I doubt that was the case. If it was, no land would ever be transferred between oil companies (unless EV is being totally anal about it ). Liability waivers often have no legal standing and most are found to be unenforceable.
The same author (MF) said this:
While American Capital Agency is preparing itself for the upcoming events, I don’t see any similar activity among the other two pure-play mREITs (Annaly Capital and ARMOUR Residential). Therefore, investors looking to invest in Annaly and ARMOUR must be cautious.
Indeed, the Trunkline draft environmental assessment goes on to briefly discuss the planned conversion of the pipeline to oil service while noting the future use of the line for shipping crude oil is outside of FERC's jurisdiction.
But at no time is the proposal subjected to a rigorous review on its potential status as a "facilitator" of the oil sands industry and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with increased oil sands crude extraction - unlike Keystone XL.
Political posturing has forced Keystone XL to go through an exhaustive review of various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios in an effort to show construction of the pipeline will not have an effect on emissions from the oil sands. Others are held to a far lower standard.
This omission comes even as Enbridge and ETP have been forthright about their plans to ship Canadian crude oil on the pipeline since they announced the project in February. The question to be asked: why the double standard?
Even if the Trunkline project does not cross the border with Canada and directly increase imports of oil sands crude, it makes oil sands production more viable by increasing market access and hence, improving oil sands crude prices. Furthermore, the project directly facilitates Enbridge's own plans to substantially increase the capacity of its own network to bring in more oil sands crude into the United States.
The converted Trunkline pipeline will move up to 600,000 barrels per day of oil from Patoka in southern Illinois to the Louisiana Gulf Coast. The oil moved on the line will come from Canada, where oil sands production dominates, and North Dakota's Bakken crude, itself an emissions-intensive crude, given the high rate of natural gas flaring associated with oil production in North Dakota.
Keystone XL double standard: Tale of 2 pipelines
A casual observer familiar with the Keystone XL saga would think the United States was making it very hard to build any oil sands-related pipelines. But nothing could be farther from the truth.
While TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL is mired in seemingly endless studies, a competing project that could carry hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil sands crude to U.S. refineries every day is sailing through its own regulatory review.
Why the double standard? It's well known that Keystone XL is a cause celebre for environmentalists who see defeating the pipeline as a way to halt the development of Canada's oil sands in the name of slowing climate change.
Consider the plan hatched by gas-focused pipeline group Energy Transfer Partners LP and Enbridge Inc, the top shipper of oil sands crude, to convert part of ETP's Trunkline natural gas pipeline to oil service by 2015.
ETP must first get the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to remove Trunkline from service, a formal procedure known as abandonment. Part of this process is a environmental assessment. That study was published quietly in April and comment from the public closes on Wednesday.
The word "climate" appears only five times in the Trunkline environmental assessment, largely in a single paragraph where climate change is dismissed as a significant factor that needs to be considered in the scope of the review.
The study admits "Trunkline has indicated the future operator intends to use the abandoned pipeline for oil transportation, the eventual disposition of the pipeline ... is not a key factor in the Commission's decision to grant abandonment."
In other words Trunkline, which will facilitate the growth of the oil sands business, need not face any formal study of the broader implications of the conversion.
The payments for Series B was only for half of a quarter since it was issued in mid-February. The next three quarters will be .1640625*3*5,650,000 shares, or $2.8 million.
You really don't know much about this company, do you?
The U.S. State Department says it has received an "unprecedented" 2M (sic) letters about the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in response to its draft environmental report. Well represented, of course, are green groups like Tar Sands Action and the Sierra Club as well as advocacy groups like Americans for Tax Reform and the Institute for Energy Research.
On May 23, 2013, the Department of State posted the first set of approximately 100,000 comments, out of the more than 1.2 million received, on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. This marks the first time the Department has made all individual comments on a Presidential Permit application available to the public. The Department decided to post these comments as part of its continued effort to maximize transparency in the federal Presidential Permit review process.
Kodiak Oil & Gas is started at Hold with an $11 price target by Deutsche Bank, which likens the company to a "young, talented player still looking for consistency." The firm sees "significant long-term asset value and peer-leading cash flow growth, but with directional risk to the price of crude and inherent risk in KOG's back-end loaded 2013 volume growth."
Registering doesn't cost anything unless you sign up for the Pro in which I do not see the value.
I think you miss a lot if you aren't able to read the comments, since the commenters sometimes know more than the authors.
Check your math.
There are two preferreds, total is $3.9 million paid.
They also are only committed to paying 90% of taxable income, so:
$86 million times 90%= $77.4 million - 3.9 million= $73.5/374,053,198 =.196
Why do you keep repeating the same post over and over again, without posting the numbers?
Net income was .20. How many times does .07 go into .20 (without excess?)
Don't let Norris' delusional math confuse you Ops. It is nothing but sleight of hand, outdated and nonsense.
BTW, I sold my CRM this AM.
A $2 billion pipeline project intended to ship oil from West Texas's booming oil fields to California has failed to pique the interest of several big refiners in the Golden State. The culprit: the growing popularity of railroads.
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP's (KMP) 277,000-barrel-a-day Freedom pipeline, proposed in April, would be the first to bring light, sweet oil produced in Texas's Permian Basin to the fuel-hungry Los Angeles market.
That would give refiners in California, which now partly supplement the state's declining oil production with expensive crude imports from Alaska, Ecuador and other far-flung nations, a direct shot at the relatively cheap crude squeezed out of shale formations through hydraulic fracturing. Access to that bountiful crude has already boosted the profits of Midwestern and even some Gulf Coast refiners.
But refiners Valero Energy Corp. Tesoro Corp. and Phillips 66 have all said they won't sign contracts as currently proposed to take crude from Freedom and will instead continue to use rail cars and barges to deliver more oil from North Dakota, Canada and even Texas to the gates of their California refineries.
Their lack of interest in the pipeline underscores how these other modes of oil transport--once seen as stopgaps until new pipelines could be built to deliver the growing amount of crude produced in Alberta, Texas and North Dakota--are becoming a permanent fixture of the North American energy landscape.
Relying on train shipments allows refiners to access crude from different regions at different prices, a flexibility not always found in long-term pipeline contracts, the refiners say.
The OP should sell because he even asked the question, already covered ad nauseum here and just about everywhere else on the Internet.
I am LT AGNC, but not adding.
I won't try to step into this argument too deeply, other than to say much has changed since 2000. Some examples: improved farming methods (much higher yields/acre, more efficient practices such as no-till planting; measured fertilizer, etc.), better ethanol production facilities leading to much higher efficiencies, and more infrastructure leading to lower transportation costs.
Much of what you read are calculations based on what was going on ten (or more) years ago.