Keystone pipeline
-
Will Environmentalists Kill the Keystone XL Pipeline?
For more than four years, the controversial Keystone XL pipeline has been at the center of a heated battle between opponents and supporters.
Those who favor the 1,700-mile extension of the pipeline see it as a step toward North American energy independence and a source of tens of thousands of jobs.
But opponents say the Canadian-U.S pipeline would contribute to global warming and causeirreparable harm to the environment.
On Wednesday, about 50 opponents protested against the Keystone pipeline outside the White House, chanting, "Hey, Obama, we don't want no climate change drama."
The protesters, many of whom were arrested, included actress Daryl Hannah, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, renowned climate scientist James E. Hansen and civil rights veteran Julian Bonds.
Underscoring the intensity of environmentalists' opposition to the pipeline, the protest marked the first time the venerable, 120-year-old Sierra Club's board had approved an act of civil disobedience.
"It's awful hard to reconcile wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the dirtiest oil project in the country," Brune said. "The president gets this, he understands this challenge, and we're here to ensure his ambitions rise to the level of the challenge." -
Congress Wastes Time on Buffett Rule, Keystone Pipeline to Beef Up Attack Ads
They are at it again...
With a cynical eye cast toward the November election, members of Congress forced votes on the "Buffett Rule" and the Keystone pipeline knowing both would ultimately fail.
The real purpose for voting on the Buffett Rule and the Keystone pipeline was to embarrass the opposition and produce material for campaign attack ads.
These politically motivated votes are becoming increasingly common.
With no shortage of dire problems facing the nation, one would think Congress is too busy to waste more and more time on political gamesmanship.
Apparently not.
"There has become an obsession with elections," Jennifer Duffy, an editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, told Bloomberg News. "That is what people think about almost more than anything else, and so instead of contemplating the political implications occasionally, they're considered first."
Both Republican and Democratic hands are dirty. A vote on the Keystone pipeline last month was a Republican affair; the Buffett Rule vote this week was engineered by Democrats.
With no chance of ever becoming law, both votes nevertheless achieved their goal.
"Even if you can't make a law, you can still make a point," John Pitney, a political scientist at California's Claremont McKenna College told Bloomberg News. "[Campaign workers] are watching these roll calls very carefully and preparing for attack ads."
Buffett Rule as Campaign Weapon
This week's vote on the Buffett Rule, forced by Senate Democrats, is typical of what's been going on.
President Barack Obama has made the Buffett Rule - a proposal to ensure that those making $1 million or more pay at least 30% in taxes - a major talking point in recent speeches.
The Democrats have brushed off criticism that revenue from the tax - about $47 billion over 10 years - will hardly dent the $3.8 trillion annual federal budget. A decade of Buffett Rule revenue would fund about 4.5 days of federal spending.
Nevertheless, several polls have shown more than 60% of Americans agree with the president on the need for the Buffett Rule. So Senate Democrats decided to force Republicans to vote on it.
To continue reading, please click here...
-
The Keystone Pipeline Fallout: Canada Makes Over a Billion New Friends
"If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading." Lao Tzu
You can forget about energy independence for now.
Without Canadian oil it is nothing but the latest American pipe dream.
In the wake of the Keystone Pipeline decision, Canada has decided to play ball with China instead.
According to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the U.S. reluctance to build the Keystone Pipeline has caused his nation to increase the flow of oil headed west.
Instead of flowing south into the U.S., the same oil is now going to be headed to China.
"Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets," Harper said last week, referring to the Keystone Pipeline decision.
"We cannot be, as a country, in a situation where our one, and in many cases, only energy partner could say no to our energy products. We just cannot be in that position," Harper said.
Considering that Canada is our No. 1 source of oil, Harper's decision could place a serious dent in the idea that the United States can become energy independent in the next two decades.
To continue reading, please click here...
-
The Keystone Delay Won't Stop These Canadian Oil Sands Stocks
I'm not a knee-jerk hater of the Obama administration.
But the President's decision to reject the Keystone pipeline was one of his worst.
Aside from creating jobs, the pipeline would have decisively swung U.S. energy supplies more toward domestic sources and those of our friendly neighbor Canada.
Granted, the pipeline wouldn't create energy independence but it would mean importing less oil from the Middle East.
It is the kind of switch that could help save the U.S. large amounts of blood and treasure in the future.
Because in practice, our dependence on Middle Eastern oil forces us to incur huge foreign costs - after all, we just finished paying $800 billion for the Iraq war. As you know, that is just a drop in a much larger bucket.
Add in the human losses and the costs are incalculable.
In this case, caring less about what goes on in the Middle East - other than ensuring the safety of our ally Israel - would save us all those costs, and get us that much closer to balancing the damn Federal budget.
So let's just say shelving the Keystone pipeline wasn't exactly the president's finest hour.
Bullish on Canadian Oil Sands Stocks
However, while the Keystone Pipeline continues to twist in the wind, investors shouldn't ignore the Canadian energy sector - especially the Athabasca tar sands.
Because with oil prices on the rise, these Canadian resource plays are likely to offer investors serious returns.
Here's why: oil prices are headed higher.
In fact, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke's recent promise that U.S. interest rates will remain near zero until the end of 2014 has given a huge boost to commodity and energy prices.
What's more, the $600 billion injection into EU banks and the promise of another $600 billion this month just adds more fuel to the inflationary flames.
Eventually, oil prices will get so high that they will cause a recession all by themselves, just like they did in 2008. But remember, that happened at $147 per barrel, so we've still got quite a way to go. This time oil could get closer to $200 per barrel.
That's bullish for places like the Athabasca tar sands.
To continue reading, please click here...
-
The Ultimate Fate of the Keystone Pipeline
The Obama Administration last week decided not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
This has introduced another political firestorm into an already uncertain market.
If there is one subject that is likely to stimulate more angst over economic recovery prospects, it is the availability of energy.
Energy is central in everything that happens in the U.S. market.
And Keystone is designed to transport up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast. It represents a new North American-centered initiative to lessen reliance on Middle Eastern imports and would create thousands of new jobs.
It also would create new opportunities for investors.
But the pipeline has had its detractors from the beginning.
Environmentalist Concerns Reign
Environmental concerns have been raised over the greenhouse gas emissions and passage of the pipeline through ecologically sensitive areas.
It is also opposed by those who view the current condition of virtually guaranteed crude oil price increases as an opportunity to invest in alternative and renewable energy technologies.
Some of the environmental issues can be resolved by simply moving the pipeline route.
But others are more difficult to counter.
The crude involved is very heavy oil, primarily from the Athabasca oil sands and similar deposits in Alberta and Saskatchewan. That raw material requires upgrading to synthetic oil and that is far more environmentally invasive than processing lightweight crude.
Therefore, proponents of the pipeline can't resolve environmental concerns simply by changing the route.
And then there is the added problem of a current U.S. statute, namely, 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. This prohibits federal agencies from procuring (which includes importing) synthetic fuel unless its life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than those for conventional petroleum sources.
The "life-cycle" considers the GHG emissions throughout the extraction and processing of the oil - that is, from the time it is taken out of the ground, through its transport and upgrading, to its delivery to a refinery (and its emissions there).
When originally passed, this section was designed to benefit domestic American producers over the import of heavier and higher sulfur content foreign oil. It was never intended to create a problem with our neighbors to the north.
Unfortunately, we sure have a problem now.
To continue reading, please click here...
-
Approval of Keystone Pipeline Will Pump Profits Out of Canadian Oil Sands
With U.S. President Barack Obama expected to approve the long-delayed Keystone XL oil pipeline late this year or early in 2012, several companies already producing in the Canadian oil sand fields stand to benefit.
The 1,700-mile pipeline, which could be finished as soon as mid-2013, will carry 700,000 barrels of crude per day from the Canadian oil sands in Alberta to refineries in Port Arthur, TX.
That will make it easier for the oil-producing companies to get their product to market.
"It's a great idea," said Money Morning Global Resources Specialist Peter Krauth. "According to the EIA, Canada is the top petroleum exporter to the United States - delivering more oil than Saudi Arabia and Mexico combined and, for the most part anyways, Canadians don't hate Americans."
Approval of the Keystone pipeline, first proposed by TransCanada Corp. (NYSE: TRP) in 2008, has been delayed for more than a year because of environmental concerns.
In particular, Nebraska residents fear leaks from the pipeline fouling the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies the drinking water for more than 2 million residents. Environmental groups say the complex methods required to extract the oil from the sands are destructive to the land and generate excess greenhouse gasses.
However, political pressure to "do something" about the high price of oil and a desire to create jobs almost certainly ensures that the pipeline will get built.
"For the Obama administration, having an answer to high prices will be much more important in 2012 than it is today," Kevin Book. managing director at the research firm ClearView Energy Partners, told CNN Money. "We think it will get approved."
Up to Obama
Because the Keystone pipeline crosses an international border, the U.S. State Department is responsible for approving it, but President Obama is expected to make the final decision.
The State Department issued a report in August that said the environmental impact would be limited, and is expected to recommend that the president approve it.
"We still anticipate State will approve the project by year end," Christine Tezak, an energy and environmental policy analyst at asset management firm Robert W. Baird & Co., wrote in a research note last month. "The White House will cite national energy security, trade with a close neighbor, new jobs, and historically strict permitting requirements as justification for approval."
To continue reading, please click here...
