Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Enough with Keystone Already

Recs

7

July 28, 2013 – Comments (23) | RELATED TICKERS: KEY , STON , E

The election is over.  It is becoming tiresome hearing the same old Kudlowites making it sound like the Keystone project will be an economic boon to the US.  If people actually listened to the Canadian corporations' plan for the oil they will realize the only ones that gain are those Canadian corporations and a few thousand permanent US jobs at the expense of this Country's environment and our own corporations.

The Keystone project will only create transient jobs.  As the pipeline progresses the jobs follow.  The oil is NOT, let me repeat because Kudlow doesn't seem to know this, the oil is NOT for US consumption.  It is heavy, dirty oil that our refineries can't really handle.  It is destined for India and China.

So now we have this pipeline cutting this Country in half so our competitors (and yes it is not a nasty insult, but Canadian companies compete with ours) can profit with little benefit to the US and possible serious consequences down the road.

These Canadian corporations laughingly tried to "threaten" with their building it Westward at one point.  Go ahead.  Try building and then maintaining a pipeline across thousands of miles of snow capped mountains. Not happening.  So please Kudlow, stop with the con.  Either you are stupid, being bought, or just trying to side track the real issues.  I suspect it is the last one.

President Obama is FINALLY trying to address the REAL issue, and that is helping the Average Joe.  But nothing is really going to happen until we out right outlaw gerrymandering.  We will never see any meaningful tax reform because the reform we REALLY need will never pass.  We need to do what I argued here:

 http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/for-devoish-and-awallejr/786086

But until the masses start "marching" on Washington en masse (like women did for their vote, the minorities did for Civil Rights Act, and the youth did against Vietnam War) we will continue to have purposefully engineered gridlock.

23 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 28, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Mega (99.97) wrote:

awallejr,

Kudlow, and any "Kudlowites" on CNBC and Fox Business, are completely useless. I think you'd be better off ignoring them instead of arguing with them.

But I don't think you are on the right track with regards to Keystone XL. Many US Gulf Coast refineries are capable of handling heavy crude.

It would be quite foolish for TransCanada to transport crude all the way to the Gulf Coast, basically the refining center of the world, and not refine it there. And by the way, according to the Export Administration Act passed in 1979, it's illegal to ship crude oil to India and China as you suggest!

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/03/07/valero-considering-more-heavy-canadian-crude-for-refining/
http://www.rbnenergy.com/sailing-stormy-waters-canadian-heavy-crude
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059982792

Report this comment
#2) On July 28, 2013 at 6:30 PM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

I just use the term "Kudlowites" instead of Republicans because there are quite a few that don't agree with Grover Norquist and I don't want to lump them all in.

As for The Export Administration Act that covers US exports for national security reasons.  It doesn't cover Canadian exports.  I forget which CEO (Enbridge or Transcanada) even said on TV a couple years ago that the end product is not destined for US consumption.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=keystone%20pipeline%20pros%20and%20cons&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CE4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fresearch%2F2013%2F02%2F14%2F5-myths-about-keystone-xl-debunked%2F192668&ei=q5n1UaXBDrj54AOOsYHIBg&usg=AFQjCNF3x9lafY1VGK2wcjWmBNAryHKwDQ

 

What pipeline advocates -- including big-oil lobbyists and House Republicans who have tried to force an early, favorable decision -- fail to mention is that much of the tar sands oil that would be refined on the Gulf Coast is destined for export. Six companies have already contracted for three-quarters of the oil. Five are foreign, and the business model of the one American company -- Valero -- is geared toward export. [New York Times, 10/3/11]

 

If the permitting for the pipeline could be so conditioned, meaning the end product can not be exported  outside the US, then I would say great because then the US benefits at least from taking the risk of leakages. But the Canadian consortium won't agree because that is not their intentions.

Report this comment
#3) On July 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Mega (99.97) wrote:

Well, oil is a global market. If you want to outbid the Europeans and South Americans who are willing to pay for Gulf Coast oil, feel free to.

The refineries are mostly US companies so it's not like we won't share the profit.

Report this comment
#4) On July 29, 2013 at 12:44 AM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

But then it is still a con.  Telling people this Canadian oil is for US consumption is a lie.

Report this comment
#5) On July 29, 2013 at 12:48 AM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

Mega you want to bs people fine, but I wont.  Don't rec the blog, I don't care, but stop the con.

Report this comment
#6) On July 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Schmacko (58.06) wrote:

"These Canadian corporations laughingly tried to "threaten" with their building it Westward at one point.  Go ahead.  Try building and then maintaining a pipeline across thousands of miles of snow capped mountains."

British Columbia is also very against a westward pipeline alternative due to the potential enviornmental hazards.

http://www.pri.org/stories/science/environment/british-columbia-rejects-oil-pipeline-casting-keystone-in-new-light-14056.html

Basically Canada doesn't want the pipeline cutting across its country due to enviornmental concerns, but is more than happy to send it across the US.

Report this comment
#7) On July 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Mega (99.97) wrote:

I think that's a little rude to suggest I'm BSing people and part of a "con".

Report this comment
#8) On July 29, 2013 at 5:54 PM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

I guess you forgot what you said to another:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/im-on-a-roll/848769

I am just calling you out with your arguments.  You attempted to argue by implication instead of reality.   Then you backpedaled and argued hey at least some refiners might make money so cut the country in half with a foreign country's pipeline!

Report this comment
#9) On July 29, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Mega (99.97) wrote:

OK, guilty as charged. But I wasn't rude to you, we were just discussing the economic impact of KXL.

My comments above are pretty simple. I don't think most people will look at them and say I'm arguing by implication or backpedaling. It seems like you are reading more into them than what's on the page.

I'm a liberal Democrat environmentalist, so it's a little wacky to suggest I'm part of a Kudlowite con job. 

Report this comment
#10) On July 29, 2013 at 10:15 PM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

 I'm a liberal Democrat environmentalist, so it's a little wacky to suggest I'm part of a Kudlowite con job.

Well that acutally surprises me that you characterize yourself that way and makes me scratch my head since I never would have guesed that.  But you might want to re-read comment and more particularly: 

It would be quite foolish for TransCanada to transport crude all the way to the Gulf Coast, basically the refining center of the world, and not refine it there. And by the way, according to the Export Administration Act passed in 1979, it's illegal to ship crude oil to India and China as you suggest!

Both comments are wrong but seemed like a justification for the project.

As in comment 6's link, this is not a pipeline to the US it is a pipeline THROUGH the US.

Report this comment
#11) On August 04, 2013 at 2:24 PM, drgroup (69.03) wrote:

"President Obama is FINALLY trying to address the REAL issue, and that is helping the Average Joe."

Just got off the phone with the "Average Joes" who were laid off at the coal mines. They don't agree. Got another call from the AJ's that are now working 32 hrs/wk because their employers can't afford the new obamacare. Got a call 10 minutes ago from union leaders who are loosing membership because american companies are exporting their labor forces to third workd countries. They are also outraged about the influx of non union unskilled labor that will flood the markets if this immigration bill is jammed down our throats. Just a few calls I've had today....

Are we talking about the same obama???? 

Report this comment
#12) On August 04, 2013 at 3:00 PM, drgroup (69.03) wrote:

PS:   Love the code in your three related picks ( KEY-STON-E)

Clever fellow.... 

Report this comment
#13) On August 04, 2013 at 3:23 PM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

Well I have to have some fun heheh.  But we could try calling all the millons that were fired in 2008-2009.  And I don't know which union leaders you are talking to but those jobs shipped overseas were courtesy of the Bush tax cuts which gave the incentive to ship out all those jobs, but that was a topic of discussion in another thread:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/for-devoish-and-awallejr/786086

Report this comment
#14) On August 04, 2013 at 3:45 PM, drgroup (69.03) wrote:

Chuckle,   I did call a lot of those fired in 08/09. Most of them were overpaid underworked gov't workers. As for the famous Bush tax cuts, they were nothing more than an attempt to extend the existing cuts that were already on the books. Any jobs that were farmed out overseas were do to not extending the exisitng tax cuts,,,,

Report this comment
#15) On August 04, 2013 at 5:50 PM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

Most of them were overpaid underworked gov't workers

Well I guess all those people fired from Lehman, Bear Stearns, pretty much every bank and pretty much most private companies missed that memo.

Any jobs that were farmed out overseas were do to not extending the exisitng tax cuts,,,,

So it is your position that no jobs were farmed out prior to January 1, 2013?

 

Report this comment
#16) On August 05, 2013 at 8:32 AM, drgroup (69.03) wrote:

Of course people in these sectors were let go, but back to the point, not on the scale of what obama has caused during his tenure.

Again, same argument re obama.This man is a destructive force equal to a black hole.

Report this comment
#17) On August 05, 2013 at 3:04 PM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

Well under Bush I lost a lot of money but under Obama I made it back I will thank the person who made me money.  As Icahn said about Aikman regarding herbalife,  "I like the guy. he made me 250 million dollars."

Report this comment
#18) On August 06, 2013 at 8:39 AM, drgroup (69.03) wrote:

Maybe you sharpened your investment skills between Bush and Obama. You do yourself an injustice to credit Obama for your success.

I am not standing firm on Bush, but take into consideration his last 2 years in office were a complete waste of time due to the control of congress by the progressive/liberal dems.

Report this comment
#19) On August 06, 2013 at 5:37 PM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

Well I take it back further to Clinton and Larry Summers.  Summers was the guy who pushed deregulation and repealing Glass-Steagall.  But we still had a balanced budget until Bush decided to lower rates dramatically, basically incentivizing moving jobs overseas and causing one of the greatest financial crashes in history and greatest transfer of wealth.

One of my favorite links that helps put things in perspective:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#

Report this comment
#20) On August 07, 2013 at 8:26 AM, drgroup (69.03) wrote:

Sorry, I missed that memo... I have been getting the memo's from barrack orama as they make there way to bernank'. Great help with economic recovery (for bankers)....

Report this comment
#21) On August 08, 2013 at 1:44 AM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

Now you are just making random comments.

Report this comment
#22) On August 08, 2013 at 8:16 AM, drgroup (69.03) wrote:

As are you.. later

Report this comment
#23) On August 08, 2013 at 3:25 PM, awallejr (81.20) wrote:

K.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement