Thu, Dec 25, 2014, 4:39 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed for Christmas

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Message Board

  • unclelarry66 unclelarry66 Nov 25, 2011 8:39 AM Flag

    Wall Street Journal - KMP mentioned

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204517204577046304089844464.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    <<Two proposed projects—a new pipeline and an expansion of an existing one—envision pumping crude from landlocked Alberta, where most of Canada's reserves reside, to the Pacific Ocean, where oil could be shipped by sea. Current pipeline capacity out of Alberta is expected to fill up by the end of the decade.

    Enbridge Inc. is proposing a $5.5 billion, 730-mile line running from Alberta to a deep-water terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, meanwhile, is considering a $4 billion expansion of a small, existing line that runs from Alberta to the U.S. and Canadian west coast. The company has also considered building a new segment that would take oil to the Kitimat terminal.

    If the lines are completed, they would represent the latest manifestation of a fundamental shift in North American energy markets. The continent's energy infrastructure has long been configured to feed climbing demand in the U.S., the world's largest consumer.>>


    This is not good. There is one thing that I do not understand. Why send it through Kitimat, BC when Prince Rupert has a far better port?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Uncle, going threw
      Kitimat would be for
      exporting to Aisa , I
      thought?

    • Why not ask Richard Kinder that question?

    • The Prince Rupert terminal is limited and cannot take Deep Water tankers. It can get smaller tankers and take oil to calif but not the big ones for asia traffic. Obama is a fool to think the candians will leave the oil there for us to get at any time.

      • 1 Reply to svcbj999
      • Slightly off topic, but here goes ::: If people will make the effort to read all the press releases and the income statements,add to that the El Paso pipeline purchase, you will find that KMI will be the managing operator and possibly retain 50% of the income, as it currently does. Other recently announced activities such as the Valero pipeline will probably fit the mix as well. I look for all events to be "Immediately Accretive to earnings" as Mr. Kinder is so fond of saying. This bodes well for all, KMI, KMP, KMR. Do your due diligence so you know which companies fit your situation. There are some pitfalls, such as owning KMP in an IRA. I hope you will ask your CPA before doing anything stupid.

    • So what is "not good" about this situation?

      In answer to your question, I'd say that ending the pipeline in Kitimat shortens the distance of the new line. Kitimat is probably less populated than Prince Rupert. Getting rights of way for those last miles in a populated area can be more expensive. Maybe a supertanker pulling up to the P. Rupert harbor would be an unwelcome sight. Few will see it at Kitimat.

      A loaded supertanker has a very deep draft. Even the P. Rupert harbor might need to be dredged, and there'd be opposition to that. So dredge at Kitimat.

      A question I have is would it be feasible to twin the existing line to Vancouver and then "reverse lighter" the oil in smaller tankers, and then offload to super tankers somewhere safe outside of the Vancouver harbor? This could be done while the red tape is being worked on the alternative pipeline routes to the Canadian west coast.

      The Keystone delay didn't make the alternative projects any easier, but it did make them more compelling.

 

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.