+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Buffett to benefit from blocking of the XLKeystone Pipeline

  1. #1
    Contributor Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 10
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    498
    Country: Australia

    Buffett to benefit from blocking of the XLKeystone Pipeline

    Buffett

    (Corrects location of Canadian National in 18th paragraph.)
    Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
    With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.
    “Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said in an interview. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul.”
    The State Department denied TransCanada a permit on Jan. 18, saying there was not enough time to study the proposal by Feb. 21, a deadline Congress imposed on President Barack Obama. Calgary-based TransCanada has said it intends to re-apply with a route that avoids an environmentally sensitive region of Nebraska, something the Obama administration encouraged.
    The rail option, though costlier, would lessen the environmental impact, such as a loss of wetlands and agricultural productivity, compared to the pipeline, according to the State Department analysis. Greenhouse gas emissions, however, would be worse.
    If completed, Keystone XL would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, crossing 1,661 miles (2,673-kilometers) over Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
    Tanker Car Bottleneck
    Investors such as John Stephenson, who helps manage $2.7 billion for First Asset Management Inc. in Toronto said he anticipated the project would move forward next year. Pipeline shipping costs remain lower than rail, and a lack of readily available tanker cars may create a bottleneck.
    The availability of tank cars may create a temporary “hiccup” in transport capacity, according to Tony Hatch, an independent railroad analyst in New York. Rail cars are “a pretty hot commodity,” as a result of demand from oil producers in North Dakota, he said.
    Rail car production is already at a three-year high as manufacturers such as Greenbrier Cos Inc. (GBX) and American Railcar Industries Inc. (ARII) expand to meet demand for sand used in oil and gas exploration, according to Steve Barger, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. in Cleveland, citing Railway Supply Institute statistics.
    ‘Long-Term Solution’
    Rail-car suppliers can add capacity, Hatch said.
    “Railroads are not just a stopgap while we wait for a pipeline,” Hatch said in an interview. “They are potentially part of the long-term solution.”
    Railroads are being used in North Dakota (STOND1), where oil producers have spurred a fivefold increase in output by using intensive drilling practices in the Bakken, a geologic formation that stretches from southern Alberta to the northern U.S. Great Plains. During 2011, rail capacity in the region tripled to almost 300,000 barrels a day as higher production exceeded what pipelines handle, according to the State Department report on Keystone XL.
    Shipping oil using tank cars on rail costs about $3 more a barrel than pipeline transport, using prices in North Dakota, a differential “unlikely” to slow the development of oil sands crude if no pipeline is build, the State Department said. The gap is shrinking as larger storage terminals are built, the agency said.
    ‘Ready to Haul’
    Burlington Northern carries about 25 percent of the oil from the Bakken, said Krista York-Wooley, the railroad spokeswoman. The company can carry higher volumes from North Dakota or Alberta, she said.
    Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (CP)’s shipments from North Dakota climbed to more than 13,000 carloads last year from about 500 in 2009, Ed Greenberg, a spokesman, said in an e-mail. The Calgary- based company has a similar plan in western Canada.
    “With an extensive rail network and proven expertise in moving energy, CP offers a flexible option for transporting crude oil and other energy-related products to and from key locations in North America,” Vice President Tracy Robinson said in an e-mail. “Rail is scalable, allowing CP to effectively keep pace with the shipping needs of producers.”
    Oil Sands
    Canadian National Railway Co. (CNR), the biggest Canadian railroad based on annual sales, considers Alberta’s oil sands a chance to expand its business, according to company filings.
    “CN continues to work closely with customers in Alberta to capitalize on oil-and-gas related opportunities,” the Montreal- based company said. “CN sees potential for the outbound movement of oil sands products such as bitumen and synthetic crude to refineries in the U.S. Gulf Coast region, or eventually through West Coast ports to offshore markets.”
    Imperial Oil Ltd. (IMO), a Calgary-based unit of Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), will consider “various transportation options” for oil sands exports, according Pius Rohlheiser, a spokesman. Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) uses railroads to bring in dilutants needed to mix with heavy crude before it can be shipped by pipeline, and to export oil from the Bakken formation in Canada, according to Jessica Wilkinson, a spokeswoman.
    Environmentalists’ Opposition
    Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have campaigned to stop Keystone XL because leaks could threaten drinking water supplies and processing Alberta crude produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil.
    Railroads too present environmental issues. Moving crude on trains produces more global warming gases than a pipeline, the State Department said.
    Union Pacific Corp. (UNP), based in Omaha, Nebraska, anticipated an increase in rail traffic with or without Keystone, Chief Executive Officer Jim Young said in an interview.
    “We would have been involved with moving the pipe and a lot of the construction business in building it,” Young said. “On the other hand, if you don’t build any pipeline capacity, you’re going to be moving a lot of crude by train.”
    It will take five to eight years before oil sands production outstrips existing export capacity, the State Department said.
    Tank car utilization is at “record levels” fueled by demand from oil and natural gas producers, according to Doug Reece, director of marketing for Oakville, Ontario-based Procor Ltd., a rail-car leasing company. The soonest new cars will be available is 2013, he said.
    “In western Canada, shippers and third parties are investing in the necessary infrastructure and we see strong growth ahead,” Reece said in an e-mail. “We are having regular dialog with customers about their potential needs, as collaboration and fleet planning have become critical.”
    Rail allows shippers to reach different markets and capture better prices at refineries, said John Mims, a transportation analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey & Co. in Arlington, Virginia.
    “It’s a good secular growth story for the railroads,” Mims said in an interview.“They’re playing an increasing role, especially as you see this push back from a regulatory standpoint on the pipelines.”
    The Buffett tax, now this, the guy has balls!

    Media would be out in full force if this was a Repub. president, with allegations of corruption and crony-capitalism.

    Does anyone here support the blocking of the Keystone project?

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    4,067
    Someone is always going to profit one way or the other on projects such as this. As far as pipelining it as is I say Hell no I want it blocked. Right now the pipeline is set to go through Nebraska and has the potential to contaminate a huge aquifer. That would devastate the agriculture industry. Secondly, it looks like they want to export most is not all of the oil so that means we still pay too much at the pump AND risk a food shortage just so someone else can make billions.

    At the very least the pipeline should be routed better. My way would be to run pipelines to Illinois,Wyoming, N.Dakota and S.Dakota. Build new refineries and expand the existing ones. Keep the oil "in house" and North America is set for decades. We could decouple the oil from the world market and save even more. Let China duke it out with the rest of the world and pay 100-150 bucks a barrel. Long term cheap energy is what we need for a better economy. You'll notice that my way keeps more money in the customers pockets at the expense of big oil, speculators and stock holders. My plan doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Posts
    4,339
    Country: Macedonia
    Tell me again, how is the oil gonna be cheap for US companies, but expensive for Chinese?

    If you are going to build new refineries... build them near the source. Does it make more sense?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Tell me again, how is the oil gonna be cheap for US companies, but expensive for Chinese?

    If you are going to build new refineries... build them near the source. Does it make more sense?
    That oil can be a "sure thing" There is no risk or expense of shipping it 1/2 way around the world. Its not going to be sunk by an Iranian missile, Nor does this oil have to be publicly traded. The oil can me made cheaper because you can cut out all the middlemen. There is a ton of oil there so the supply will always be high. Little if any supply disruptions and little competition for the supply. That would make the oil cheaper even though it will be a bit more difficult to refine. China would not get a drop of this oil. They would have to compete with the rest of the world and deal with the price hikes every time someone in the M.E. throws a hissy fit and they would have to bend their political will to OPEC.........Or.......... you could let all that oil be pipelined to Texas and sold to the highest bidder on the world market. Thats great for the oil companies but horrible for my wallet and every other domestic consumer as the supply just went over the horizon. You can throw the cheap energy policy and associated economic boost out the window too. Building refineries in the northern part of the country is much closer to the source than Texas/Gulf states.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Posts
    4,339
    Country: Macedonia
    Oil is a commodity, you can't buy it locally at local prices.

    If it is $200/bl for the Chinese it will be $200 for US companies. Exxon and alikes will make profit from this, but the average Joe wont see a dime of benefit.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  6. #6
    Contributor Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 10
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    498
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    Someone is always going to profit one way or the other on projects such as this. As far as pipelining it as is I say Hell no I want it blocked. Right now the pipeline is set to go through Nebraska and has the potential to contaminate a huge aquifer. That would devastate the agriculture industry. Secondly, it looks like they want to export most is not all of the oil so that means we still pay too much at the pump AND risk a food shortage just so someone else can make billions.
    .
    Barring a massive earthquake I don't know what you mean by potential. There is inherent risk in everything. Does that mean we should not do it ?

    Essentially this plan offered Obama and America up to 13,000 free jobs all at the courtesy of private enterprise, at a time when (according to certain schools) the economy needs stimulation, and federal debt has to be cut down, should this not be a win-win scenario?

    Labor Agreement For Keystone XL Pipeline To Create 13,000 American Jobs | Pipeline News

    Re: Doktor, Average Joe will see a lot of hidden benefits

    An independent study estimates that during the life of the project, the Keystone XL project is expected to stimulate:
    More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy;
    More than 118,000 person-years of employment;
    An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans;
    Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion; and
    More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route.

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Posts
    4,339
    Country: Macedonia
    I have no doubts Joe will benefit in more ways then one.

    I was arguing that the price Joe will pay at the gas station will be the same if it is produced from Canadian, US or Iranian oil.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  8. #8
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayfarer View Post
    Barring a massive earthquake I don't know what you mean by potential. There is inherent risk in everything. Does that mean we should not do it ?

    Essentially this plan offered Obama and America up to 13,000 free jobs all at the courtesy of private enterprise, at a time when (according to certain schools) the economy needs stimulation, and federal debt has to be cut down, should this not be a win-win scenario?

    Labor Agreement For Keystone XL Pipeline To Create 13,000 American Jobs | Pipeline News

    Re: Doktor, Average Joe will see a lot of hidden benefits
    Oil leaks always happen It really doesn't matter why. The point is WHY take the risk of contaminating one of the most important aquifers we have when the pipeline can me re routed around the aquifer or short circuited to refineries in the north. This doesn't have to be a pipeline or no pipeline question. Its just a matter of doing it a smarter way so you don't have to take an unnecessary risk. This route or that route, either way the jobs will still be there.

    BTW most of the jobs would be relatively short termed construction jobs. Once the pipeline is done so are the bulk of the jobs. Like I said before, if you change the way oil is bought and sold for this oil and keep the oil here, the average joe would benefit far more than if the oil is exported.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    I have no doubts Joe will benefit in more ways then one.

    I was arguing that the price Joe will pay at the gas station will be the same if it is produced from Canadian, US or Iranian oil.
    Sure, if the Canadian oil is put on the open market like everything else. However it does not have to be that way. If the XL pipeline goes in as advertised the average Joe will see a short term blip in specialized jobs and he will watch all that oil get shipped somewhere else. Not only will he not see a break at the pump but all that oil will further help China to undercut Joe on the production line.
    Oil extracted and shipped a short distance to be refined via a closed contract shouldn't cost anywhere near what it cost to buy oil from the ME on the open market and have it hauled in from the other side of the world. That difference in price is something the average Joe can and should see. That was my point.
    Make oil and its refined products cheaper would take a bite out of oil companies profits at first but when the benefits of cheap gas comes into play the average Joe would see an improved economy/job market, many products drop in price so he could buy more, and with the money Joe saves he would be more willing to drive more and that all comes back to the oil companies selling more and making their shortfall up via increased volume of sales.

  10. #10
    Field mechanik Senior Contributor omon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 06
    Location
    bk
    Posts
    3,276
    Country: United States
    if there is another way to transport oil and not build a pipeline, i'am all for it.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

  11. #11
    Contributor Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 10
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    498
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    Oil leaks always happen It really doesn't matter why. The point is WHY take the risk of contaminating one of the most important aquifers we have when the pipeline can me re routed around the aquifer or short circuited to refineries in the north. This doesn't have to be a pipeline or no pipeline question. Its just a matter of doing it a smarter way so you don't have to take an unnecessary risk. This route or that route, either way the jobs will still be there.

    BTW most of the jobs would be relatively short termed construction jobs. Once the pipeline is done so are the bulk of the jobs. Like I said before, if you change the way oil is bought and sold for this oil and keep the oil here, the average joe would benefit far more than if the oil is exported.

    On November 10, 2011, TransCanada stated they have spoken with the U.S. Department of State and will have conversations to discuss next steps. TransCanada pointed out fourteen different routes for Keystone XL were being studied, eight that impacted Nebraska. They included one potential alternative route in Nebraska that would have avoided the entire Sandhills region and Ogallala aquifer and six alternatives that would have reduced pipeline mileage crossing the Sandhills or the aquifer.[24][25] On November 22, 2011, the governor of Nebraska signed two bills that enacted a compromise agreed upon with the pipeline builder to move the route, and approved up to US$2 million in state funding for an environmental study.[26]

    The company has been happy to avoid the aquifier.

    Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    BTW most of the jobs would be relatively short termed construction jobs. Once the pipeline is done so are the bulk of the jobs. Like I said before, if you change the way oil is bought and sold for this oil and keep the oil here, the average joe would benefit far more than if the oil is exported.
    At a time where any job creation is good, I wouldn't be quibbling. That's a massive injection of capital into the economy, many drops make an ocean, its not going to solve the economic crisis, but the Obama administrations attitude towards private ventures like this WILL determine whether or not the private sector can gain the impetus to kick-start the revival.

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor Dago's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 06
    Location
    San Diego, Califonia
    Posts
    1,031
    Country: United States
    What creates more jobs, ultimately? The long term shipping through the railroad, or construction of a pipeline?

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayfarer View Post
    The company has been happy to avoid the aquifier.

    Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    At a time where any job creation is good, I wouldn't be quibbling. That's a massive injection of capital into the economy, many drops make an ocean, its not going to solve the economic crisis, but the Obama administrations attitude towards private ventures like this WILL determine whether or not the private sector can gain the impetus to kick-start the revival.
    Obama learned from the bail out that things have to be hammered out BEFORE getting approved. Right now there are too many route possibilities and just because a company is willing to go here or there doesn't mean the locals are all for it. I agree that any job creation would be a boost but in this case I would want to see the numbers and effects of having this oil pipelined through the country and exported vs keeping the oil here which I believe would help out the economy a hundred fold. Once that pipeline hits the Gulf there is no turning back. Would you trade hundreds of thousands of jobs in a few years over 13k jobs next year?

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Dago View Post
    What creates more jobs, ultimately? The long term shipping through the railroad, or construction of a pipeline?
    I really don't know but I can bet the farm that Buffet will vehemently say RR is best for us.

  15. #15
    Contributor Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 10
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    498
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    Obama learned from the bail out that things have to be hammered out BEFORE getting approved. Right now there are too many route possibilities and just because a company is willing to go here or there doesn't mean the locals are all for it. I agree that any job creation would be a boost but in this case I would want to see the numbers and effects of having this oil pipelined through the country and exported vs keeping the oil here which I believe would help out the economy a hundred fold. Once that pipeline hits the Gulf there is no turning back. Would you trade hundreds of thousands of jobs in a few years over 13k jobs next year?
    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)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Buffett invests $5 billion in Bank of America
    By bigross86 in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 29 Aug 11,, 17:55
  2. What countries would benefit from the current financial crisis?
    By Shuimo in forum International Politics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 29 Dec 08,, 18:35
  3. How do the recent protests and boycotts benefit the Chinese?
    By xunil in forum International Politics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04 May 08,, 05:53
  4. Buffett, Gates unite on $60 bil foundation
    By astralis in forum International Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Jun 06,, 05:39
  5. Liberals Cheer Court Action Blocking Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
    By themuffinman in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 Jun 04,, 01:04

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts