is a job. And, if that job is in the fossil fuel industry, it can't be saved or created -- only destroyed. And the only job Barack Obama has ever sought to save or create is his own.



Raising the price of all energy is Barack Obama's master plan, and he won't change it despite its effect on employment. Instead, he wants to change America. The simple solution of working to make green energy more affordable is beyond his brilliance, so better to make all other energy more expensive in order to make green energy seem cheap by comparison.



The president's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness recently advocated for an "all-in approach" to fossil fuel development and production, calling "timely development of pipeline, transmission and distribution projects" vital for employment and the nation's energy system. Unlike Mr. Obama, these people worry about jobs.



Gasoline at $4 a gallon may seem expensive, but it is too cheap for our transformational, anti-energy, anti-jobs president. At over $10 a gallon, Obama's clean energy idiocy and the billions of taxpayer dollars flushed down the green energy toilet will finally make sense.



Our president will not allow oil to pass through a pipeline we control, yet he has no problem forcing it to travel through the Strait of Hormuz or on railcars provided by Warren Buffet -- don't be a galoot, trains don't pollute -- whose secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does on the $200,000 she makes answering his e-mails and sitting in the presidential box at the SOTU next to Michelle, who didn't look angry at all.



The TransCanada Corp. pipeline would have cost taxpayers nothing, unlike Solyndra and all the other crony-capitalist Obama delusions. Since 2008, the company spent $2 billion in its quest for approval, and it would have picked up the entire cost of construction, estimated at $7 billion.



Canada will still build a pipeline, except it will be to their Pacific coast. China, the world's largest polluter, will use the oil just as we would have -- except, perhaps, not as ecologically or efficiently.



With risks and costs inherent in transporting oil across an ocean, it is not unreasonable to make the assertion that building the Keystone XL pipeline is actually better for the environment.



Environmentalists like the president are the true 1%. They already have big houses and nice cars. Polluters are those who want big houses and nice cars.



Environmentalists, always willing to sacrifice the jobs and well-being of others, will not be satisfied until most Americans are unemployed and forced to give up their cars and shiver at home in the dark because they cannot afford gasoline and heating costs, not to mention electricity and light bulbs.



To our president, the most important thing is that Americans realize no benefit, accrue no advantage, and have life no easier by responsibly utilizing resources. To him, we need to be punished for our previous prosperity, and we therefore shouldn't be using resources at all. With his decisions on energy, our president has chosen misery, poverty, and decline for America. The nation doesn't need jobs; we have him.



Before he was elected, Barack Obama promised that his policies would make the price of energy "skyrocket." If you think about it, it's really the only promise he has kept.

 

[Richard L]

Train Trac,

I agree. I don't think it has anything to do with Warren Buffett, and I doubt his owning the railroad has anything to do with Obama's decision, but we probably will never know for sure.



If we look at the Solyndra fiasco, where they were granted $535 Million by DOE after Obama made a visit to their Solar factory, and then they file bankruptcy after they get the money...Prompting Federal investigations into exactly what happened? Coincidence? Perhaps, but Obama just release a list of the big donors to his reelection and Solyndra is a prominent figure in raising money for Obama.



Obama and the EPA are looking to raise the tax on gasoline up to 25 cents per gallon...of course this all very quiet and under the table. This tax hike is supposed to start in March and be fully implimented by August....yet there has never been an announcement about this.



Which also brings up the point as to why Obama always has his face plastered on the TV when ever he has a clever idea he claims will create jobs, or to poke a jab at Republicans for not approving of his costly ideas. However, did you notice that when the news came out that he nixed the Keystone Pipeline, he did not make that "Bad News" announcement. That was left to his Press Secretary....That insulates him from the questions and criticism that would come if he made the announcement himself.



Obama, also claimed that his administration would have transparency, but that certainly has not happened...he and his administration constantly hide the details of the actual cost of his ideas, or they must be cast into the light of day by the Republicans.



...Rich



...Rich

 

[Roger Batts]

An interesting note, Obama and Hilary Clinton were originally for a similar pipeline back in 2009. The difference? That pipeline, The Alberta Clipper, was Chicago bound.

 

[Richard L]

Roger,

I heard about that other pipeline before, but I had forgotten. Yes, as the artilce states, it sounds all very political. I think Obama wanted to hold a carrot out for the Republicans to get his agenda acrosss and then use any excuse to avoid the agreement. Watch it come up again when he goes to get his budget extension later this month.



...Rich