After Keystone

“We’d rather sell our oil to China.”

What Harper is saying is that Canada could make more money by creating a market for its oil rather than selling all of it solely to the US. In other words, the cost of Canadian oil will go up as the US is forced to compete with China.

…Obama could have approved the pipeline, added 30,000 jobs to the economy, and insured the most secure oil source for our future. Instead, he chose to kill the pipeline and the jobs and, in the process, insured that America will pay more for the oil it does buy. It’s hard to imagine a worse decision, especially since it was all so Obama could deny Republicans a win in the run-up to the next election.

It’s worse, actually, considering the latest news:

Officials in the White House’s Office of Management and Budget told the Treasury Department that the announcement of a conditional commitment to Solyndra was imminent. The department had one day to review the terms of the guarantee to accommodate an Energy Department press release.

“Treasury’s consultative role was not sufficiently defined, the consultation that did occur was rushed and no documentation was retained as to how Treasury’s serious concerns with the loan were addressed,” the audit said.

…The Treasury requested more time for review and later agreed with the Energy Department’s request to expedite the review by March 19, 2009, “so that the press release could be issued on the morning of March 20, 2009,” according to the report.

Got that? A speculative “green” energy project that in retrospect, once the rest of us saw the details, was obviously going to be a business disaster, and ended up costing the taxpayers over half a billion dollars, was approved after a “one-day review.” Yet the president demanded that Keystone, a project with certain and vast energy output, be delayed for many more months so that it could be “adequately reviewed,” despite the fact that it had already had years of review. And as a result our energy prices will now rise in the future, with no way of returning to the status quo. Just as the president told us he wanted them to when he ran four years ago.

The campaign ad this fall almost writes itself. Or themselves.

One wonders what administration defenders are thinking as they watch this ongoing trainwreck. We know what they’re saying, but what are they thinking?

95 thoughts on “After Keystone

  1. Larry J

    The environmental impact review process is a racket. They drag out the process for years to milk it for everything it’s worth. So called green groups often file harassing lawsuits until they’re bought off. That’s why I think they should be brought up on RICO statutes.

    1. Larry J

      It also means “Dragging out the process for as long as possible to milk as much money off the job as I can.”

      1. Kevin

        Don’t forget the the true believers thinking, “Dragging out the process for as long as possible cause evenually the evil company will give up.”

        As Canada seems to have.

  2. alanstorm

    “…but what are they thinking?”

    Slow down, big fella – first thing to do is ascertain whether they ARE thinking.

    All indications say no.

  3. Leland

    And note, while Canada is complaining about US not wanting to buy product we otherwise receive from Venezuela; Mexico is complaining that our government is encouraging dealers to provide firearms to the drug cartels.

  4. Curt Thomson

    Harper: In terms of the second part of your question, would approval of this change our mind, uh, the answer is no. Look, the very fact that a “no” could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets.

    And he said that in DC, on the record, in front of an audience.

    Words. Fail.

  5. Thomas Matula

    Interesting, but folks who are actually familiar with the oil industry China know was investing in Canada’s oil sands long before the Keystone decision was made….

    http://www.chron.com/business/article/China-invests-billions-in-oil-sands-2176114.php

    China invests billions in Canada oil sands

    By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

    Updated 12:02 a.m., Monday, September 19, 2011

    [[[For decades, U.S. and Canadian companies were the biggest investors in Canada's oil sands reserves. But other countries, led by China, have poured billions into Canada's oil sands projects in the past few years.

    2005: China's CNOOC buys 17 percent stake in Calgary-based MEG Energy Corp.

    2010: PetroChina International Investment Co. buys 60 percent working interest in Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.'s MacKay River and Dover oil sands projects.

    Sinopec (China Petrochemical Corp.) buys ConocoPhillips' 9 percent stake in Syncrude Canada, the world's biggest oil sands producer.

    China Investment Corp. buys 45 percent stake in an oil sands project owned by Penn West Energy Trust.

    Thailand-based PTT Exploration and Production buys 40 percent share in Statoil's Kai Kos Dehseh oil sands project.]]]

    1. Leland

      I take it by your misunderstanding of how investment works in the oil industry that you didn’t realize that nothing you wrote has anything to do with the topic. China could have chosen to invest in Keystone pipeline as well, but the return on that investment would have come from the revenue made by the pipeline taking the oil to US refineries. It doesn’t mean that China gets the oil from the land.

      Let’s put this in a way you might understand. Let’s say China buys US treasury notes…

      1. Thomas Matula

        Leland,

        [[[I take it by your misunderstanding of how investment works in the oil industry that you didn’t realize that nothing you wrote has anything to do with the topic.]]]

        Yea, right… Maybe you need to learn a bit about how China invests…

        The Chinese are not looking for an ROI, they are looking for oil. By buying into the firms in Canada producing it they are ensuring they will have a supply of it. That why the same firms China has been investing in have been pushing a pipeline to the Pacific for years. From 2010…

        http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/tanker-traffic-in-an-oil-spill-sensitive-world/article1663756/

        Tanker traffic in an oil-spill-sensitive world
        rebecca lindell
        Vancouver— From Friday’s Globe and Mail
        Published Thursday, Aug. 05, 2010 10:16PM EDT
        Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010 1:31PM EST

        [[[Today, pressure to open the area to tankers is mounting, spurred on by the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – a plan to build a pipeline capable of bringing 525,000 barrels of oil a day from Edmonton to the remote port of Kitimat, B.C., where supertankers would load up and sail to Asia.]]]

        And since you are an expert in oil industry investing you may guess where the money to build the pipeline will be coming from…

        So again, building a pipeline to send oil to China is nothing new, its been in the plan well before Keystone. But the good folks of British Columbia don’t want the pipeline endangering their fishing any more than the farmers of Nebraska want the Keystone endangering their water supply…

        1. George Turner

          Thomas, China withdrew from the Enbridge Northern Gateway project in 2007.

          Regardless, I think you’re missing the point of the article. Canada was selling oil to the US at below world market prices. They were doing so quite happily, as they have a large, friendly, captive market to their south, and shipping oil all the way to the coast for export wasn’t really worth the hassle.

          Obama has changed their opinion on that, and now they’ll be forcing us to pay the full price for the oil – forever, because Obama and his croanies demonized them and kicked them like a football.

          1. Thomas Matula

            George,

            I know. Because of the opposition in British Columbia Chinese firms decided to lower their profile in the project, so PetroChina pulled out and then they bought into the Canadian firms listed further up in this thread which were already involved in pushing the project to make it more “Canadian…)

        2. Leland

          China and Canada may have both been willing to fund a pipeline to the West Coast of Canada all along. I don’t doubt that it. But Matula’s understanding of oil investing is still based on ignorance of how it works.

          The Chinese are not looking for an ROI

          Sure Matula, you keep believing that, and I have no doubt the fed believed the same when it did QEI and QEII.

          1. Thomas Matula

            Leland,

            You don’t have a clue, do you? Contrary to popular belief not all corporations are as focus on profits as U.S. firms are….

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072502979.html

            China invests heavily in Brazil, elsewhere in pursuit of political heft

            By John Pomfret
            Washington Post Staff Writer
            Monday, July 26, 2010

            [[[The investments in Brazil reflect China's "going out" strategy, which seeks to guarantee natural resources for development purposes and to shield the country's state-owned enterprises from slower growth at home.]]]

            and

            [[[As it does so, China is playing by its own rules, giving its firms an edge over U.S. and other multinational companies bound by internationally mandated restrictions intended to promote fair competition. In addition, Brazil and other developing countries, which once saw China as an ally, are now realizing that Chinese companies are competing on their own turf for resources and market share. And some analysts say the United States has been slow to perceive that China is using investment to build political heft.]]]

            China’s investment in Canada fits well with this “going out” strategy…

          2. Leland

            Market share is different than oil. I can give you a barrel of crude oil in Nevada, and you’d have very little that you could do with it beyond burning it as is. But by all means, keep changing the topic. Maybe one day you’ll land on something you know about.

          3. Thomas Matula

            Leland,

            As usual you miss the key point, namely that the major Chinese firms don’t look at investments just from the perspective of ROI, but from a larger geopolitical one of influence and control of resources.

  6. Thomas Matula

    Rand,

    [[[A speculative “green” energy project that in retrospect, once the rest of us saw the details, was obviously going to be a business disaster, and ended up costing the taxpayers over half a billion dollars, was approved after a “one-day review.” Yet the president demanded that Keystone, a project with certain and vast energy output, be delayed for many more months so that it could be “adequately reviewed,” despite the fact that it had already had years of review.]]]

    I would assumed wou would know the difference between simply reviewing a loan versus doing an environmental review, but in case you don’t know there is a big difference in what a review requires. Also the major sticking point on the Keystone Pipeline, which the GOP chooses to ignore is that the Republican state of Nebraska hadn’t approved the route, one of the key requirements that must be satisfied before the federal government is allowed to approve it, unless of course you don’t believe the state of Nebraska should have any say in the issue (i.e. the feds should just trample all over their state rights…)

    http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/new-keystone-xl-pipeline-corridor-identified-in-nebraska/article_c0419e42-7c31-11e1-9e06-0019bb2963f4.html

    New Keystone XL pipeline corridor identified in Nebraska

    Read more: http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/new-keystone-xl-pipeline-corridor-identified-in-nebraska/article_c0419e42-7c31-11e1-9e06-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1rBPZrS8E

    Posted: Sunday, April 1, 2012 7:01 pm

    [[[Due to concerns about the initial route, Gov. Dave Heineman called a special session to discuss options for giving the state more control over such pipeline projects. TransCanada agreed to choose another route that avoided the Sandhills, and Howard said company officials planned to meet with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality to show state officials its proposal on Jan. 19.

    However, Obama rejected the federal permit application on Jan. 18, blaming the congressional deadline.]]]

    Yes, if there was no Congressional deadline the normal process would have been followed, namely the state would have done its review, approved or modified it, and then referred it to the federal government for final approval. But Congress decided to play a game of chicken and force a federal decision before the state of Nebraska had time to make ITS decision, essentially choosing to stump all over the rights of the state of Nebraska. So much for GOP support for state rights…

    1. ken anthony

      The article you link denies what you are saying and says the quote Rand gave from the article he quotes is correct.

      …would let the state restart its review, after President Barack Obama denied a federal permit in the face of a congressional deadline, halting the process.

      Which is to say, you can not unblaim Obama to blaim the GOP. You’re just blowing smoke Thomas. Amazingly doing exactly what Obama does when he goes to a state to say he supports the pipeline that has nothing to do with Canada or when he says he’s for an All of the Above energy policy when he isn’t.

      We can’t blame this on Obama’s stupidity either and I don’t think it’s purely about green ideology. The result, higher energy costs and lost jobs was completely known. Obama didn’t do this to hurt the GOP. He did this to hurt American and he did it with forethought.

      The man is evil.

      1. Thomas Matula

        Ken,

        [[[…would let the state restart its review, after President Barack Obama denied a federal permit in the face of a congressional deadline, halting the process.]]]

        Of course, by forcing the President to decide prematurely it rendered Nebraska environmental review moot the process stopped. It will start again IF Congress allows the normal procedure to go forward and stops playing games with the Keystone just to score political points…

        1. Rick C

          Prematurely? They already had three years of reviews. What’s an appropriate amount of time for YOU?

          1. Thomas Matula

            Rick,

            Three years for the OLD route. Keystone only agreed to change the route in November, the first review where they would reveal the new route was to be in January. So you are talking at most about a few months for the new route which avoids the sand hills.

    2. Leland

      So Matula’s argument, based on this article, is that the GOP leadership of Nebraska blocked Keystone XL, and he makes this claim by pulling out a section of the article which doesn’t support his argument. What it says is that environmental groups are still complaining about the route. That whole “due to concerns” doesn’t identify whose concerns, but I think its easy to look elsewhere (like within the portions of the article Matula decided not to quote) and understand the concerns came from the federal EPA. Before Nebraska could try to push legislation and attempt to get more control of the routing process, Obama blocked them by denying TransCanada’s federal permit request.

      1. Thomas Matula

        Leland,

        You what is really funny? The original opposition to the Keystone actually came from Canada in 2007…

        http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article142842.ece

        [[[The Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada said today it is asking the federal government to block regulatory approvals for TransCanada Corp's planned C$2.8 billion (US$2.9 billion) Keystone oil pipeline to the US because of worries it will hinder job growth.

        The union said it has appealed the National Energy Board's September approval of the line to the federal Cabinet. It wants the government to rescind the decision and hold hearings on the export of crude oil to the US instead of building facilities to refine it in Canada.]]]

        But the most recent concern was by the Republican Governor of Nebraska. His Press Release from 2011…

        http://www.governor.nebraska.gov/news/2011/11/15_pipline.html

        Gov. Heineman: Pipeline Re-Routing is Nebraska Common Sense
        [[[For months, Nebraskans have been clear about our position on the pipeline - we support the pipeline. However, we’re opposed to a route through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills. Citizens voiced their opinions at public hearings in Atkinson and Lincoln and at the Legislature’s three public hearings. Through our persistence and determination, the State Department heard our concerns. Additionally, TransCanada has heard our concerns and has voluntarily agreed to change the route.”]]]

        But I guess you think President Obama should have just ignored the Republican Governor’s request to the State Department to withhold approval until a new route was selected and approved by the state of Nebraska…

        1. Curt Thomson

          You what is really funny?

          Well, speculating about your age would be.

          Rand’s question is a good one. We know what you’re saying, but what are you thinking. I guess one needs to be engaged in the process for the question to have any meaning.

          1. Thomas Matula

            Curt,

            So I guess when you are not able to dispute the facts you need to attack the poster. I guess that tells us your age :-)

          2. Leland

            Curt,

            He’s in his late 50’s teaching business in the middle of Nevada. There’s no need to speculate on age. Just laugh at him.

            And as for his retort, he once called me an unemployed twenty-something living in my parent’s basement. You can see how easy it is to get the better of him, which you did.

        2. George Turner

          So some Canadians wanted to block the pipeline because without it there would be more jobs in Canada instead of the US. And Obama went along with this reasoning…

          And I’m sure you realize that without the pipeline the oil will be transported in rail cars, throwing away money and creating vastly more pollution, and we all know that trains never derail.

          Of course Obama advisor Warren Buffett will make billions off the decision, since he’s a major holder in Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which will be transporting the oil.

          Whenever Obama makes a bold decision, the country suffers and an Obama advisor somewhere gets insanely richer. I wonder why that is?

          1. Thomas Matula

            George,

            If you check the date it was 2007. That was during the Bush Administration, so I guess President Bush went along with them while President Obama chose to go along with the Republican Governor of Nebraska…

          2. Thomas Matula

            I am breaking these replies up because of Rand’s spam system…

            [[[Of course Obama advisor Warren Buffett will make billions off the decision, since he’s a major holder in Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which will be transporting the oil.]]]

            One could also make the argument that the Koch Brothers who fund the Tea Party and are investors in the Keystone probably forced Congress into pushing for the President to short circuit the normal approve process and over ride the wishes of the state of Nebraska because they wanted to save themselves tens of millions in environmental compliance costs…

            But more likely all Congress was doing was looking for a fight and tried to call the President’s bluff, but he didn’t cave in and called theirs instead.

            But also I bet you don’t know there are already FOUR oil pipelines from Canada to the Midwest including a Keystone pipeline to the refineries in Illinois… They will probably profit just as much as the BNSF over the delay. And it is just a delay. President Obama has already approved the southern portion and if the current Republican Congress doesn’t pass the bill to move the rest of the Keystone forward the next Congress will.

          3. George Turner

            Thomas, the State of Nebraska wants the pipeline. They were ordered to conduct further reviews by the US State Department (Hillary and Obama). So to get around that, they’re going to spend $2 million of Nebraska’s own money on a new review to avoid federal shenanigans.

          4. Thomas Matula

            George,

            Sorry, the record just doesn’t support your beliefs… It was the Governor of Nebraska, responding to the demands of his own voters, not Washington, tha pushed for rerouting the pipeline.

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-pipeline-keystone-idUSTRE77U3A620110831

            Nebraska governor asks Obama to nix Keystone pipeline

            WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:58pm EDT

            [[[(Reuters) - Nebraska's governor urged U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday to block TransCanada's planned Keystone oil pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, saying it could hurt a regional water source.]]]

            [[[The State Department should deny the permit on the grounds that the line could put the Ogallala Aquifer at risk, the Midwestern state's governor, Dave Heineman, said in a letter to the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.]]]

        3. Eric Weder

          Wow, I thought you were deluded above in this thread, but words now fail …

          You quote a union opposing the pipeline and equate that to “Canada was against it”. You are definitely a tinfoil hat loon.

          1. Thomas Matula

            Eric,

            No, I was just showing that opposition to it was not just from the U.S., but from Canada as well. And the union in question did hold up the approval by the Canadian government so the U.S. process was delayed. Which is why its funny Canada is whining about the U.S. holding approval now…

          2. Leland

            You got him nailed Eric. A union opposing the pipeline in Matula’s world means the entire Canadian government and President Bush stood opposed. Environmentalist in Nebraska oppose the pipeline and that means the GOP governor stood opposed. It doesn’t matter that the articles don’t support his views, and he uses no known form of logic. He just wants to tell us thats his belief because he thinks we will be amazed by his stupidity.

          3. Thomas Matula

            Leland,

            No, it merely shows that Canada had it own problems to deal with FIRST before bringing the project to the U.S. for approval so the delay since 2005 was not entirely on the U.S. side.

            As for the Governor of Nebraska opposing it, again, here is a link to show that he did indeed do so in regards to the original route…

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-pipeline-keystone-idUSTRE77U3A620110831

            WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:58pm EDT

            [[[(Reuters) - Nebraska's governor urged U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday to block TransCanada's planned Keystone oil pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, saying it could hurt a regional water source.]]]

            Yes, I know facts are inconvenient things when they go against the stories you get from Fox News, but the facts are clear for everyone to see :-)

          4. Leland

            Interesting Matula that you keep making statements and then providing links that don’t support your claim. I’ll give you 1/2 credit for finding an article 6 months prior to Obama killing the Keystone pipeline that shows opposition by the Nebraska governor. It doesn’t fit with your earlier narrative, but it does show some opposition by the govenor. Do you have anything to support your first paragraph?

            By the way, here’s Fox News for you:

            NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Bowing to public pressure, the Obama administration said Thursday it will delay a decision on the controversial Keystone oil sands pipeline expansion until at least 2013.
            The article is from November 2011, 2 months before Obama made it official, and a week after Nebraska legislature held a special session to discuss new routes. This article is contrary to the stuff you presented before, but hey, it’s Fox News. Oh wait…

          5. Thomas Matula

            Leland,

            Yes, it’s “faux” News says it all. The session in question didn’t pick a route, just agreed that Keystone needed to pick one. And guess what, the day after President Obama announced a delay in making the decision, and right in the middle of the special Nebraska legislative session, what does Keystone do? They announced they will pick a new route…

            http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/15/nation/la-na-keystone-pipeline-20111115

            November 15, 2011

            Keystone pipeline builder proposes changing Nebraska route

            [[[TransCanada Corp.'s agreement to skirt the porous, watery region atop the nation's most important agricultural aquifer was celebrated by Nebraska ranchers and conservationists who have battled the pipeline.]]]

            [[[The announcement came during a special session of the Nebraska Legislature and won immediate support from many lawmakers. They have said they welcome the pipeline project's potential for jobs and new energy supplies but oppose any attempt to build it through a region where groundwater often lies inches below the surface.]]]

            [[["As I understand the concern of the State Department, in listening in on their press conference last week, they indicated that the reason for the delay was the concern that was raised by Nebraskans with respect to the route, and particularly the Sandhills. We have now reached an agreement with … the Nebraska Legislature that we are going to reroute the pipeline around the Sandhills," Pourbaix said in an interview.]]]

            Yes, shame on President Obama for bowing to pressure from the State of Nebraska. He should have just approved it and state rights be damned, like a good Republican President would have. Oh, wait, aren’t the Republicans supposed to be for state rights? I guess not when the oil industry is involved…

          6. Rob Smith

            I find it amusing that in light of recent mainstream media shenanigans regarding Trayvon Miller, anybody can type “Faux” News and expect to be as anything other than a flaming idiot.

          7. Leland

            The session in question didn’t pick a route, just agreed that Keystone needed to pick one.

            With whom did they agree?

            According to your article, the State Department delay was because of concerns “raised by Nebraskans”. That’s an odd way to refer to the Nebraskan governor or legislature. Perhaps you can find evidence to support your argument?

    3. David

      The big point you’re missing here is that it wasn’t rejected through EPA permitting, it was rejected through the Dept. of State. This was a completely different path that has no required dependency on Nebraska approving a chosen route, that’s just a smokescreen. State is involved solely because it’s a project that crosses the border, the question being asked of State can simply be boiled down to “do we want to approve a pipeline crossing the international border?” It’s perfectly reasonable for State to inquire into things like the probability of the project succeeding, the history of the various contractors, etc. But complying with environmental issues, getting permits, local approval, etc is a completely different path, and already required by law. It’s not like State said “we’ll approve it if the EPA does.” It’s already assumed that the EPA is going to do a separate review, which has been in progress for years. State saying “yes” would have no effect on that review. But State saying “no” makes the review pointless. You can understand why Canada might be a bit upset when that “no” comes down years into the process, for obviously political reasons. And that’s the point Harper explicitly made. The project wasn’t killed because it was technically or economically unsound, nor was it killed because of a failure to pass environmental review. It was killed because Obama didn’t want to have to make a decision before the election, and the GOP forced his hand, recognizing that from Canada’s standpoint, saying “I’ll make a decision after the election” was the same as saying “no.” If he’s effectively saying “no”, it was worth making him actually utter the word.

      1. Der Schtumpy

        David,
        there’s no WAY we can have any alien oil cross our borders! Illegal aliens crossing, that’s OK to the Obamanoids, but alien oil is just wrong!

      2. Thomas Matula

        David,

        You are missing that the Governor of Nebraska requested that the State Department reject it unless the route was changed. Read the press release I linked to where he thanks the State Department for agreeing to his request and not approving it…

  7. Curt Thomson

    Interesting, but folks who are actually familiar with the oil industry China [sic] know was investing in Canada’s oil sands long before the Keystone decision was made…

    Which would obviously explain Obama’s “no” to Canada right Thomas? What’s the dem party line on that? I’m assuming you know.

    However, Obama rejected the federal permit application on Jan. 18, blaming the congressional deadline.

    Who or what is Obama blaming for the half-billion loss of taxpayer money on Solyndra? Just curious.

    1. Thomas Matula

      Curt,

      Let’s see, you are the President of the United States. Given a choice of say No to the Governor of Nebraska, or No to Canada, what would you do?

      http://www.governor.nebraska.gov/news/2011/11/15_pipline.html

      Gov. Heineman: Pipeline Re-Routing is Nebraska Common Sense

      [[[For months, Nebraskans have been clear about our position on the pipeline - we support the pipeline. However, we’re opposed to a route through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills. Citizens voiced their opinions at public hearings in Atkinson and Lincoln and at the Legislature’s three public hearings. Through our persistence and determination, the State Department heard our concerns. Additionally, TransCanada has heard our concerns and has voluntarily agreed to change the route.”]]]

      But again this wouldn’t have been a issue IF the Congress haven’t placed an deadline on it to play political games. Instead Nebraska would have gone through its approval process, given the green light to the State Department and it would have been approved.

      1. Thomas Matula

        Curt,

        I had a response for Solyndra including links, but Rand’s system refuses to post it calling it spammy…

        But basically Solyndra is only one loan out of a 38 billion dollar program, and the only one to go bad. If Wall Street’s batting average was that good they wouldn’t have needed Presiden Bush to bail them out.

        1. Cecil Trotter

          “the only one to go bad”

          Do you think we’re ignorant or are you? Hint: we’re not.

          The most recent, as of yesterday but there may be another today, is “Solar Trust”.

          1. Thomas Matula

            Cecil,

            Again, not that unusual in a portfolio that large. BTW I assume the Washington Times is right wing enough for you…

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/4/stormy-weather-for-solar-firms/

            [[[But solar-industry leaders say their business is not in trouble and insist that these recent woes are just a young industry going through its inevitable series of growing pains.]]]

            [[[Dave Buemi, who leads federal business development at Suniva, agreed. He said the global solar industry is growing near a rate of 40 percent each year in terms of the number of installation projects, and it likely will become a $100 billion industry in the next few years.]]]

            [[[Mr. Buemi added that the solar industry accounts for 120,000 U.S. jobs and is “actually an industry that’s added jobs while other industries in the U.S. have not.”

            But the failure of Solyndra and Solar Trust make it difficult to see the bright side of the solar industry, especially in an era of declining government support.]]]

            [[[But Mr. Gibson and Mr. Buemi insist that such disappointments are outliers that don’t represent the solar industry’s success.

            “Solyndra is simply a function of a startup company that didn’t make it,” Mr. Buemi said. “It’s not a reflection of the global market. Unfortunately, everybody focuses on that.

            “Solyndra did not go under because of Chinese competition or subsidy cutbacks in Europe,” he added. “Solyndra went under because it was a failed technology.”]]]

            I guess its OK for New Space firms to go bankrupt after getting government money, but not solar power firms. Funny how being New Space seems to make a difference in the perception of folks on this blog :-)

            BTW you do know that Elon Musk’s solar firm also has government loans from this program don’t you? Fortunately its doing well, which is allowing him to focus on SpaceX.

          2. wodun

            Obama said Solyndra went under because of the market.

            Maybe new space would be more sympathetic if they received a tenth as much as Obama’s green cronies or maybe not.

            If we want to go all VC, then we can expect many more failures, up to 90% of the companies will fail. The last ten % are supposed to pay for the rest of the “portfolio” except they will only repay their own loans and not the ones of the companies that went bankrupt. Why? Because this isn’t VC, it is the government giving loans to companies that gave lots of money to Obama in the last election.

            Unless the government owns a significant portion of the successful companies, the money lost on the unsuccessful companies will never be recouped.

          3. Thomas Matula

            Wodun,

            Maybe if New Space was generating 100,000K + jobs they would get the same level of funding, as it is they are probably getting far more per job created then the solar energy industry is…

          4. wodun

            There are significant differences between the funding mechanisms of COTS/CCDEV and the DoE green energy program.

            The DoE could have taken some lessons from COTS to implement their green energy Obama campaign contributor slush fund.

            Also, the money Obama is wasting on green companies are not producing jobs just fat pockets for big Obama donors.

            I can see why you dodged the VC stuff.

          5. Thomas Matula

            Wodun,

            [[[I can see why you dodged the VC stuff.]]]

            VC want a piece of the action. I could just hear the R3 screaming if the federal government wanted shares of these firms in exchange for the loan guarantees…

            [[[Also, the money Obama is wasting on green companies are not producing jobs just fat pockets for big Obama donors.]]]

            You do know many of the green loans were made under the Bush Administration that started the program and many of the CEO’s are Republicans don’t you?

          6. Curt Thomson

            You do know the point here is that the review of the Solyndra give-away was forced to occur in one day, for the express purpose of press conference timing, don’t you?

          7. wodun

            Let VC have the action. They will do a better job than the government and they will make money not lose it in the process.

            People would rightly be upset if the government owned significant stakes in the companies they gave loans too.

            I just wanted to point out the flaw in relating the green energy loans to a VC.

      2. George Turner

        Thomas, here’s what the governor of Nebraska had to say about Obama’s decision.

        Right now, I think they’re looking for a convenient excuse to get it beyond the election. Let’s do what’s right for the country. Let’s put America back to work.

        He also notes that the US State Department had already approved the route through the Sand Hills, and then Obama made them take it back. So he signed a bill so Nebraska would pay for the study on the new route that avoids the Sand Hills, and he’s going to have it ready this summer, forcing Obama back onto the hot seat. As he said:

        So again, the State Department had already approved the route that was much more environmentally sensitive, and so in my view, he should have said ‘yes’ to allow this to move forward. There’s so much at stake for this country.

        Citing Governor Heineman as the reason for the cancellation isn’t going to fly.

        1. Thomas Matula

          George,

          You forgot this part in your article from False, I mean Fox News…

          [[[Heineman said his state will have completed the new study by about August, and sees no reason for further delay.

          "I would send a letter to the Department of State saying in Nebraska, we approve," he said. "At that stage, all they've got to then say it's in the national interest. ]]]

          So until the State Department gets the letter in August there is nothing for them to issue final approval on…

          As for the rest, since he’s a Republican Governor its not surprising for him to toe the Republican line on President Obama…

          1. M Puckett

            Hey Tom, why don’t you dust admit you are going to vote for Obama no matter what and drop the whole pretense? Nobody is buying it anyways.

          2. Thomas Matula

            M Puckett,

            Why don’t you just admit you don’t care about how much misinformation is posted about stories like this as long as it makes President Obama look bad. There used to be a time when folks were interested in getting their facts correct instead of spinning to support their political beliefs…

            No wonder there is a Republican war of science, since science is about the getting the fact straight and then developing theories to explain the versus the R3 approach accepting misinformation as long as it supports their beliefs…

          3. Curt Thomson

            There used to be a time when folks were interested in getting their facts correct instead of spinning to support their political beliefs…

            Your spinning here must be making you sick. Heineman was opposed before he was in favor, before he was again opposed, and… he’s toeing the Republican line. You are aware that Nebraska doesn’t share a border with Canada right?

            You should take a break and throw up before continuing.

          4. Thomas Matula

            Curt,

            Unforunately folks like you are a lost cause which is why I post here, so others won’t be misled by the constant stream of misinformation in this blog and end up like you :-)

            Or do you have any evidence to counter the information I posted versus just posting another personal attack since you don’t like that the facts go against you?

  8. rabbit

    So if it costs taxpayer hundreds of millions in subsidies then it’s approved in one day, and if the private sector is paying the full costs then it gets dragged out for years.

    Not much concern for the public purse.

    1. Thomas Matula

      Rabbit,

      Yes, you think the Bush Administration would have approved it in 2005 when it was proposed instead of delaying it into the next Administration….

      1. wodun

        Bush delayed it? Perhaps years of Eco-fascist sue and delay tactics?

        Or are you talking about Solyndra, where the Bush administration actually turned them down?

      2. George Turner

        It would have been amazing if the Bush Administration approved it in 2005 because it wasn’t even proposed until 2008 and an application wasn’t submitted until 2009.

        1. Leland

          Keystone was proposed in 2005. In 2008, the Bush Administration’s Department of State approved the permit to construct the Keystone pipeline. It went operational in 2010. This is the Keystone pipeline that Obama went to Cushing, OK to accept credit for making happen.

        2. George Turner

          Exactly. What Obama blocked was te Keystone XL pipeline, which wasn’t proposed until 2008, but Thomas seems intent on claiming Bush blocked it in 2005.

  9. Harry Schell

    Even slightly competent people cannot do “incompetence” as well as Obama and cadre. The failed policy choices are too consistently failed and destructive. The alternative explanation is that Obama and cadre are getting the results they really do like and intend, and they think there is a lot more work to do. They keep saying how far we have come and farther there is to go, and I believe them. It just isn’t a journey I want to take.

  10. richard40

    So now we cant even count on CANADA, even though they used to be our best ally. And after the way Obama treated them I cant blame them one bit. But we have successfully reset our relations with the rest of the world, yea right.

    Of course this is called smart diplomacy.

    1. wodun

      Astounding isn’t it? How the Obama managed to piss off the Canadians.

      We have had a good relationship with them in the past, even if our relationship is jocular at times, maybe in the future things will get better.

      Whoever is president after the election could promise to build a maple syrup pipeline in addition to the oil pipeline to smooth things over? Maybe a potato pipeline from Idaho to Canada will keep our friends to the north from running short of Poutine.

  11. ken anthony

    If we accept your argument Thomas, Obama should have said yes rather than no.

    If it’s really the evil, stupid party (does that make the dems the stupid, evil party?) holding things up why take the political heat? When he knows his underlings will do his will he has no problem lying to us about an all of the above energy policy. Why the exception in this case?

    1. Leland

      What’s sad to me is Matula actually takes money from people to provide this pathetic level of intelligence. He’s worse than PT Barnum, but for whatever success Matula has in a small town in the middle of Nevada, it’s based on Barnum’s business strategy.

      1. Thomas Matula

        Leland,

        Funny, that was what I was thinking about you and Ken Anthony. You really buy the Fox News and R3 blogsphere spin hook, line and sinker instead of doing your own research on the topic which is very sad…

        1. Rob Smith

          Because NBC, CNN, ABC, etc. are so much more reliable than “Faux” News. /eyeroll

          1. Thomas Matula

            Actually there is a study showing that their is a significant correlation between Fox News and being misinformed on major issues.

            http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

            [[[In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.

            Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it–though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

            And this was true regardless of their political voting patterns…

            But I know folks here don’t believe in survey studies :-)

            BTW

          2. George Turner

            Thomas, the studies showing Fox News voter are misinformed are hilarious, because the “correct” answers were actually wrong. Blogs had a field day on it.

        2. Leland

          To quote someone: So I guess when you are not able to dispute the facts you need to attack the poster.

          Apparently, not only do you have issue with posters, you must spend hours yelling at your TV. Here’s some advice, tune your TV off of Fox News, and they won’t scare you as much.

          1. Thomas Matula

            Leland,

            Because you just don’t seem to be interested in any facts, and offer few facts of your own in response.

            Also I rarely watch TV news as the Internet makes it much easier to go to the sources (AP, Reuters, etc.) they draw from. That is probably why I don’t buy into a lot of the misinformation

          2. Leland

            That is probably why I don’t buy into a lot of the misinformation

            Then where did you get the notion that Keystone XL was proposed in 2005 and blocked by Bush? I provided facts to support my response. You did not. Perhaps you can link to the AP or Reuters article that supports your claim?

        3. ken anthony

          Thomas, I’m not trying to get under your skin. I firmly believe that when two people agree one is not necessary. So why would you suggest I don’t do my own research. Hell, I even read the links you provide. Your perspective is appreciated even when I think your eyes have become a bit too brown.

          1. Thomas Matula

            Ken,

            Sorry, but sometimes it seems no matter how much evidence I provide you just discount it.

            As you know I didn’t vote for President Obama and I don’t like many of his policies, but I also don’t like the way his opponents spin the facts to make his decisions look worst then they are. To be honest I expect that Senator McCain, if he was President would have probably had done the same thing, defer to the Governor of Nebraska so Keystone would change its route. But unlike President Obama, the Congress wouldn’t have gotten involved and the approval process would have followed its normal path. But that is just speculation.

        4. Leland

          Matula, I hope you find a responsible way to respond to Ken. Go back and read his first comment, and then read your response. Matula, you claim to be a professor, would you accept your response in the classroom if you asked a question like Ken’s?

    2. Thomas Matula

      Ken,

      The reason he didn’t say yes is simple. Nebraska hadn’t provided the State Department with the new route since Keystone hadn’t provided it yet to the State of Nebraska for approval under LB4. So if the President had said yes then Keystone could of used it to build on the original route over the wishes of the voters in the State of Nebraska. Here is a good link to an article explaining that.

      http://journalstar.com/news/local/pipeline-opponents-unload-on-governor/article_8fde85f0-2bca-58b1-8449-97fe627c2deb.html

      [[[Opponents of the stalled Keystone XL Pipeline accuse the man they labeled on Tuesday as Gov. "Double Take Dave" Heineman of advocating that the project be built, even though there's no guarantee it will go around the Nebraska Sandhills.

      Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska said the governor's stance amounts to, "Route unknown, I think this pipeline should be built as fast as possible."]]]

      and

      [[[That shifts state responsibility to the PSC and it leaves TransCanada with no commitments to the Legislature's November special session and no reason to avoid the Sandhills. "It would mean that it wouldn't matter what Nebraska said," he said.]]]

      [[["We'd like Congress to stop messing with the state of Nebraska," Winston said. "And stop trying to force a decision on the people of Nebraska, instead of letting the process that the people of Nebraska and their elected representatives in the Legislature put in place.

      "We don't want them meddling in affairs that they know nothing about."

      Kleeb said there's only one explanation for why Heineman is advocating building the project without a binding agreement on an alternative route around the Sandhills.

      "From our perspective, the only logical answer is that he found himself on the same side as President Obama."]]]

      Bottom line, If Congress didn’t force President Obama’s hand with such a short deadline Keystone would have submitted the new route to the state, the state would have evaluated it and when that was completed the Governor would had sent the results to the State Department. Then it could have been approved. Congress decided to meddle and short circuit this process for the sake of election politics ignoring the good folks of Nebraska.

  12. Leland

    So with Matula announcing his fear of Fox News, lets see what the Nebraska Govenor Heineman had to say about Keystone XL on January 17th, 2012:

    Heineman appeared to offer the president a graceful way out even as he said, “I don’t understand why he just doesn’t say yes.

    “At a minimum, the president of the United States could do a conditional yes,” and TransCanada could begin building the pipeline from either end and finish, in Nebraska. This is a credible solution, because nearly all other approvals are in place and no one thinks the pipeline won’t win final approval from Nebraska where the golden ring would be put in place.

    Heineman says he expects TransCanada to provide Nebraska with at least one new route for the pipeline in the next week to ten days. After that, it will take six to nine months(possibly less) for Nebraska to grant its final environmental approvals. With a conditional approval from the president and the U.S. State Department, construction could be well underway by then.

    Heineman, and most leaders in his state, have long favored the pipeline, but successfully fought for a new route around the Sand Hills region and a major aquifer. That decision led the Obama administration last year to delay a final ruling until after the 2012 election.

    “Since the Department of State basically approved the old route, we don’t really think at the end of the day there is going to be a challenge there,” Heineman says. The governor says he thinks the issue boils down to this for the president: “Do you think it (Keystone XL) is in the national interest of the United States of America? When you have an 8.5% unemployment rate in America – this is a no brainer.”

    Go ahead Matula, call it Faux News. It’s really impressive when you name call.

  13. wodun

    WTH is this new R3 thing?

    Apparently I am falling behind on my conspiracy theories. My liberal friends would be so disappointed but I can’t keep up with all the crazy exploding from the left.

    1. Leland

      Wiki says it is the Euclidean Space of real numbers in three dimensions (emphasis theirs). So I guess there’s a problem with us working with reality in three dimensions.

  14. Thomas Matula

    Leland,

    FYI
    http://fremonttribune.com/news/local/article_58eec2a8-15f5-11e1-85b3-001cc4c002e0.html

    Governor signs two bills into law
    Kevin O’Hanlon/Lincoln Journal Star
    FremontTribune.com

    Posted: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:02 am
    [[[They also passed a bill (LB4) by Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler as part of a deal struck by Speaker Mike Flood of Norfolk with TransCanada to route the Keystone XL away from Nebraska's environmentally fragile Sandhills.
    Both measures passed on a 46-0 vote.]]]

    Its interesting that in his statements the Governor is advocating the law he signed in November be violated. Section 3, Article of LB4 clearly states that Governor must first submit the results of the EIS to the State Department to the Federal agencies making the review so they consider it as part of that review.

    http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Final/LB4_S1.pdf

    So either the Republican Governor didn’t actually read the law he signed that passed the Nebraska legislature 46-0, or he got so much pressure from the GOP for being on the same side of the issue as the President he caved into it. I imagine the latter is more likely given how the GOP decided to turn this into a political football and trample on the good folks of Nebraska in the process. I do hope that President Obama reminds them of their flip-flopping Governor in the campaign, along with reminding them he did approve the southern portion of the Keystone pipeline where the states had their act together in approving the route.

    1. Josh Reiter

      Dude, it’s called a quote. There is this character on the keyboard called a ‘quotation mark’. Oddly enough you use when you quote something or somebody. Why you put 3-4 brackets around everything you quote is beyond me. It’s probably why your tripping the spam filter. At the very least use the blockquote tag. This blog does support hypertext in the comments section after all. Why you can even embed links if you could imagine such a thing.

      BTW, fantastic job as usual telling everybody how fantastic the emperors new clothes are.

    2. Leland

      Matula, did you read the bill or just link to it? The legislation simply funds the effort by the Nebraska executive branch to work with the EPA and TransCanada to work on another route.

    3. George Turner

      Thomas, you’ve gone so far out in the weeds on this one that it’s hard to imagine you’ll find your way back.

      You assume that a President can’t approve action without a clear and definite path. That would surprise FDR, JFK, and a host of other Preisdents who approved programs when the path to success wasn’t even in the planning stages, such as the invasions of Europe and Japan or the LOR path to the moon. You pretend that Obama could not approve a project until the details were complete, which implies that Obama can’t imagine what engineers and geologists due for a living because he’s a semi-retarded black man.

      You also assert that Obama is so stupid that he doesn’t know that his stated goal is to raise gas prices and that his cancellation of Keyone XL will contribute to his goal, as if you think he’s a semi-retarded black man.

      You follow that up with a conspiracy theory that Democrats are for increased oil production and the Republicans are against it, which makes Obama’s refutation of Republican charges that Obama is blocking production on federal lands and in the Gulf of Mexico make him look like a semi-retarded black man, one too stupid to realize that he should approve some oil production.

      Do you have a line of argument that doesn’t paint Obama as a semi-retarded black man? One that at least hints that he can think his way through a trivially simple problem? One that doesn’t ask us to believe that Hallibruton and BP are against oil production and environmentalists support big oil? One that doesn’t require us to dismiss everything said by all parties who in your view have taken positions completely opposite of their well documented statements and press releases?

      Do you have an argument whereby the Republican decision to force Obama to shit or get off the pot was in fact a move to bring about the Democrat’s desire for increased gas prices to reduce the payback period on the green energy loans lavished on Obama advisors?

      Do you really think that Obama is a semi-retarded black man, surrounded by fully retarded white Democrats, and that Republicans secretly conspire to turn his advisors into billionaires while bankrupting their own constituents and campaign donors?

      That is your narrative. Excuse us for questioning it, but we’re not a bunch of retards who fell off the back of a turnip truck.

  15. ken anthony

    Let’s see if this statement of yours makes any sense Thomas:

    So if the President had said yes then Keystone could of used it to build on the original route over the wishes of the voters in the State of Nebraska.

    First, we’re talking about coming from Canada through two states before we even get to Nebraska. The president killed those jobs and that oil.

    Second, you’re saying Nebraska would have no say in the matter if Obama said yes. I’m not buying it.

  16. ken anthony

    sometimes it seems no matter how much evidence I provide you just discount it.

    When I do you can be assured I have a reason. Quality of evidence is much more persuasive with me than quantity.

    For example, Obama’s yes or no has absolutely nothing to do with internal state politics except that he can prevent two states from getting jobs they hope for.

    Nebraska has any number of ways to hold up their part of the pipeline to get changes they want. If that’s not so, then we really have entered the age of the Obama take over of America.

    Is THAT what you’re trying to tell me?

  17. ken anthony

    Just to be clear, let me add one more thing. You’ve argued that congress has forced Obama to say no. I half agree with you. What congress did was to force Obama to say yes or no. That’s hardball politics and that just a fact of life.

    He could have said yes, and you’ve provided no good argument for why he didn’t. Unless you’re trying to tell me that Obama was trying to protect Republicans in Nebraska? So do you have an argument that has nothing to do with what congress did because they did not force him to say no as far as I can tell.

    Perhaps I’m just stupid. It seems to me you’re saying he only said no because he was waiting to say yes. Wonderful spin if you can get away with it.

Comments are closed.