Keystone Comes A Cropper

One of the first “wins” for the Trump administration – heck, maybe it’s only win – was the approval of the Keystone pipeline. After the State Department issued the permit, Mr. Trump had this to say:

“It’s a great day for jobs and energy independence,” Trump said, calling the pipeline “incredible” and “the greatest technology known to man or woman.”

I think under hyperbole in the dictionary there is just a picture of Donald Trump but never mind that. I’ve been a skeptic of the economic case for the pipeline for a long time. I still think the Obama administration should have issued the permit but I always thought that it made little sense unless oil prices stayed high permanently. It is possible that if the permit had been issued way back when that Trans-Canada could have made enough off the pipeline while oil prices were high to make it worth the investment. But building the pipeline could have had its own impact on oil prices so maybe it would have just pushed prices lower sooner. Here’s what I wrote back in 2012 after the Obama administration rejected the deal:

Austrian economics tells us that rates held below the free market rate will distort the investment decision process, create malinvestment and destroy capital.  The current boom in shale oil and tar sands as well as the disputed Keystone pipeline would seem to fit the bill perfectly. $100 oil prices, a product primarily of expansive monetary policy and a weak dollar, have produced a false boom in what should be non-economic oil production. For now, oil can be profitably extracted from shale and tar sands and that has produced a boom in western Canada and North Dakota, among other areas. The oil producers are rushing in and investing billions in production that is only profitable at current prices. If and when we get better fiscal policy that hopefully leads to better monetary policy, the dollar will rise, oil prices will fall and the capital invested in these areas will be wasted. Just as it was the last time this happened in the late 70s, early 80s. If Keystone is built and oil falls to less than about $50, it will end up being a large empty pipe. He might have made it for the wrong reasons, but President Obama’s rejection of Keystone may end up being the best investment decision he’s made since taking office.

1 2
View single page >> |

Disclosure: This material has been distributed for informational purposes only. It is the opinion of the author and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any ...

more
How did you like this article? Let us know so we can better customize your reading experience. Users' ratings are only visible to themselves.

Comments

Leave a comment to automatically be entered into our contest to win a free Echo Show.
Lorimer Wilson 3 years ago Contributor's comment

Calhoun mentions that after the State Department issued the permit, Mr. Trump had this to say:

>“It’s a great day for jobs and energy independence,” Trump said, calling the pipeline “incredible” and “the greatest technology known to man or woman.”

That being said, here's a link to a very informative infographic entitled "Trump Revives Canada-to-Texas (Keystone XL) Pipeline: Why?" (www.munknee.com/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-the-pros-cons/) that presents a crash course in:

>the need for,

>the problems with,

>and the benefits of

building the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada through the American mid-west to the refineries in Texas.

Joseph Calhoun 3 years ago Author's comment

I question the very first assumption in that infographic. Unless oil prices remain high there is no economic reason to mine tar sands in Alberta. It is expensive, dirty oil. Is it economic at $45? I have my doubts. And if it isn't, there is no reason for the pipeline. Having said that, if Trans-Canada wants to build it with their own funds, let'em. If it fails their shareholders will pay the price.

Dan Jackson 3 years ago Member's comment

I agree.