UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 459001  
Subject: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/28/2013 6:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I'm a strong supporter of pipelines heading East, West, North and even South if it gets the stuff to a global price


Tim


http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip853058

Business Day PM : January 28, 2013 : Pipeline Politics [01-28-13 2:10 PM]Atif Kubursi, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, McMaster University, looks at the politics and realities of a proposed west-east pipeline supported by New Brunswick Premier David Alward.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414540 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/28/2013 8:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I'm a strong supporter of pipelines heading East, West, North and even South if it gets the stuff to a global price

Tim

================================

Yeah - Canucks are having a hard time getting their cheap outback tar into non-existent pipelines. With the US oil glut - does the US want it? The Asians are getting more oil from Russia. That leaves even more African and Middle East oil for Europeans. Venezuela and Nigeria appear to have excess oil. There may not be any money for Canuck pipelines with the world awash in oil.

Cheers,
jaagu

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RaptorD2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414553 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/29/2013 1:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If oil is so valuable, why are you guys so bent on getting rid of it? Do you think it will decrease in value in the future? :)

And where were you when we NEEDED it, huh?

GesHoo

Print the post Back To Top
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414558 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/29/2013 6:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Venezuela and Nigeria appear to have excess oil. There may not be any money for Canuck pipelines with the world awash in oil.

IMHO, it's always best to build pipelines sooner rather than later. Pipelines are the type of very capital and politics-intensive infrastructure that should be built whenever and wherever you can - and as fast as you can. The cost of pipelines always goes up.

If I were in charge, I'd require that large-scale pipelines of any type be engineered so that an empty "spare" pipeline could be installed in the same space now or at a later date. That way, if we ever need water, wind power (through electric cables) or anything else moved over large distances, the infrastructure and rights-of-way are already in place.

A question: With obvious excess supply, why is gas at the pump still $4.00 USD per gallon for 93 octane?

Maybe some of the oil companies need to be investing in refineries, too. Then, we might be able to reap the benefit of lower oil prices and higher gas taxes (so long as the refined is expensive, the govt. has a cap on how much it can increase the per gallon tax).

;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414567 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/29/2013 8:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If oil is so valuable, why are you guys so bent on getting rid of it? Do you think it will decrease in value in the future? :)

And where were you when we NEEDED it, huh?


Dan

The bankers sort of insist they keep producing in order to cover the mortgage on all those massive pieces of equipment. Shareholders (including me) insist they continue to pay me monthly or quarterly. If you lay off the workers they will find someone in North Dakota or Texas to work for and won't come back.

In truth the oil guys are still making money just not as much as they were hoping for. Where they do cut back is in Capex but that takes time to show up in lower production. Of course they are also preparing for the mysterious arrival of the very pipelines they want but were afraid to ask for as someone would want them to sign a long term contract.

Alberta is a rare odd place to produce oil. The light oil guys keep finding more especially when they go back to old fields with new technology. The oil sands guys don't have to look for oil they just "manufacture" the stuff from huge known assets that they could never run out of in several lifetimes even with a massive increase in output.

Lastly energy companies are clearly no smarter than fishermen who when they find out the stocks are getting down rush out to get the last of it ahead of anyone else.

Tim

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414574 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/29/2013 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
A question: With obvious excess supply, why is gas at the pump still $4.00 USD per gallon for 93 octane?

Maybe some of the oil companies need to be investing in refineries, too. Then, we might be able to reap the benefit of lower oil prices and higher gas taxes (so long as the refined is expensive, the govt. has a cap on how much it can increase the per gallon tax).


Hound

Someone beat them to it? Wouldn't you rather have Valero shareholders get the cash then those wasteful SUV drivers? }};-D

In truth refineries are the Rodney Dangerfield of the energy business, no respect and most subject to volatility on both ends. Right now times are good but when prices drop they are stuck with a whole lot of expensive feed stock and normally slim margins.


Tim


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/valeroenergy-resul...


UPDATE 2-Valero profit boosted by cheaper domestic oil

Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:24am EST

* Earnings of $1.88 per share beat Wall Street view of $1.18

* Shares rise more than 7 percent (Adds estimates, background; updates share price)


Jan 29 (Reuters) - Valero Energy Corp reported a bigger-than-expected jump in fourth-quarter profit on Tuesday as the U.S. refining company's plants processed higher amounts of cheaper domestic crude oil.

...

Growing supplies of crude produced from shale formations in the United States have been a boon to refining companies, which are processing more and more of the less-expensive oil.

In the fourth quarter, Valero replaced all imported light foreign crude with cheaper domestic crude at it Gulf Coast and Memphis refineries, Chief Executive Officer Bill Klesse said in a statement.

Valero expects more lower-priced U.S. and Canadian crudes to become available
, so the company is looking at options to increase the amount of those fuels it processes, Klesse said.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: riprock45 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414578 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/29/2013 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
And where were you when we NEEDED it, huh?

A little education for you, pal.

Canada has always been the largest supplier of oil to the USA:

http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/imports/companylevel/

Rip

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414613 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/29/2013 4:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Someone beat them to it? Wouldn't you rather have Valero shareholders get the cash then those wasteful SUV drivers? }};-D


Speaking of Valero, this just in from them.

Good idea for the environment, stop the nice safe pipelines so we can load the crud on barges and rail cars with a much higher rate of spills? }};-()

As long as these people are getting well paid by unwary "do gooders" there appears to be no reason for them to stop the nonsense.


Any <worried about the human race> mouse


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/valero-looking-at-r...

Valero Looking at Rail, Barges to Ship Canadian Crude to Gulf

By Dan Murtaugh & Barbara Powell - Jan 29, 2013 4:07 PM AT

Valero Energy Corp. (VLO) is considering using barges and rail to move Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast as the government weighs approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, the most economic option, Valero President Joe Gorder said.

Valero could increase the amount of Canadian crude it moves by barge to its St. Charles refinery in Louisiana from Hartford, Illinois, a delivery point on an existing TransCanada Corp. (TRP) line, Gorder said. Valero also owns heated rail cars and could use them to send Canadian bitumen to Louisiana and Texas.

Crude production in Canada is outpacing takeaway capacity, creating a glut in Alberta that depressed prices to a record low last month against Mexico’s Maya crude, the heavy oil benchmark used on the Gulf Coast. TransCanada’s Keystone XL construction requires State Department authorization because it would cross the U.S.-Canada border.

“We are bringing some heavy sour Canadian crudes into Port Arthur,” Texas, where Valero has a refinery, Gorder said. “We want heavy sour crude in the Gulf Coast. Keystone pipeline is the most economical way for us to do that. We’re still fully supportive of the pipeline and we want to see it happen. Second to that, then you look at other alternatives to get heavy sours out.”

...to bring in Canadian crude as fields mature and production declines in places like Mexico and Venezuela,...

...

... and the refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast need the Canadian oil.”

Western Canadian Select oil in Alberta was priced at a record $46.54-a-barrel discount to Maya crude on Dec. 14, according to to data compiled by Bloomberg. It was at $38.07 at 2:06 p.m. New York time today.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/oil-spill-cleanup-b...

Oil Spill Cleanup Backs Up 800 Barges Along Mississippi

By Alan Bjerga - Jan 29, 2013 3:12 PM GMT-0400.

Almost 800 barges are backed up in the southern portion of the Mississippi River while an oil spill is cleaned up, the U.S. Coast Guard said.

...

About $2.8 billion in goods including grain, fertilizer, coal and crude oil travel along the Mississippi in a typical January, according to the American Waterways Operators, an Arlington, Virginia-based industry group.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414622 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/29/2013 6:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Canada has always been the largest supplier of oil to the USA:

Second largest, behind the US.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414700 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 1:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If I were in charge, I'd require that large-scale pipelines of any type be engineered so that an empty "spare" pipeline could be installed in the same space now or at a later date. That way, if we ever need water, wind power (through electric cables) or anything else moved over large distances, the infrastructure and rights-of-way are already in place.

==========================

Good intentions, but who wants to pay for the additional piping, ecavation, supports, corrosion protection, and maintenance? Not private enterprise. Would private enterprise want to share facilities with the government? IMO it would only be the federal government and the taxpayers who could do this and only if it made economic sense.

Maybe all interstate pipelines and electrical power lines should be owned and operated by the federal government.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414703 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 2:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
[SUGGESTION:] If I were in charge, I'd require that large-scale pipelines of any type be engineered so that an empty "spare" pipeline could be installed in the same space now or at a later date. That way, if we ever need water, wind power (through electric cables) or anything else moved over large distances, the infrastructure and rights-of-way are already in place...
[REPLY:] Good intentions, but who wants to pay for the additional piping, ecavation, supports, corrosion protection, and maintenance? Not private enterprise.


I'm pretty sure that private subscriptions or shares for the cost of a parallel pipeline - or at least to buy a permanent easement parallel to the pipeline - could be sold so that speculators could control real estate across multiple states for transporting future stuff. It wouldn't even be necessary to build the second pipeline right away.

I'd buy shares. After all, it is real estate - and folks buy real estate to hold for speculation all the time.

Imagine if you owned the rights-of-way for a string of unbuilt highways across the country.

Sooner or later, someone will want to transport something. Qualified institutional investors would surely buy shares if offered.

;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414707 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 3:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
After all, it is real estate - and folks buy real estate to hold for speculation all the time.

Imagine if you owned the rights-of-way for a string of unbuilt highways across the country.



===================================

Can not buy right of way without some sort eminent domain process.

http://www.pri.org/stories/science/energy/transcanada-crosse...

Qualified institutional investors would not surely buy shares if there is no sale of land rights. Even with eminent domain claims for an actual pipeline or highway there is trouble - let alone a pie in sky claim for eminent domain.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414715 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 8:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If I were in charge, I'd require that large-scale pipelines of any type be engineered so that an empty "spare" pipeline could be installed in the same space now or at a later date. That way, if we ever need water, wind power (through electric cables) or anything else moved over large distances, the infrastructure and rights-of-way are already in place.


Canine

I've been meaning to answer that one but got led astray on more important threads like cat videos and online spelling and word checkers.

The words I believe you were looking for is "Pipeline Corridor", sometimes called "a Pipeline Right of Way"?


Pipeline corridor – A pipeline corridor is a linear area where two are more pipelines (either part of the same or different pipeline systems) are closely grouped in a single right-of-way.


https://www.google.ca/search?q=pipeline+corridor&hl=en&a...


The idea is not new but IMNSHO a great one, so nice to see someone thinking outside the box.

http://caid.ca/BergerV1ch2.pdf


http://www.transmountain.com/studying-the-pipeline-corridor

They are even covered by the National Energy Board regs though they call them "a pipeline right of way" (have I mentioned my distant cousin is the boss there? ;-)

http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/sfty/rfrnc...


https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/submissions/key_terms.htm


I would suggest that water except for relatively short distances or as in the case of the Roman Aqueducts that move water through gravity alone it is simply not cost effective to pump significant quantities long distances?


Any <My idea of a balanced diet is a beer in each hand> mouse

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414719 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 10:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
investors would not surely buy shares if there is no sale of land rights.

In my imagined scenario, the land rights acquired by party A would already include the rights to add another pipeline within the same rights-of-way, but that the owner of the rights only had funds to build one pipeline. I was suggesting that, for party B to get the funds to lease or purchase the rights from party A to add the second pipeline later, party B's shares could be sold to raise the funds.

Anyway, it's a moot point, since only one pipeline will get built, if any.

;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414720 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 10:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
An(on)ymouse:

Pipeline corridor – A pipeline corridor is a linear area where two are more pipelines (either part of the same or different pipeline systems) are closely grouped in a single right-of-way.

Thanks, Tim. I didn't think I would be the only person to suggest it. Anyway, I like the idea. We already use it in neighborhoods with underground utilities. All of the utilities (cable, electric, water, gas) run side-by-side (or one on top of the other) in subdivision rights-of-way.

So maybe the following statement is wrong, after all:

Anyway, it's a moot point, since only one pipeline will get built, if any.

;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jaagu Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414721 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 10:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I would suggest that water except for relatively short distances or as in the case of the Roman Aqueducts that move water through gravity alone it is simply not cost effective to pump significant quantities long distances?

========================================

California has thousands of miles of aqueducts, canals and pipelines taking Sierra Nevada Mountains and Colorado River water to thirsty cities and farm lands.

http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/news/2012-ConvMap.pdf

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tedhimself Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414723 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 11:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Anyway, it's a moot point, since only one pipeline will get built, if any.

It's interesting what can be done if the lawyers that write the Right of Way agreements are good. The pipeline company for which I used to work was forever expanding and multi trunking pipelines and even adding fiber optic lines in the ROW to lease to other companies.
Ted

Print the post Back To Top
Author: notehound Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414724 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 11:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The pipeline company for which I used to work was forever expanding and multi trunking pipelines and even adding fiber optic lines in the ROW to lease to other companies.

Exactly. That's the whole point. Structure any deal with care and get multiple streams of income and mucho capital gain upside.

;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 414726 of 459001
Subject: Re: Pipeline Politics Date: 1/30/2013 11:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So maybe the following statement is wrong, after all:

Anyway, it's a moot point, since only one pipeline will get built, if any.

;-)



Keystone was split into two parts, the Hardisty Alberta to Cushing Northern part is the only one waiting for approval from "State" dept, the southern part from Cushing to Texas does not require "State" approval as it doesn't cross an international border and to the best of my knowledge is well on the way to it's scheduled completion late this year.


Tim

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-keystone-idUSTR...

TransCanada said it wants the $2.3 billion southern leg in service by mid- to late 2013. It said construction would create 4,000 U.S. jobs, compared with its previous estimate of 20,000 for the overall project, a figure environmental groups disputed.



Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement