Buffet and Obama means no Keystone XL Pipeline

Perusing the business section of our local, little newspaper last saturday, I came across an article out of Calgary, Alta., Canada that had been picked up by Bloomberg News.

It basically, was pointing out how the railway industry in the U.S. had invested one billion dollars last year in oil depots/terminals. It also pointed out that BNSF planned a 400 million investment this year in oil depots at railheads this upcoming year.

If one follows the money trail, the major benifciary to restricted/stopped pipeline construction is the rail industry in general and, as the owner of the largest railway, Warren Buffet specifically.

As pipelines are less expensive to transport oil than rail, the keystone project is not in their interests. The railways have lost significant manufacturing business and even the replacement container traffic has dropped dramatically due to yet another "economic slowdown", there seems to be rail space availiable for increased oil transportation.

We all know Mr. Buffet is no dummy. He has to be aware of the fact that the tax increase for the "wealthy" pays for just nine days of federal expenditures and solves nothing. Yet his backing/endorsement of the "fair-minded" increased taxation for the 'rich" now looks more like a quid pro quo rather than an enlightened, socially sensitive, "good guy".

The influence of the railways on federal policy is almost traditional in it's scope. Now add in the relationship between Obama and Buffet and the quiet, unspoken real influence in the Keystone XL delay starts to make sense.

Does anyone doubt that these investments in oil depots by the railroads and Buffet would be occuring if there wasn't a high likelihood these expansions weren't "protected'? In other words, pipeline development and Keystone in particular, would be delayed, obfuscated and eventually denied?

Perhaps just keep delaying until the potential developers of these pipelines give up in frustration, even further proposals not forthcoming due having read the tea-leaves of the new reality?

I find the fact that even the Canadians have avoided commenting on this "behind the scenes" influence striking. Certainly no U.S. publication I've seen has touched on it. Such is the power of a Buffet-Obama coalition.

I didn't know what forum to post these thoughts, so I stuck it under a vanilla catagory.

Your thoughts?

What Buffet would have made would have been peanuts compared to what the oil companies would have made. I have been against it since day one. Who in their right mind would allow a foreign oil company to run a pipeline all the way across America.

reply to post by buster2010


Maybe the only ones who would tangle with a very well controlled "good old boy network". Maybe 'foreign' investor is what is needed. They hire U.S. workers, are obliged to follow U.S. law, we transport U.S., as well as. Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. (certianly better than middle east crude...hello?)

If you are against the pipeline due to non-U.S. participation, would you support it if it was American owned? Or is your objection based on something else?

Personally, I don't have a problem with U.S. oil companies making profits. Far better than a B.P. or a Shell. Even Argentine oil companies are cleaning up on U.S. sales. If your not beefing against them, why a Canadian firm?

Last time i checked, they're better allies than anyone else we import oil from...

Also, both Canadian RRs, C.P. and C.N. are U.S. owned. ( BNSF being one of them).

There is so much overlap between the U.S. and Canadian interests that your objections comes across as disengenuous.

reply to post by buster2010


Besides, my issue is the monopoly by the railroads. They already have a lock on coal transportation and the "free enterprise system" works best with competition. Pipelines are competitors for the railways.

It's also cheaper and safer to use pipelines than railways.

The oil companies will get their "profits" whether the crude is transported by rail or pipeline.

Overall, IMHO, the pipeline offers cheaper products for the end user, thee and me, than giving the railroads a lock on transportation.

My issue is it's proximity to the ogalala aquifer, Rail would be a better option for protecting a huge source of drinking water.

I agree. My understanding is the pipeline proposal has been rerouted to correct that situation.

If it hasn't been, then sobeit. The pipeline should be shot down.

However, if there is, in fact, other motives, other vested interests unexposed to the public on this issue, it needs to be brought into the open.

My limited knowledge of a pipeline is it's very narrow and very shallow. I have a hard time thinking with the concept of damage to the water system. I'm not saying there isn't, just the feeling/itch that there's a bit too much griping about the oil companies. it seems everything they do is "bad".

My skeptic mode is starting to move the other way.....

Again, I didn't post this thread to reopen the pipeline issue itself. It's to point out an alliance that has largely gone unnoticed.

If my suspicion is correct, then the whole process of sorting out the right thing to do is thrown into doubt.

It may work out that the pipeline isn't the right way to go, even if we end up paying more as a result.

My trust level of the decision process just took a crash. Not that I particularly trusted the feds in any case.

We are smothered by vested interests. Taking any side risks being sold a bill of goods that's either exaggerated, incomplete or outright fabrication.

The oil companies and pipeline interests certainly haven't a patent on agendas !

ca.finance.yahoo.com...

"I had reason for optimism before the election that the president would approve it, were he re-elected, but his speech the other day was not encouraging," Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told Reuters at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

"We will go wherever we have to go. We are going to create markets for Canadian commodities," Flaherty said. Asked how fast such plans could be put in motion, he said: "We'll do it quickly. We have major projects right now on our agenda and we will encourage them."

It sounds like Canada has been expecting this pipeline to not work out, even though it was rerouted away from the aquifer.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by buster2010

 

Besides, my issue is the monopoly by the railroads. They already have a lock on coal transportation and the "free enterprise system" works best with competition. Pipelines are competitors for the railways.

It's also cheaper and safer to use pipelines than railways.

The oil companies will get their "profits" whether the crude is transported by rail or pipeline.

Overall, IMHO, the pipeline offers cheaper products for the end user, thee and me, than giving the railroads a lock on transportation.

edit on 2-2-2013 by nwtrucker because: spelling errors

edit on 2-2-2013 by nwtrucker because: grammar error

The trucking industry also does a lot of shipping of coal.

reply to post by nwtrucker

Maybe the only ones who would tangle with a very well controlled "good old boy network". Maybe 'foreign' investor is what is needed. They hire U.S. workers, are obliged to follow U.S. law, we transport U.S., as well as. Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. (certianly better than middle east crude...hello?)

In case you missed it China was looking to buy the company that was running the pipeline. That's not an investor that's a company. And in the long run the pipeline will cost more jobs than it will create not to mention it's dirty oil that costs more to refine and the oil companies have stated none of it is for domestic use export only. I'd rather not take a chance with our ecology so a few people here in the states and a foreign company can become even more wealthy.

OK, I see your point. yet, it's not like other countries don't do the same for U.S. companies. I.E. build pipelines, refineries, etc. for our overall benefit.

Besides, there's nothing written in stone that says tha oil won't end up being consumed domestically in the future.

The problem with the ecology argument is it can be done safely, with proper planning/supervison. My beef is the unending demand to stop developments rather than improving them...it's called balance.

Here's hoping you don't end up living in teepees, burning scrap wood for cooking and heating.

Any oil developent reduces the cost, world-wide, even if not intended for regional use. If the intended markets cannot buy this oil, they'll compete with us for the remaining supplies.

As we probably have the toughest rules in the world, we also have a responsiblity to produce our share, cleanly and safely. If you have a problem with that, then we'll agree to disagree.

reply to post by buster2010


Also, the idea that a pipeline would cost us jobs in the long run is incorrect. No pipeline will redirect the tar sands oil to the west coast of Canada, either refined there or shipped as crude to China. With a pipeline, the oil is refined in the U.S.(to EPA standards) by American workers.

The North Dakota fields, being in the U.S. will probably end up on rail.

I would hope these pipelines would be subterranean. Awfully, hard to patrol a pipeline that stretches the country all the time, and a whole bunch of crazy's, terrorists, environmentalists, etc may do something foolish with it. Like I dunno, blow it up.

How ever, if it's subterranean, how deep? IF there a chance the line could break spewing crude oil into the ground, and water table?

The nation's more than two million miles of pipelines safely deliver trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of billions of ton/miles of liquid petroleum products each year. They are essential: the volumes of energy products they move are well beyond the capacity of other forms of transportation. It would take a constant line of tanker trucks, about 750 per day, loading up and moving out every two minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to move the volume of even a modest pipeline. The railroad-equivalent of this single pipeline would be a train of 75 2,000-barrel tank rail cars everyday. These alternatives would require many times the people to deliver, would clog the air with engine pollutants and would be prohibitively expensive - in addition, they would add congestion to our already crowded roads and rails.

www.phmsa.dot.gov... =f7280665b91ac010VgnVCM1000008049a8c0RCRD&vgnextfmt=print


Obama should just make up his mind. This one pipeline has been studied for years now.
Canada doesn't need to send this to the states. There are other buyers for the oil.
Its just stupid that Canada has to wait to be turned down.
There should have been a time limit on Obama making his mind up.

Here is what I would do. And what is being discussed and considered here. And most Canadians are for it.


Route the pipeline to Prince Rupert on the west coast, where there are miles of Chinese tankers waiting for the product.

STOP the xl pipeline proposition, add $30.00 per barrel (to equal brent light sweet) for our lovely US customers. Let them keep importing from the ME.

Who cares if the US citizen pays $6 a gallon for fuel.

I personally do not care if the US economy tanks, we are rich here in Canada in case you missed the memo.

In a nutshell, we don't really care much for you at the best of times.

Ironic how some Canadians are as guilty of arrogance, holier than thou, rudeness....the very things they dislike in Americans. it's actually funny.LOL. The ugly Canadians....LOL

Having said that, there is no greater outside influence to Canada than the U.S. and vice versa.

Wishing the U.S. ill, is ill advised. Wishing both well and a mutual success of the Keystone XL pipeline is the optimum result for both countries, IMHO.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
Ironic how some Canadians are as guilty of arrogance, holier than thou, rudeness....the very things they dislike in Americans. it's actually funny.LOL. The ugly Canadians....LOL

Having said that, there is no greater outside influence to Canada than the U.S. and vice versa.

Wishing the U.S. ill, is ill advised. Wishing both well and a mutual success of the Keystone XL pipeline is the optimum result for both countries, IMHO.

I have to disagree. The Chinese have the money, you on the other hand don't, or may not, or may leave us holding the bag, your to much of a risk. Sorry, its just business.

Another factor in Obama's calculation is he wants to return quite a lot of land stolen from Native Indian tribes in the whole Arkansas River region.
So a pipeline is permanent vs RR tracks can be removed and land rehabilitated.
I fully support him...first time on anything...check my post history.