Thread: Buffett to benefit from blocking of the XLKeystone Pipeline

if he inveasted in railroads the day before well, it would be fine if congress or the white house told him insider information or a political inteeligence firm bought it and resold it....after all this is America where ex public servants are guarenteed riches

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Governor of Nebraska seems O.K with it, and I take it, so does the constituency.

I'm not understanding the bolded part.. unless you want Govt. to subsidize crude (which would still end up costing taxpayers - effectively equalizing any benefits passed on/increase capital freed)

There are a lot of people in Nebraska's Agricultural business, a mostly conservative block and they are fuming at the prospect of their livelihood being threatened needlessly.

The crude does not need to be subsidized. What I am talking about is a long term contract between Canada and the new refineries. Take out the middlemen and speculators that are driving the price of oil higher. One of the things that are negatively affecting the economy and thus jobs is the high price of crude and refined products. Drop the price at the pumps by a good amount, shipping cost and goods all across the board can go down. Chances are that the economy will add much more than 13k jobs that are projected by building the pipeline and exporting it all. Cheap oil means more jobs and a solid steady supply of oil gives businesses a less volatile environment. A long term energy solution coupled with a lower energy costs would give North America, mostly the U.S. a huge boost when competing in the world market for manufactured goods. Furthermore, most if not all the 13k jobs would not be lost because a shorter pipeline will still be built and a few refineries would also be in the works. Just building the pipeline as is and exporting it would be nothing more than a "take the money and run" approach. Great for the oil companies but leaves everyone else in the cold.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

if he inveasted in railroads the day before well, it would be fine if congress or the white house told him insider information or a political inteeligence firm bought it and resold it....after all this is America where ex public servants are guarenteed riches

LOL. Buffet already OWNES the railroad industry. Whatever oil doesn't go through the pipeline will go via his rail cars. Gee. I wonder if he is twisting arms in Washington to make sure the pipeline doesn't happen.

No issue is more confused than the XL pipeline.

It is basically just another in many pipelines that crisscross the country, and the safest one yet designed. It would also carry US crude from new US oil fields in the Bakken range. It's route though Oklahoma was moved to avoid crossing the Ogallala Aquifer entirely; thus it is not the threat to that region's drinking water many think it is.

The capacity of the pipeline when complete would be about 2 million bbls a day, which rail cars and truck tankers would be hard pressed to move safely day in and day out, not to mention the pollution that would be pumped into the air.

What about the added pollution that the dirty Canadian crude from the tar sands creates? Coal fired electric plants in the US produce 20 times the pollution and California crude is dirtier.

While building the XL (much of the Keystone is already built) would provide up to 10k jobs and residual jobs from suppliers, the advantage is cheaper transport to US refineries over cost of sea-going tankers, rail and trucks. The line will run no less than 4 feet underground except over rivers.

That said, opponents have legitimate fears. There is a concern over earthquakes. Although rare, they do happen along the proposed route. Opponents also claim delivering crude cheaply would extend our dependence on fossil fuel. The list goes on.

One hell of complicated mess. Emotion, logic, truth and untruth. Good luck sorting it out.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

No issue is more confused than the XL pipeline.

It is basically just another in many pipelines that crisscross the country, and the safest one yet designed. It would also carry US crude from new US oil fields in the Bakken range. It's route though Oklahoma was moved to avoid crossing the Ogallala Aquifer entirely; thus it is not the threat to that region's drinking water many think it is.

The capacity of the pipeline when complete would be about 2 million bbls a day, which rail cars and truck tankers would be hard pressed to move safely day in and day out, not to mention the pollution that would be pumped into the air.

What about the added pollution that the dirty Canadian crude from the tar sands creates? Coal fired electric plants in the US produce 20 times the pollution and California crude is dirtier.

While building the XL (much of the Keystone is already built) would provide up to 10k jobs and residual jobs from suppliers, the advantage is cheaper transport to US refineries over cost of sea-going tankers, rail and trucks. The line will run no less than 4 feet underground except over rivers.

That said, opponents have legitimate fears. There is a concern over earthquakes. Although rare, they do happen along the proposed route. Opponents also claim delivering crude cheaply would extend our dependence on fossil fuel. The list goes on.

One hell of complicated mess. Emotion, logic, truth and untruth. Good luck sorting it out.

it's a shame it got so politisized and the decison couldnt be delayed a few months. The concern about Nebraskas aquifer were valid. The left just wanted it dead and the right wanted to force Obama to turn it down by preventing any delay on the decison. The argument it would be energy security is and will always be a straw man but there would of been several thousand construction and refinery jobs. It's worth noting the outcome would of been a hike in gas in the midwest according to Keystone studies