“Warren Buffett’s New Toy” Teased by Motley Fool

Sniffing out the "OPEC's Worst Nightmare" solution to "Energy Tech’s Unsung Hero — Your Inside Scoop on the #1 Investment No-Brainer of the Century.”

Irregulars Quick Take Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)

The Motley Foolies are running an ad this week that teases us about a stock Warren Buffett has been buying — his “new toy” is something in the oil services business, and they’re calling it a “no brainer”.

Like many of their recent ads, this one’s signed by someone other than the Gardner brothers who run the Stock Advisor newsletter being pitched — it happens to be Bryan White this time around, he’s one of their analysts, and he’s saying that he expects this stock to skyrocket as soon as June 5 as a Congressional committee reviews the Safeguards Act of 2013.

So, naturally, a bit of urgency — after all, without urgency you could take a few minutes to check with your friendly neighborhood Stock Gumshoe and do your own research … but heck, if they’re saying it could skyrocket by tomorrow do you have time to wait?

Don’t worry, we’ll get you an answer before then. And I’ll throw in a little hint up front for you: it’s a $30 billion company, and usually with stocks that large you’ve got a bit of time to think things over before they “skyrocket” … depending, of course, on what your definition of “skyrocket” is.

So without further ado, here’s how the ad is introduced:

“Don’t Outsmart Yourself on This One…

“President Obama is powerless to stop it.

“Exxon, Shell, and BP are digging deep into their pockets for it. (In fact, they’re required by law to cough up $41,000 an hour.) And oil-drunk dictators from Russia, to Saudi Arabia, to Venezuela are hopping mad about it.

“It looks like an octopus wearing a Mardi Gras crown. It sounds like 1,000 Harley Davidsons revving up at a green light. And it feels like the no-brainer investing opportunity of the century.”

So that’s Warren Buffett’s “new toy” — how about some more details from the ad?

  • “If a company rents out its high-tech tools for $41,000 an hour… and demand is so hot that the line to get them is three years long…
  • If Warren Buffett’s investment company Berkshire Hathaway has already bought 2.19 million shares of its stock this spring… without breathing a word about it to anyone in public…
  • If it’s positioned front and center at the intersection of the two biggest energy mega-trends to come along in a century… helping to make the United States a net exporter of oil by the end of 2013… and completely energy independent within a decade…
  • If Obama is waving the white flag on trying to stop it… because he’s happy enough that it’s forcing Big Oil companies like Exxon, Shell, and BP to clean up their environmental act…
  • If it’s making Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez spin in his grave… and hanging other anti-democratic dirtbags like Vladimir Putin & the Saudi Arabian royal family out to dry for good…

Then I’m investing!”

Well, if you’re at all savvy in the ways of the SEC and their filings and have a few minutes to kill, that’s enough to feed your own personal Thinkolator, should you have one lying around in the garage — you can just check Berkshire’s quarterly 13F filings to see what Warren Buffett’s company has been buying and selling over time and you’ll see which stock they added 2.19 million shares of in the last quarter (these are always dated reports — they come out 45 days after the quarter end, and unless the manager is a really major holder and therefore an “insider” they don’t have to report changes more frequently).

Should I let the cat out of the bag so early on here? OK, fine — this is National Oilwell Varco (NOV).

And yes, Berkshire Hathaway’s position in NOV increased by 2,189,500 shares in the first quarter of this year — that’s not one of Berkshire’s larger stock positions, so the likelihood is that the decisions on this are probably being initiated by one of the other investment managers that Berkshire brought on in recent years and not by Mr. Buffett himself (he tends to focus on the large multi-billion-dollar deals and investments and on the massive foundational holdings of the company) … though since the two managers, Todd Coombs and Ted Weschler, have recently been generating better returns than Warren’s stock picks perhaps that’s not a bad thing (that underperformance of Buffett is not surprising, of course, particularly in the short term — the new guys are managing far less money and don’t have old legacy positions with embedded gains).

Berkshire’s position in NOV was apparently initiated back in the second quarter last year, at prices averaging about $70 a share, which is where the stock is now — and I haven’t checked what prices they might have paid in the first quarter of this year as they increased the position, but the stock price ranged from about $66-74 during that quarter so the average cost for Berkshire is probably still near the current $70 price.

National Oilwell Varco is a pretty ubiquitous company in oil services, particularly in their core niche of high-tech equipment for drilling and completion operations. Reportedly 90% of the drilling rigs in operation now have some kind of NOV equipment on them, and though they do sell and lease rigs and provide a variety of oilfield services, their biggest profit driver is the high-tech equipment that’s used on all kinds of rigs.

And while international demand for rigs and equipment is apparently still growing in many regions where shale or horizontal drilling is just starting up (like Russia, where there’s a recent story about NOV angling for sales), NOV, like most of the drilling services and equipment companies, has seen tighter competition and slack demand for rigs in the United States and Canada over the last year or two as capacity was ramped up in many areas in anticipation of the continuing the shale boom but the natural gas-focused projects have in some cases been delayed or halted due to low prices.

So NOV has still been able to grow revenue year over year, but their earnings and earnings per share fell sequentially in this last quarter and are also down a bit year-over-year, which brought a miss on the last quarterly report and has helped to keep a lid on the stock price (though some of the underperformance was from what they call “one time” issues).

Which means it’s not a hot growth name or a big investor darling at the moment, but it has been a Motley Fool pick for years and has a strong market position, and it’s currently pretty inexpensive with a forward PE that’s slightly less than giant industry leader Schlumberger (SLB) and about the same as Halliburton (HAL) — none of those biggies has been growing earnings rapidly recently, but NOV has at least been growing sales a bit faster. Most of the larger oil services stocks have migrated to trading at a forward PE of between 10-12 or thereabouts, even firms that are struggling a bit more like Weatherford International (WFT), so the soft North American market has everyone somewhat worried about growth.

NOV pays a small dividend that tallies up at about 1.5% right now even after they announced a doubling of the dividend this past quarter, but they have been a consistent dividend raiser over the last several years and could easily pay out far more if they wished — that’s less than a 20% earnings payout.

Their balance sheet is excellent, with only a small debt position and a pretty low price/book ratio of 1.5, though a lot of that is from the big “goodwill” slug associated with the many smaller drilling technology companies they’ve acquired over the years. They tend to put their cash flow back into acquisitions, and they probably pay their executives too much and don’t have enough insider ownership for my preferences, but the Berkshire Hathaway position increase and their generally decent value right now is a nice notch in their favor, along with the strong market position and the likelihood that more high-tech drilling equipment will be required for the world’s oil explorers and producers in the years ahead.

Will the latest Congressional hearings about drilling technology cause these shares to spike this week? Well, that’s not so easy to predict but I’d be shocked if the stock moved aggressively based on whatever this new regulation or chatter about it might be.

The “Safeguards” act proposed in Congress is real, though that’s another of the idiotic acronyms that our elected officials seem to love so much — the full name is the “Secure All Facilities to Effectively Guard the United States Against and Respond to Dangerous Spills Act of 2013,’ and it seems to largely be about just that, tightening up the laws about preventing and dealing with oil spills. Not surprisingly, it was introduced by Bill Young, a Representative from Florida, where concern about oil spills is high — it has no cosponsors and the places I’ve checked indicate that it has no more than a 1% chance of being passed into law. The bill has been referred to committees and subcommittees, but I haven’t seen a hearing scheduled — there is a hearing on Thursday of a bill that wants to expand offshore energy exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf, though I don’t suppose one subcommittee hearing is suddenly going to move the ball on that extremely contentious issue.

Though frankly, whether this bill is passed or not, it would be surprising if any extension of offshore drilling weren’t accompanied by requirements for higher-tech equipment for stronger or more redundant safety and blowout/spill prevention, and I think it’s clear that offshore drillers in particular are focused on ordering newer or more upgraded rigs to make sure the equipment is as safe and low-liability as they can get — no one wants to be responsible for a major spill, or to be dragged through court and through the headlines over it for years as BP and Transocean and Cameron were for the Deepwater Horizon explosion and blowout.

Will that drive NOV’s earnings sharply higher in the near term? Well, that I don’t know — they do have equipment on thousands of offshore rigs, though they don’t own the rigs, and there are a lot of big and expensive rigs being built over the next few years that will feature NOV equipment (they can get hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment onto each one of the latest generation of deepwater rigs). On the flip side, the other competitors in the industry haven’t exactly been caught napping — Cameron has a joint venture deal with Schlumberger called OneSubsea that is pushing technology and services, and they seem to be growing as a competitor in bidding for big rig technology packages with manufacturers, so I don’t know if that will hamper their ability to win business. I have no idea what their technological advantage is in any of their specific equipment offerings. 

The target price of the average analyst for NOV is about $84, and the “fair value” cited by the Morningstar analyst is $85 (they called NOV’s Pete Miller their “CEO of the Year” last year, too, so they think management is excellent — though they cut their fair value from $98 after the last quarter’s weakness), so there’s certainly potential upside if those folks are right. It’s a strong company in a competitive business that’s driven to large degree by enthusiasm for oil and gas drilling — you can see what happened with the decreasing rig count in the US and Canada over the last year or so bringing earnings down for them and most of their competitors, so there are challenges from competing firms and competing technology advances, but my impression is that the biggest reasonable downside to fear for NOV is probably further weakness in gas or, in the worst case, simultaneously falling oil and gas prices that substantially decrease investment by oil companies.

The last time I wrote about this stock as a teaser pick was more than two years ago, and at the time it carried more of a premium valuation and a share price about $10 above where it now stands … I’m more comfortable with it now that it’s lost some of that premium valuation, but with most oil services stocks pretty cheap now you can’t say that it’s a real obvious bargain — then again, the cheapest stocks usually are a lot hairier than NOV, and there’s something to be said for Warren Buffett’s oft-quoted maxim that he’d rather buy a great company at a good price than a good company at a great price. (OK, the actual quote, from his 1989 letter, is “It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.”)

That’s all I can tell you about National Oilwell Varco and the Motley Fool’s tease of this stock — I don’t own it, it looks like a reasonable buy for the sector but I’m not going to buy it immediately, and your opinions and decisions, of course, are what matters for your money — so what do you think about this one? Is it really the “Number 1 Investment No-Brainer of the Century?” Let us know with a comment below.

Related Gumshoe Articles

Fool’s “This Little Known Stock Took On Amazon …And Won”

What's being teased as a three-time recommendation from the Motley Fool's Tom Gardner this month?

5 Comments Read More

Motley Fool’s “The 4 Stocks We Believe Are Poised To Dominate The Virtual Reality Market”

16 Comments Read More

Share Your Thoughts

ShowHide Comments (31)
    1. rene
      Jun 4 2013, 05:57:43 pm

      another of the idiotic acronyms that our elected officials seem to love so much ,
      good one !! Maybe should have used idiotic twice in this sentence

    2. 56 |
      Jun 4 2013, 08:41:10 pm

      I saw that one, and thought it was NOV. Thank you for confirming. Remember, they are the company — along with BP and HAL, that had some trouble in the Gulf, right?
      Is anyone buying along with Warren? Was this Buffett’s pick, or his new Team?

      • Catbert
        Jun 25 2013, 03:07:50 pm

        No, NOV was not in trouble over Macondo. I believe you are remembering the 10-year plus, refurbished BOP originally built by CAM.

    3. 32
      Cathy Kandravi
      Jun 5 2013, 09:13:00 pm

      Warrens train with Obama is his best deal right now keeping the Keystone down keeps the oil tankers full and cost the tax payers $10 a barrel for oil to get shipped more than a pipeline. An extra 22$ Billion Warren just found out, that is capitalism and politics at it’s best and they scape goat the EPA and also they think big oil is making the money. Big oil pays more in taxes than there profit margin. Warren writes his off. Plus he builds the oil tankers. White House sleep over keeps the pipeline down and China happy. Our best friend Canada gets the shaft and he helps China. I wonder if Warren will buy an auto parts company for all the cars crossing RR Tracks shocks,tires,etc. or maybe a environmental clean up company when one of his oil trains derails and gets subsidized for the clean up but he is self insured. That will get some jobs cleaning up that oil spill. A new craft for the union The Oil Clean UP ENGINEERS. Sounds like a good union! But we need that bargin Bio fuel to, Black Gold, Dakota Tea come and listen to a story about a man named Pres. what a deal now Warren can help his secretary with her taxes.

      • ldt
        Jun 25 2013, 04:23:21 pm

        Yopu have this wrong. The Keystone pipeline WILL NOTmailk oil cheaper for Americans. It will make it cheaper to export more expensive for all the midwestern states it bypasses.

      • Bob
        May 30 2014, 12:38:09 pm

        Have I missed something regarding this Keystone pipeline?
        The last I knew, that Keystone pipeline isn’t going to bring 1 drop of oil into this country. It is solely for the purpose of transporting Canada’s oil to Houston to export it overseas. NONE of it is going to get to U.S. consumers. NONE! So all this talk about Obama not letting the pipeline through and Americans paying more at the pump is nothing more than political lies and distortion. Again.

    4. Robin Davies
      Jun 6 2013, 01:10:00 pm

      If NOV is such a great share why does it not appear as a top holding in any of the 3 Motley Fool investment funds?

      • 3984 |
        Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe
        Jun 6 2013, 01:17:49 pm

        Not a bad question. Though the Motley Fool does own NOV shares, it’s not in the top 20 holdings of any of the three MF mutual funds. Lots of their newsletter picks are not in those funds, of course, given the large number of letters they publish and the sometimes long lists of reccos by those letters. Bill Mann is the named portfolio manager for the three mutual funds and he used to actively contribute to some of the newsletters, but I don’t know if there’s currently crossover between the newsletter analysts and the mutual fund managers.

    5. marvin keith
      Jun 17 2013, 08:40:54 pm

      We need someone to visit the saloon nearest to the NOV engineering department to pick up some fresh scuttlebutt re new product etc. Any volunteers?

    6. Joan in Houston
      Jun 25 2013, 06:15:54 pm

      I do live in Oil Country. I have been informed that CAM equipment had not been properly intalled or implemented, or at least that was what they asserted inside of their legal replies. By the way, I wasted some $$ and some time subscribing to some of the Motley Fool materials and never made any $$. If I had sold my XOM and bought Lumber Liquidators I would have, per one of their recommendations. When they said that, I must confess that I “looked out the window.” I see XOM as a “core holding.”

    7. Ronald E. Baker
      Jun 26 2013, 12:39:02 am

      Cathy Kandravi has said it just about right. It is a pity the mass media never zero in on this true explanation of all the nonsense Obama was spouting today (June 25) about the Keystone XL. Since July 14, 2010, when Obama and Buffett cut the deal, the XL has had the full environmental lobby treatment, with Saudi and Venezuelan funding as admitted by Canada’s David Suzuki on CBC TV. Isn’t it strange that Canadian Oil Sands crude is environmentally filthy, while imported Saudi and Venezuelan crude never get a mention by Suzuki and all his Grade B movie star entourage down by the White House mall? Saudi crude flows majestically, freely into Quebec and East Coast ports.
      I sold NOV on June 25, at a small gain from a $55 strike option, since it has been bouncing around $66 to $69 for some time, well below its high last spring. Motley Fool does feature NOV on its lists each month.

    8. charlie
      Jun 26 2013, 09:38:54 pm

      i notice that for all the hype motley really doesn’t do much better than what i think of as average … this stock as done nothing since they hyper-‘promoted’ it

    9. Nathan
      Aug 5 2013, 01:44:30 pm

      Funny, MF had this teaser at the end of an article on NOV! Article published 8/5/2013 entitled “Temporary Issues For This Energy Stock”.

    10. david beaumont
      Aug 31 2013, 04:21:38 am

      What’s Bryan White doing recommending anything anyway? If you look at his Fool page his last stock advice activity was 2011, all but one of his stock picks listed show losses and there is a note at the top of the page saying:
      “Bryan has decided to discontinue his portfolio. Thank you for your interest. ”
      Enough said?

    11. Ronald E. Baker
      Aug 31 2013, 02:15:30 pm

      Excellent commentary on NOV, trains and future of North American oil . For further background, read the excellent article in The Globe & Mail Report On Business section, today, August 31, 20213. The Obama/Buffett Axis is still on track, rollin’ down the line to super profits. Yet lots of folks, from Quebec to Calgary, Ottawa, to St. John, N.B. and the Bay of Fundy are starting to have grave doubts about the safety and environmental purity of railway tanker trains trundling through village and town across this northern nation. Oil cargoes on trains are already declining and shall keep on doing so in the years ahead. Canada has heard Obama and is not impressed. Up in the True North, Strong and Free, we have our own version of :Manifest Destiny” and it does not lie on the road to D.C. Forget about the XL; it is less likely to survive than a beached whale. Eastward-Ho! Pipelines East is our new Canadian future.

    12. David
      Oct 26 2013, 06:52:43 pm

      Somehow I can’t get excited about a stock that Motley Fool admits they have touted three times already. If that’s not old news I don’t know what is.

      Which leads me to ask why MF thinks I would buy their “service” to get stale touts like that?

      Anybody who calls a commodity or a commodity-related company a no-brainer need to get a brain. Right now, and for the foreseeable future the Big Money banks have a vested interest in keeping commodity prices low in order to facilitate the Fed’s pumping dollars into the economy without inflation rearing its ugly head. Once inflation takes off, it’s game over for the Fed’s current policy, and that means the Big Money banks have to stop feeding at the Fed’s free money trough.

    13. Leslie
      Nov 10 2013, 10:30:01 am

      I’m new to this type of thread but I have been getting Motley Fool Teasers for years since I subscribed to their newsletter years ago. Are you all saying that their reported percentage gains on all those stock picks are not accurate? I thought these guys were known for their diligent research and good small cap stock picks…and that was why the catapulted into becoming a household term to small cap stock pickers….Someone please enlighten me if my read on these guys is wrong. I admit that anyone who alleges to go against the grain of Wall Street as these guys have seemingly done made me an instant fan but I wonder if I was too quick to be so enamored.

    14. Brian
      Jan 13 2014, 02:41:46 pm

      Hmmm… I just now got a newsletter from MF (January 13, 2014) with Bryan White touting this stock and referring to the pending passing of some house resolution… I think the Safeguard act… seems a little late. They’re still pumping this one?

    15. a
      Jan 15 2014, 05:34:55 am

      I bought the Motley Fool brothers’ book back in the 1990s and greatly respected the way they encouraged individual investors to ignore the hype of the financial services sector, take responsibility for their own decisions and recognise that they could succeed by doing their own homework.

      Now, Motley Fool is filling my email inbox with over-hyped share recommendations like this one. They invariably involve a prolonged sales pitch that would take a good hour of my time (if I could be bothered to sit through it) and then leave you guessing – or buying some other product to get the answer. It seems to me that the organisation has turned to the “dark side” and is pitching the very rubbish that they were recommending investors ignore when they founded Motley Fool 20 years ago.

      Deeply disappointed.


    16. 22 |
      David Cole
      Mar 2 2014, 07:20:13 am

      Travis, thanks for your chasing down the history of the “Fools” picks. Another of your notes dealing with SDRL was worth reading even though you were contemplating a possible sell. I tracked it and felt your take was a time to buy. I sold puts and they are doing quite well except for a 2 day journey lower (higher in cost). I will watch NOV. Thanks for your suggestions.

    17. fedwatcher
      May 18 2014, 10:03:27 pm

      A lot of Motley Fool picks have performed badly. They were in a lot of momentum story stocks. I subscribe to their Adviser service and am disappointed. The market today is looking for real cash flow, real earnings, and real dividends. The Financial Newsletter space seems to love good “stories”. The future is unknown and people are seeking safety and income. Story stocks offer neither.

      3D printing is a great example. Great story but too many players. Even a solid stock like KO is suffering as people buy less soda while management seeks a greater share of the revenue. Why pay double for Coke when the store brand costs half as much?

    18. Bakermre
      May 22 2014, 03:20:19 pm

      I too once subscribed to M. F.; not any more. They have a habit of hyping a stock, like 3D, see it rise then crash/tank sharply lower and suddenly the hype stream of rhetoric grows silent, never to be heard again! 3D is off their radar, SILENCE!
      Porter Stansberry does the same with hype in reverse, telling us GE is equal to GM ; First Solar and all solar stocks are fatally flawed technically, set to go to zero like Solyndra, etc. When these “doomed” issues don’t collapse, but rise instead, steadily higher to double or more in a year or less, Porter plays possum: He’s too pooped to pop! The only thing about Porter then is silence, for him it’s golden. Maybe he and M.F. work out of the same offices?

      • 3984 |
        Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe
        May 22 2014, 03:39:23 pm

        Interesting perspective! I’ve been to the offices of both — Porter’s offices are in the Agora network of restored historical homes in Baltimore, the Motley Fool is not so far away in Alexandria, VA, I used to live near the midpoint between the two of them at the northern edge of DC. The way I think of it, they represent the two main ways that newsletter empires have been built: The Fool’s was built on top of a large base of free web users and partly funded by advertising, Porter’s was built on the massive direct marketing prowess of Agora and their access to millions of email addresses.

        And yes, neither does a lot of crowing about their mistakes — though most of the rest of us suffer from similar historical blindness to one degree or another.

      • Lahalsa
        Aug 15 2014, 11:41:34 am

        Yes I’m a previous “Fool” subscriber and I agree with the “silence” aspect of their blunders. I bought AOB and China Med (CMED) on their recommendation – both have been delisted and gone bankrupt with loads of corruption discovered. Lost a bunch of $ on those two, however, I should have been paying closer attention to what was going on with them myself! I did buy NOV also at their recommendation in the $24 range several years ago and then sold at the $60 range…unfortunately, this did not recoup my losses in the other two stocks!

    19. glen walters
      Feb 2 2015, 11:05:27 am

      I saw nothing in Rep. Jenkins Sat address that was new, just a rehash of old GOP proposals. Kissing up to Boehner is probably a losing proposition. If their answer to jobs is the Keystone pipeline, then you have no plan. There are 2 sides to the Keystone pipeline and I believe you are on the wrong side. I will try to layout the short comings of Keystone. Why are the GOP so adamant about the Keystone pipeline
      People. They don’t have any other answers for energy independence. Obama has reduced US dependency on foreign by over a million barrels a day. I believe the answer is(Algae), you might research that if you really want to make a difference. What has the Congress done. Last February, ED Schultz, MSNBC started talking about the Keystone XL pipeline
      and he went to the middle of the country to get the real story. He has
      followed this project nearly every step of the way for almost a year. After closer investigation, he changed his mind And
      after six years of environmental studies, legislative wrangling and legal
      maneuvers, President Obama has taken a stand.
      Key Facts on Keystone XL
      Energy Security: Tar Sand will not Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil
      Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.
      Keystone XL is an export pipeline. According to presentations to investors, Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to Europe and Latin America. Proceeds from these exports are earned tax-free. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.
      Reducing demand for oil is the best way to improve our energy security. U.S. demand for oil has been declining since 2007. New fuel-efficiency standards mean that this trend will continue once the economy gets back on track. In fact, the Energy Department report on Keystone XL found that decreasing demand through fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce mid-east oil imports with or without the pipeline.
      “Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed”, Oil Change International
      Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers
      By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
      TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”
      Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
      According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.
      “Tar Sands Oil Means High Gas Prices” Corporate Ethics International. With a cost of 60 dollars a barrel to extract and oil today is less than 50 dollars a barrel doesn’t make a lot of sense.
      “Pipeline Profiteering” National Wildlife Federation
      Jobs: TransCanada’s jobs projections are vastly inflated.
      In 2008, TransCanada’s Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL to the State Department indicated “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” to build the pipeline.
      Jobs estimates above those listed in its application draw from a 2011 report commissioned by TransCanada that estimates 20,000 “person-years” of employment based on a non-public forecast model using undisclosed inputs provided by TransCanada.
      According to TransCanada’s own data, just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor.
      Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) both oppose the pipeline. Their August 2011 statement: “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil. There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation—jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency.”
      “Transcanada’s Exaggerated Jobs Claims for Keystone XL” National Wildlife Federation
      Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.
      The U.S. Pipeline Safety Administration has not yet conducted an in depth analysis of the safety of diluted bitumen (raw tar sands) pipeline, despite unique safety concerns posed by its more corrosive properties.
      TransCanada predicted that the Keystone I pipeline would see one spill in 7 years. In fact, there have been 12 spills in 1 year. The company was ordered to dig up 10 sections of pipe after government-ordered tests indicated that defective steel may have been used. Keystone XL will use steel from the same Indian manufacturer.
      Keystone XL will cross through America’s agricultural heartland, the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers, the Ogallala aquifer, sage grouse habitat, walleye fisheries and more.
      The agency was not adequately accounting for threats to wildlife, increased pollution in distressed communities where the crude may be refined, or increases in carbon emissions that would exacerbate climate change, and a variety of other issues.
      “Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks”, National Wildlife Federation, NRDC, Others.
      “On Shore Oil Disasters”, National Wildlife Federation
      “Analysis of Frequency, Magnitude and Consequence of Worst-Case Spills From the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline” John Stansbury, Ph.D., P.E.
      “Pipeline “Safety Conditions” are Smoke and Mirrors”, NRDC
      Climate Change: Keystone XL is the fuse to North America’s biggest carbon bomb.
      In a study funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a group of retired four-star generals and admirals concluded that climate change, if not addressed, will be the greatest threat to national security.
      The State Department Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately analyze lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the pipeline. Extraction and refinement of oil sands are more GHG-intensive compared to conventional oil. The EIS estimates that the additional annual GHG emissions from the proposed pipeline could range from an additional “12-23 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent… (roughly the equivalent of annual emissions from 2 to 4 coal-fired power plants)” over conventional crude oil from the Middle East. [8] The EPA believes that the methodology used by the State Department is inaccurate and could underestimate GHG emissions by as much as 20 percent.[9] Given that the expected lifetime of the Keystone XL pipeline is fifty years, the EPA notes that the project could yield an extra 1.15 billion tons of GHGs using the quantitative estimates in the EIS.[10]
      Resolution Urging the President to Reject Tar Sands Pipeline
      Submitted by: Heather R. Mizeur (MD), Rep. Mike Honda (CA), Maggie Allen (ME), Rachel Binah (CA), Gilda Cobb-Hunter (SC), Pat Cotham (NC), Carol Pensky (MD), Oscar Ramirez (MD), Valerie Rongey (WA), Garry Shay (CA), Barbra Casbar Siperstein (NJ), Sam Spencer (ME), Rick Stafford (MN), Vicki Hansen Thackray (Luxembourg) Resolution Urging the President to Reject Tar Sands Pipeline
      WHEREAS, President Obama is expected to make a decision by the end of this year regarding a proposed 1700-mile “tar sands oil” pipeline (known as the Keystone XL pipeline) across Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to be built by the Canadian company TransCanada, connecting the tar sands region in Alberta province in Canada to Gulf Coast oil refineries in Texas.
      WHEREAS, The first portion of the Keystone system, which opened in 2010 and runs from Canada down through the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and into Oklahoma, spilled 12 times in its first year of operation, dumping over 30,000 gallons of crude oil; and,
      WHEREAS, According to TransCanada’s own assessments, a leak of more than 50 gallons on this Keystone I pipeline was supposed to be a “once every seven years” occurrence; and,
      WHEREAS, The substance that would be carried in the Keystone XL pipeline, diluted bitumen, was described in a joint report by NRDC, the Pipeline Safety Trust, the National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club as “a highly corrosive, acidic, and potentially unstable blend of thick raw bitumen and volatile natural gas liquid condensate;” and,
      WHEREAS, A “Tar Sands Safety Risks” report specifies that diluted bitumen contains up to 50 times higher acid concentrations than conventional crude oil and up to 10 times as much sulfur and that “the additional sulfur can lead to the weakening or embrittlement of pipelines;” and,
      WHEREAS, The Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Cynthia Quarterman, stated in a July 2011 Congressional hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on pipeline safety that a study of the safety of tar sands oil pipelines has not been done; and,
      WHEREAS, The Keystone XL pipeline would run directly through the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies one-third of our nation’s ground water used for irrigation and drinking water for two million people; and,
      WHEREAS, The process of tar sands extraction represents the potential destruction of the Boreal forests under which it is found, may lead to high rates of cancer and other illnesses among local communities, may pollute the Athabasca River, and may kill nesting migratory birds and many other species; and,
      WHEREAS, Vice-President Al Gore has stated that “the tar sands are the dirtiest source of fuel on the planet. The pipeline would be an enormous mistake. The answer to our climate, energy and economic challenges does not lie in burning more dirty fossil fuels;” and,
      WHEREAS, Cynthia Giles, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, wrote in a July 16, 2010 letter to the Department of State that “we estimate that greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian oil sands crude would be approximately 82% greater than the average crude refined in the US, on a well-to-tank basis;” and,
      WHEREAS, James Hansen, our nation’s leading climate scientist, has stated that if the tar sands are fully developed, “it is essentially game over” as far as solving the climate crisis; and,
      WHEREAS, James C. Little, President of the Transport Workers Union, and Larry J. Hanley, President of the Amalgamated Transit Union, representing 300,000 workers in the US, issued a statement calling upon the Obama administration “NOT to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline or to take any actions that lead to the further extraction of tar sands oil from Alberta;” and,
      WHEREAS, 1,252 people from nearly every state in the United States were arrested in front of the White House in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience between August 20 and September 3 calling upon President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline; and,
      WHEREAS, a recent Cornell University Global Labor Institute analysis found that because of projected fuel price increases, likely oil spills, and minimal local job creation, the Keystone XL Pipeline may eliminate more jobs than it creates; and,
      WHEREAS, The leaders of this country’s major environmental groups, including NRDC, EDF, Sierra Club, NWF, Union of Concerned Scientists, 350.org, League of Conservation Voters and others issued a statement that “there is not an inch of daylight between our policy position on the Keystone Pipeline and those of the very civil protesters being arrested daily outside the White House. This is a terrible project;” and,
      WHEREAS, A national coalition of ranchers, landowners, elected officials, Native peoples, students, people of faith, trade unionists, community leaders and others have come together to oppose this project; and,
      WHEREAS, On September 7, 2011, a group of nine Nobel Peace Laureates, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama, wrote to President Obama asking him “to do the right thing for our environment and reject the proposal to build the Keystone XL;” and,
      WHEREAS, The development of the tar sands requires oil prices to be high in order to turn a profit,
      WHEREAS, TransCanada is on record before the Canadian Energy Board stating that the project would increase the price of oil in the Midwest; and,
      WHEREAS, By statute, President Obama, on his own and without Congressional approval, has the power to stop this pipeline;
      THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that these members of the Democratic National Committee call upon President Obama to use his authority to deny the “Presidential Permit” for the Keystone XL pipeline, thereby rejecting the tar sands pipeline project and the negative impacts it would have on our public health and environment.
      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that these members of the Democratic National Committee believe that by denying the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama would enhance national security, advance job creation in the new “green economy,” improve public health, and take a positive stand for addressing climate change concerns.

    What These Icons Mean

    • The user who posted this comment is a Stock Gumshoe Premium Member (also known as an "IRREGULAR").
    • This user regularly writes articles for Stock Gumshoe. They may or may not be the author of the current article.
    • This user's comments have been "liked” by at least a few members of the Stock Gumshoe community.
    • This user has commented widely, with input that has been liked enough to earn a two-thumbs-up rating from other readers.
    • This is the highest rating a user can get. They are among the most respected commentors of our community.