Blog Archives

Russell: Obama’s Energy Strategy of Contradiction

image

By Barry Russell
Special to Roll Call
April 23, 2012, Midnight

Right now, voters across the country are mobilizing around an issue that could determine who wins the 2012 presidential election: energy.

The rising cost of gasoline has influenced the American people to do a double-take on President Barack Obama’s overall energy policy. In light of this election-year scrutiny, it’s no surprise that Obama has tried to defend and define his administration’s energy policy.

But under the public’s watchful eye, the president is continually contradicting himself inside the Beltway and on the campaign trail. Obama calls to expedite infrastructure projects, but in the wake of rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama claims increased oil and natural gas production on his watch, but then follows up with accusations that oil companies are profiting at the expense of the American people. Obama repeatedly calls for an “all of the above” energy strategy, but then singles out the oil and natural gas industry for new regulations and targeted tax attacks.

Something doesn’t add up. To discover Obama’s real feelings and policies toward American-made energy, we must look to areas that the administration actually has jurisdiction over: public lands, federal agencies and his own calls for legislative action.

Responsible, common-sense regulations on development are a foundation of the oil and natural gas industry’s operations — and rightly so. Protecting the environment and developing our resources must go hand in hand. But right now, under the Obama administration, there are not two, not three, but 11 federal agencies seeking to regulate, study and reassess oil and natural gas production in the United States.

The Environmental Protection Agency, for its part, has been acting like an all-around bully; doing everything it can to smother the industry with one-size-fits-all regulations from Washington, D.C. It disregards the states’ impressive history of successful regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Also, the EPA has been using American tax dollars to conduct studies that distort scientific results to accuse the oil and natural gas industry of harming the environment. These studies have ignored the industry’s incredibly safe record and serve as a rallying cry for the president’s environmental base.

Obama’s State Department rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oil from our neighbor Canada and alleviate the oil bottleneck that is causing problems for U.S. producers in Cushing, Okla., and refiners on the Gulf Coast.

And the American people are not amused. A recent Gallup poll revealed that Americans favor the Keystone XL pipeline by a ratio of 2-to-1. On the campaign trail recently, the president tried to backtrack, urging expedited work on the southern leg of Keystone. No matter that his administration has no jurisdiction on this issue: The southern portion of the pipeline could and would have continued without his approval.

Do his federal agencies’ brakes on development mean that Obama is fundamentally hostile to oil and natural gas as fuel sources? The president’s major rebuttal to this claim involves pointing to increased production under his administration. It’s true that the United States is experiencing an impressive increase in oil and natural gas development. But these huge gains are happening because of the advanced technologies U.S. producers utilize on private and state lands, where his federal agencies have limited jurisdiction.

On the other hand, Obama’s record on public lands — where his administration does have control — is far from stellar. Oil and natural gas production on public lands has decreased significantly under his watch. The Interior Department institutes duplicative and expensive regulations that make it impossible for many independent oil and natural gas producers, small American businesses that employ 12 people on average, to conduct business on public lands.

The president’s own punitive legislative proposals offer a stark contrast to his pro-development rhetoric. Obama repeatedly calls on Congress to repeal the “subsidies” that oil companies receive. However, these are neither subsidies nor government handouts. These are typical business deductions, such as labor and construction costs, which many industries have. These provisions, namely intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion, encourage new development of American energy. Eliminating them is a sure way to decrease energy supply and stunt job creation. Singling out the most productive, creative energy industry for targeted tax attacks certainly does not sound like an “all of the above” strategy for U.S. energy.

A recent poll revealed 68 percent of Americans disagree with the way Obama is handling gasoline prices. The public may be taking note of Obama’s energy policy contradictions. The 2012 election may rest upon the question: Can Obama have his energy cake and eat it, too?

Barry Russell is president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

Source

Insiders: Southern Section of Keystone Pipeline Doesn’t Need Obama

image

By Olga Belogolova
Updated: March 28, 2012 | 6:24 a.m.
March 27, 2012 | 9:30 p.m.

Standing at a podium in front of piles of pipes in Cushing, Okla., last week, President Obama unveiled an executive order meant to speed federal permitting of pipeline infrastructure, including the southern portion of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. Critics immediately jumped on the move, accusing Obama of being “the rooster taking credit for the dawn” and arguing that no federal action is actually needed for that portion of the Keystone pipeline to move forward. National Journal’s Energy & Environment Insiders agree.

More than 70 percent of Insiders said that Obama’s executive order was unnecessary, with some even saying the move smacks of federal overreach.

Insiders overwhelmingly agreed that the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline, which will run from Cushing to refineries in Port Arthur, Texas, only needs local approval. States typically handle the siting of interstate oil pipelines, while the only federal involvement normally comes from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Obama’s involvement in the approval process is “not even remotely necessary,” said one Insider, arguing that Obama’s campaign likely thought it was “politically necessary to invent an executive action to [stanch] the coming decline in the polls.”

The Cushing campaign stop came just a day after Gallup released a poll showing that nearly 60 percent of Americans think the U.S. government should approve the entire Keystone project, which Obama rejected in late January.

“The Cushing event was all show … but a well-executed one,” said another Insider.

Still, by rejecting the permit for the full pipeline—which would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast—and then going full-force in supporting the southern section of the pipeline, Obama is sending out inconsistent messages to the public, Insiders said.

“This is a local permitting decision. The president getting involved looks like federal government interfering in the traditionally local decision of land-use planning—and it likely won’t actually change the permitting process, which is already under way,” said one Insider. “Not great optics—and I say this as a fan of the president.”

Even some of the 29 percent of Insiders who said the Obama administration should be involved argued that it is not legally necessary but noted that it is politically important.

“It is necessary in a political sense, to demonstrate that the administration is doing everything it can to lower high gas prices,” said one Insider. “But even without the administration’s involvement, the southern portion of Keystone will get built and, shockingly, gas prices will remain high.”

Insiders overwhelmingly agreed that the southern portion of the pipeline won’t do much for oil prices. Asked whether prices will go up or down once this piece of the pipeline is completed, 75 percent of Insiders chose “neither,” a mere 14 percent said prices would go down, and 11 percent said they would go up.

“You need to connect the hose to the spigot if you want to water the lawn,” one Insider said, arguing that only the approval of the full Keystone XL pipeline project would affect prices.

Insiders said that aside from some efficiencies in delivery, this portion of the pipeline won’t have much of an impact.

“It will only have an impact on the price of oil if investors see the construction as a sign of things to come in terms of fostering more domestic development,” said one Insider.

Read More

Obama Energy Plan: Delay, Deny, Deceive

image

Saturday, 24 March 2012 00:00 Right Side News

This administration’s record speaks for itself. For more than three years, President Obama has implemented a three part energy strategy: delay, deny, and deceive.”  — IER President Thomas Pyle

WASHINGTON D.C. — The president continued his taxpayer-funded energy charade yesterday in Cushing, Okla., where he claimed that his administration will fast-track the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline.  Since the administration announced the intention to delay the pipeline’s permit in Nov. 2011, American consumers have spent more than $8.8 billion to purchase overseas oil.  And when the U.S. Senate considered earlier this month a bipartisan Keystone XL provision to authorize the pipeline, the president personally lobbied senators to defeat the measure, which failed to reach a 60-vote threshold despite gaining a 56-vote majority.

IER President Thomas Pyle released the following statement in response to President Obama’s speech today in Cushing, Okla.

“President Obama wants to deceive the American people into believing that he’s somehow responsible for the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline, much like he wants them to think he’s responsible for increased oil and gas production in the United States. Neither claim is true, and the president knows it.

“The administration has blocked full development of the Keystone XL pipeline, from delays last fall to the outright rejection of the pipeline permit earlier this year. The president wants to reject the pipeline, and yet take credit for approving it. Similarly, he’s closed development of millions of acres of onshore and offshore federal lands for oil and gas production, while attempting to take credit for production increases on state and private lands where he has no role.

“Just this week, the Congressional Research Service released a report showing that federal oil production represents 7.5 percent of the total oil produced from all onshore U.S. lands in 2011, despite the fact that the federal government owns more than 30 percent of the lands with oil producing potential.

“And the Energy Information Administration released data this month that shows oil production on federal lands is down 13 percent this year under the Obama administration. Natural gas production is at a 9 year low. These energy facts stand in stark contrast to the President’s bogus claims.

“Today, the Washington Post ‘downgraded’ the president’s record of truthfulness on America’s vast oil resources. The administration continues to claim that the U.S. only has 2 percent of the world’s oil resources. But according to his own administration’s data, America has 200 years of domestic oil supply at current consumption levels. And that’s not counting Canadian oil that the Keystone XL pipeline would bring to U.S. refineries.

Had the president authorized the Keystone XL permit in January – when he denied it – America would be well on our way to bringing more than 700,000 barrels of Canadian oil on line. That’s more than twice the oil that was produced on federal onshore lands last year, and it could have created as many as 20,000 jobs in the process.

“The glaring hypocrisy of the president’s speech today is that he announced that his administration would fast-track approval of a pipeline project that the White House has no control over. And if the president has the ability to fast-track permits, why has he waited until today to use that executive authority? And why only for this project?

“This administration’s record speaks for itself. For more than three years, President Obama has implemented a three part energy strategy: delay, deny, and deceive.”

» If you liked this article, please subscribe to Right Side News Daily

Obama said ready to push partial Keystone XL approval

Obama will be in Cushing, Okla., the start point of the pipeline’s southern half on Thursday

image

The Keystone XL project will extend TransCanada Corp.‘s Keystone pipeline that carries oil from northern Alberta to refineries in the United States. (TransCanada Corp.)

U.S. President Barack Obama is reportedly set to announce in Oklahoma this week that he’s expediting the permit process for the southern half of TransCanada’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Citing a senior administration source, CNN reported on Tuesday that Obama wants to slash several months off a permit approval process that can ordinarily stretch on for as long as a year.

The administration wants to speed things up to deal with a glut of oil in Cushing, Oklahoma, where crude from the Midwest runs into a logjam on its way to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama will make the announcement Thursday at a storage yard in Cushing, the starting point of the pipeline’s southern half.

Pipes that will be used to build Keystone XL to the Gulf Coast are being housed at the facility.

Gas prices rising

The announcement comes as prices at the pump continue to soar. Republicans are blaming Obama’s energy policies for rising gas prices and continue to attack him for rejecting Keystone XL in January.

The U.S. average price for a gallon of gasoline rose for the 11th straight day on Tuesday to $3.85 US, and soared to $4 a gallon in some states. That would amount to a little over a dollar a litre in Canada.

Millions of barrels of unrefined crude are sitting in storage facilities in North Dakota, in particular, but there’s a lack of pipeline capacity to carry it to the Gulf Coast and a limited number of rail cars that can transport the oil south. The state is currently in the throes of a major oil boom thanks to the discovery of the so-called Bakken Shale.

Obama’s recent praise of Calgary-based TransCanada’s decision to proceed with the construction of the southern segment of the pipeline signalled a shift in attitude from the White House after it rejected the pipeline outright in January.

The entire length of the proposed, $7.6 billion pipeline would stretch from Alberta’s oilsands through six U.S. states to the Gulf Coast.

No decision from State Dept.

The U.S. State Department has yet to make a decision on the pipeline, saying it needs more time to conduct a thorough environmental review of a new route around an environmentally sensitive aquifer in Nebraska. State department officials are assessing the project because it crosses an international border.

In November, under mounting pressure from environmentalists, the State Department deferred making a decision on Keystone until after this year’s presidential election, citing concerns about the risks posed to the aquifer.

Pipeline proponents cried foul, accusing Obama of making a cynical political move aimed at pacifying the environmentalists of his base and improving his chances of re-election.

Republicans then held the administration’s feet to the fire, successfully inserting pipeline provisions into payroll tax cut legislation in late December.

Within a month, facing a mid-February deadline imposed by that measure, Obama nixed TransCanada’s existing permit outright, saying there wasn’t enough time to thoroughly review a new route before giving it the green light.

But Obama also assured Prime Minister Stephen Harper that the decision did not reflect on the pipeline’s merits, but was merely necessitated by Republican pressure tactics. He welcomed TransCanada to propose another route.

Source

Politics sank Keystone XL, Exxon says

image

Published: March. 12, 2012 at 6:47 AM

HOUSTON, March 12 (UPI) — A decision to delay a permit for TransCanada‘s Keystone XL oil pipeline was based largely on U.S. politics, an energy executive said.

U.S. President Barack Obama in January denied a permit for TransCanada to build the billion-dollar Keystone XL oil pipeline. Republican leaders had tried to push the permit through by including the pipeline in a bill that extended payroll tax benefits. Obama rejected the permit because of an “arbitrary” deadline proposed in the legislation.

Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson told a major energy conference in Houston that industry leaders were practicing due diligence with the project but it was the U.S. political system that was getting in the way of development.

The decision to deny the initial permit for TransCanada, Tillerson said, was because of “political calculations” in Washington.

“In the end, it was also a disservice to public employees who are charged with overseeing this process and who met their obligations,” he was quoted by the Platts news service as saying. “We must continue to engage elected officials of the public to communicate the consequences of failing to move forward with such strategic opportunities.”

Backers of the pipeline describe it as a “shovel-ready” project that would shield the U.S. market from the effects that Middle East tensions have on the oil market. Critics say crude oil from Canada, designated for Keystone XL, is one of the dirtiest types of crude oil.

TransCanada can reapply after it settles on a route through Nebraska.

Read more: UPI

Obama lobby of Senate leads to defeat of Keystone pipeline

image

by Audrey Hudson

The Senate failed Thursday to overturn the White House’s decision to block construction of the Keystone XL pipeline due in part to a last-minute lobbying effort by President Barack Obama.

Obama’s efforts to head off defiance of his order through phone calls to Democratic lawmakers resulted in 56 yeas and 42 nays — four short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

“The president believes that it is wrong to play politics with a pipeline project whose route has yet to be proposed,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when asked about Obama’s lobbying efforts earlier in the day.

The amendment to the highway bill authored by Sen. John Hoeven (R- N.D.) would have stripped the president of his authority to deny the needed permit to build the cross-border pipeline from Canada to Texas.

“Frankly, it’s hard to even comprehend how out of touch (Obama) is on this issue,” said Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“I mean, think about it: at a moment when millions are out of work, gas prices are skyrocketing and the Middle East is in turmoil, we’ve got a president who’s up making phone calls trying to block a pipeline here at home. It’s unbelievable,” McConnell said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told Obama to put down the phone and stop lobbying against the creation of new jobs. Republicans tout the pipeline as the nation’s largest shovel-ready project that would create 20,000 jobs.

“This is ridiculous, with price of gas soaring, the president blasts anyone who criticizes his lack of an energy strategy, but then he’s lobbying to stop a common-sense amendment allowing Keystone XL pipeline to move forward,” Hatch said.

That measure was further diluted by an alternative amendment offered by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that would eventually approve the project but also sought to block any export of oil brought into the U.S. to be refined.

“A vote for (Wyden’s) bill is a vote to block the project, make no mistake,” Hoeven said.

Wyden said his amendment would ensure that all of the oil would be used by American consumers and not sold to China.

“When you build a pipeline 2,000 miles across the nation, our challenge is to do it right,” Wyden said.

Wyden’s amendment also failed on a vote of 34 yeas to 64 nays.

“Millions of miles of pipelines cross this country, but for some reason, this one pipeline is a problem?” Hoeven said.

TransCanada has announced that it will go ahead and construct one leg of the project that extends from Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas, and will push ahead for the permit to cross the northern border next year.

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Steven Chu testified before a House panel earlier in the day where he faced questions about the pipeline and previous comments he made that the administration’s goal was not to lower gas prices.

“The president and everybody in the administration want to do what we can to lower the price of gasoline because it has a severe effect on the pocketbook of Americans and it affects American businesses,” Chu told the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and power.

“There is no single magic bullet that can instantaneously do that,” said Chu, who also told the panel he does not own a car.

Some lawmakers were not convinced that the administration is doing all it can to lower gas prices.

“What has the president done to help solve our energy problems?” asked Rep. Fred Upton, (R-Mich.), chairman of the full committee.

“President Obama has twice rejected the Keystone XL pipeline project and all the job creation and secure energy supplies it would deliver,” Upton said. “The president has recently begun to brag that he supports an ‘all of the above’ energy policy, but these actions look more like a policy of ‘nothing from below.’”

Chu was criticized last week after he suggested to the House Appropriations Committee that the Obama administration was not working to reduce the price of gas. Asked by Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) then if the overall goal was to bring down the price of gasoline, Chu said “no.”

[ Energy Secretary Chu Admits Administration OK with High Gas Prices ]

“The overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu said.


Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades — on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court.  Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook.

Source

Obama loves oil — Not!

image

Peter Foster Jan 27, 2012 – 8:00 AM ET

Nothing more clearly indicates U.S. President Barack Obama’s economic muddledom and ideological stubbornness than the dog’s breakfast of energy policies revealed in Tuesday’s State of the Union address. The good news is that hydrocarbons are back (as long as you forget Keystone XL). The bad news is that “clean” energy isn’t going away. Instead it’s “all of the above.”

Without his nose growing visibly, the President claimed the government was behind the technological advances that led to the current shale gas boom, and even suggested that he might take credit for the rise in domestic oil production. In fact, Mr. Obama’s administration has hampered and castigated oil companies at every turn. In the light of the hysterical grandstanding over the BP Gulf spill (whose impact proved to be greatly exaggerated), it was ironic indeed to hear the President now declare a great opening up of offshore exploration.

The industry has responded to attacks by becoming more innovative and productive. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, between 2007 and 2010, U.S. oil production grew from 5.1 million barrels a day (mbd) to 5.5 mbd. The agency predicts domestic production will hit 6.7 mbd by 2020, helping take imports down to 36% of domestic usage in 2035 from 60% in 2005. So much for peak oil. Meanwhile, the EIA also predicts that by 2016, thanks to the shale boom, the U.S. will be a natural gas exporter.

This reluctant acknowledgment of the success of private innovation was accompanied on Tuesday by the usual cheap shots. The oil industry has been subsidized (a dubious claim) for too long. Its profits are too fat. The administration will demand that oil companies release details of fracking chemicals – as if they might wilfully poison Americans without public oversight.

These political sideswipes are unlikely to appease the environmental lobby. If the President thinks he won any Greenie Points by kicking the Keystone XL pipeline down the road, he certainly lost them all – and probably then some – with his support for fracking and offshore drilling. Radical environmentalists don’t want to hear about energy security, objective risks, or practical safety measures: they want to close down hydrocarbons as the work of the climate devil.

Over in the dodgy logic section, Mr. Obama suggested that shale gas success demonstrated that it took time for energy research to pay off, thus he was right to stick with promoting alternatives. However, the cases are entirely different. U.S. government research laboratories may indeed have been involved in technologies such as fracking and directional drilling, but these technologies were first developed in the private sector. Government presence should be attributed more to jumping on winners than skill in picking them. Plus, there is the private sector’s incurable penchant for grabbing government funds. When it comes to alternatives, however, while rent seekers are as thick on the ground as subsidized solar panels, the government has no winners on which to jump.

The President suggested government-stoked success in battery technology, but this is predicated on the success of electric cars, of which the President wants – Soviet target-style – to see a million on the road by 2015. Government support for “clean” energy isn’t an investment in the future: It is money down the drain. Naturally, the half-billion-dollar Solyndra debacle received as little reference as Keystone XL.

Critics have suggested TransCanada’s projection of 20,000 jobs in construction and manufacturing from the Keystone XL line, with many more spin-offs, is exaggerated. Strange how interventionists love the Keynesian multiplier when it refers to government expenditure but deplore the idea when it comes to creating real jobs. More important, job creation in subsidized wind and solar is entirely fictitious. One widely quoted Spanish study suggests that every alternative job costs two jobs elsewhere.

Mr. Obama, now presumably to his embarrassment, has referred to oil as a dwindling “19th-century” resource. If we are talking of being out of date, William Watson noted here yesterday that President Obama’s grasp of economics hasn’t yet absorbed the 18th-century wisdom of Adam Smith. Mr. Owe’s predilection for misconceived trade-is-war “mercantilist” policies was clear from his promise in the State of the Union not to “cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.”

If they put in big destructive subsidies that threaten real trade war, then so will we. Anything they can do, we can do stupider.

One wonders if the President has the slightest clue about the flagging state of the wind and solar industries in Germany, or that what is boosting China’s alternatives industry is government subsidies … from other countries.

The President announced a plan to devote huge swathes of public land to the development of clean energy to power “three million homes.” He also apparently committed the Navy to buying a chunk of this power, as if it weren’t expensive enough to guard the Strait of Hormuz.

Mercantilist alternative energy strategies represent – as Jimmy Carter famously suggested – the “moral equivalent of war.” The problem is that it is war on one’s own economy. At least, with his partial ceasefire against the oil industry, President Obama is now only shooting himself in one policy foot rather than both.

Source

Obama Puppetmaster Warren Buffett Biggest Winner From Keystone Pipeline Rejection

image

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/24/2012 08:36 –0500

Just when one thinks American crony capitalism couldn’t hit new lows, here comes Warren Buffett and his personal puppet, the president, proving everyone wrong once more. Because if one thinks there is no (s)quid pro quo for all that “sage” advice that Buffett has been giving to Obama on extracting as much wealth as possible from future wealthy Americans (before they decide they have had enough with this crony shit and leave the country for good), one would be fatally wrong. As it turns out, it is not just natural resources and aquifer purity that Obama had in mind when sealing the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline. No – it appears there were far more relevant numerial metrics that determined Obama’s decisions. Such as the bottom line number of Buffett’s Burlington Northern, which according to Bloomberg, is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit. ‘“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.” And quite delighted to reap the windfalls of unfounded populist fears she forgot to add. Because while the whole “carbon-credit” multi-trillion top line expansion scheme for Goldman under the pretense of actually caring for the environment may have collapsed, it is not preventing others from trying and succeeding where even Goldman has failed.

From Bloomberg:

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.

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.

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.”

So those wondering how it is that AAR railroad statistics continue to be so very strong, it is not because the economy actually justifies it: it is because crony interests such as those of the Octogenarian of Omaha demand it as “payment” for their crony collegiality with the biggest dunce president since Carter.

In other news, it is truly amazing how with every new development, America is now becoming like one giant conspiracy theory, only this time it is actually not a theory as with every passing day we see it enacted in practice.

Source

%d bloggers like this: