Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Why is US exporting refined fuel - Gasoline we need here

What is going on with the gas prices??
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=95
February 22, 2012
In absence of demand, oil prices’ rise points to speculation

From McClatchy News Service

WASHINGTON — U.S. demand for oil and refined products — including gasoline — is down sharply from last year, so much that United States has actually become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that it makes.

Yet oil and gasoline prices are surging.

On Tuesday, oil rose past $105 a barrel and gasoline averaged $3.57 a gallon — thanks again in no small part to rampant financial speculation on top of fears of supply disruptions.

The ostensible reason for the climb of crude prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange, where contracts for future delivery of oil are traded, is growing fear of a military confrontation with Iran in the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes.

Other factors driving up prices include last month’s bankruptcy of Petroplus, a big European refiner, and a recent BP refinery fire in Washington state that’s temporarily crimped gasoline supply along the West Coast; gas now costs an average of $4.04 a gallon in California.

While tension over Iran has ratcheted up in the past few months, the price of oil and gasoline has leaped far beyond conventional supply and demand variables. Financial speculators are piling into the market, torquing the Iranian fear factor into ever-higher prices.

“Speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices. You cannot separate the two anymore. There is no demarcation,” said Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. “I still remain convinced oil prices are inflated.”

Consider that light, sweet crude trading on the NYMEX changed hands at $79.20 a barrel just four months ago, but soared past $105 a barrel Tuesday afternoon, partly on news that Iran would halt shipment of oil to Britain and France. But those countries already had stopped buying Iranian oil. And Didier Houssin, the International Energy Agency’s director for energy markets and security, said that “there are alternative supplies that can make up for any loss of Iranian exports,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Still, oil’s price shot up because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the trading of oil, even though they have no intention of ever taking possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading.

Since oil prices are the biggest component in the price of gasoline, pump prices are soaring. AAA said Tuesday that the nationwide average price for a gallon of gasoline stood at $3.57, compared with $3.38 a month ago and $3.17 a year ago. It takes about $6 more to fill up the tank than it did this time last year — and last year’s gasoline-price surge helped take the steam out of the economic recovery.

Defining what percentage of today’s high oil and gasoline prices is due to excessive speculation, driven by Iran fears, is something of a guessing game.

“I put the Iran security premium at about $8 to $10 (a barrel) at this point, which still puts crude at about $90 or $95,” said John Kilduff, a veteran energy analyst at AgainCapital in New York.

The fear premium is the froth above what prices would be absent fears of a supply disruption — somewhere in the $80 to $85 range for a barrel of crude oil. It means that even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate.

Why? Financial speculators.

What should the price of oil be if left to conventional supply and demand market fundamentals? Canada’s the largest supplier of imported oil to the United States, which now actually produces more than half of the oil it consumes. Production and delivery costs for a barrel of oil from Canada are about $75 a barrel. The market-fundamentals cost for a barrel of oil is in that ballpark; above that, speculation sets the prices.

“It’s as simple as that,” said Gheit, who has testified before Congress and called for regulatory limits on speculation in commodities markets.

Historically, financial speculators accounted for about 30 percent of oil trading in commodity markets, while producers and end users made up about 70 percent. Today it’s almost the reverse.

A McClatchy Newspapers review of the latest Commitment of Traders report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates oil trading, shows that producers and merchants made up just 36 percent of all contracts traded in the week ending Feb. 14.

That same week, open interest, or the total outstanding oil contracts for next-month delivery of 1,000 barrels of oil (about 42,000 gallons), stood above 1.486 million, near an all-time high. Speculators who will never take delivery of oil made up 64 percent of the market.

Not surprisingly, big Wall Street traders on Tuesday projected oil will rise above $112 a barrel; some such as Swiss giant Vitol even suggested $150-a-barrel oil is coming soon. When they dominate the market, as they do, speculators’ bids can make their prophecies self-fulfilling.

“These people are not there to be heroes. They are there to make money. It’s our fault because we are allowing them to do that,” said Gheit. “Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby is the strongest of any single lobby. I’ve been in this business 30 years, and I can tell you I think this is smoke and mirrors.”

What’s indisputable is that oil and gasoline are not in short supply, and that demand remains weak. That was crystal clear in the latest weekly energy market update by the U.S. Energy Information Administration — published last week for the week ending Feb. 10.

“Total products supplied over the last four-week period have averaged 18.3 million barrels per day, down by 4.6 percent compared to the similar period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline product supplied has averaged nearly 8.1 million barrels per day, down by 6.4 percent from the same period last year,” said the EIA, the statistical arm of the Energy Department.

Inventories of stored oil are also unusually high, the EIA said.

“At 339.1 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are in the upper limit of the average range for this time of year,” the agency said. “Total motor gasoline inventories increased by 0.4 million barrels last week and are in the upper limit of the average range.”

Hence, no shortage to explain soaring prices.

In fact, U.S. demand and consumption patterns are so abnormal compared to recent decades that oil and gasoline are both now being exported to Europe, Asia and Latin America.

Exports of U.S. refined product averaged 2.928 million barrels per day over the four weeks ending on Feb. 10, compared to 2.190 million barrels per day for the four weeks ending Feb. 11, 2011, the EIA said. This category is primarily gasoline, but it includes unfinished oils, fuel additives, ethanol and other blending components.

Similarly, the United States did not export any oil in the four weeks ending Feb. 11, 2011, but in the four-week period ending this Feb. 10, the nation exported 37,000 barrels.

The export picture suggests that when domestic demand rises, American motorists might be competing with drivers elsewhere for U.S.-made gasoline, which fetches a higher price as an export.

“To the extent that there is this export market that wasn’t there before, it is certainly ... keeping prices higher than they otherwise would be,” said Kilduff. “Exports were not material. Now they are becoming material.”

The White House sought to deflect criticism about rising oil and gasoline prices. Spokesman Jay Carney blamed the prices on “a variety of factors on the global price of oil. They include unrest in certain regions of the world, they include growth in areas like China and India.”

Another popular explanation for rising oil prices Tuesday was trader relief that Greece received another bailout payment from Europe. That raised hopes of a boost in oil demand in Europe as its economy recovers, given that a crisis has been avoided for now.

That explanation doesn’t add up.

Last year, when oil and gasoline prices rose and slowed the U.S. economy, the surging prices were explained away by traders who said that oil and other commodities moved inverse to slumping stock prices. Today, oil prices and stock prices seem to be moving in tandem — upward — contradicting last year’s justification.

East Coast refiners have seen their profit margins squeezed because they import Brent crude oil from Europe, which has traded at least $10 above crude coming out of the U.S. Gulf region.

Consolidation in the refining sector is another new wrinkle weighing on the oil and gasoline markets. The EIA, in a separate publication called This Week in Petroleum, warned last week that refinery closures in the U.S. Northeast and in some Caribbean countries could crimp supplies along the U.S. East Coast. Refinery closures and strained distribution could drive up gasoline prices on the East Coast until industry players make necessary infrastructure adjustments.

“On paper, refining capacity in the more competitive Gulf Coast and Midwest hubs appears more than adequate to make up for lost East Coast refining capacity. But the Colonial pipeline, which connects Gulf Coast refineries to the Central Atlantic, is already running near capacity levels, so bringing incremental Gulf Coast product volumes to East Coast markets could be a challenge,” the EIA said.

http://www.joplinglobe.com/dailybusiness/x560583319/In-absence-of-demand-oil-prices-rise-points-to-speculation

Published: February 22, 2012

by John Ydstie

Oil prices have jumped sharply in the past two weeks, and the price of gasoline is also moving up. Across the country, a gallon of regular costs nearly $3.60 on average, with some areas facing $4 gas. That's causing sticker shock at the pump, and concern that rising prices could derail the economic recovery.

According to Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, gas prices are up because of the West's current confrontation with Iran and sanctions over that country's nuclear program.

"Right now the market focus is on a tightening of supply, because the whole direction of these policies is to do one thing, which is to reduce Iran's ability to export oil," Yergin says.

That's driven crude oil prices in the U.S. to around $106 a barrel. But Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst at the investment firm Oppenheimer and Co., says there's an even bigger reason than Iran.

"The supply of gasoline has been declining," Gheit says. "We have 700,000 barrels of refining capacity [that were shut down] in the last three months. That is almost 5 percent of U.S. gasoline production ... now offline."

Energy analyst Phil Verleger says that's an amazing drop in refining capacity.

"I've been following the industry since 1971," he says, "and never in my life have I seen so many refineries close all at once."

Sunoco, Conoco and Hess have all retired outmoded, unprofitable refineries in the eastern U.S. and Caribbean. The shuttered refineries were not retrofitted to meet the requirements for removing sulfur from high-sulfur crude. As the supplies of "sweet" low-sulfur crude that they could refine have contracted and become more expensive, they became money losers.

And, according to Verleger, a big European refinery that sent gasoline to the U.S. has also closed.

Gheit says there's still another interesting ingredient to consider.
"Because the global market is much more lucrative than the domestic market, for the first time in our history we are not importing gasoline," Gheit says. "Not only are we not importing gasoline, we're actually a net exporter of gasoline."

So while gasoline supplies are short and prices are rising, big U.S. oil companies are exporting gasoline. Ironically, that's because natural gas prices in the U.S. are so low. American refiners are using this cheap, domestic natural gas to produce the heat needed to crack crude oil into products like gasoline.

"That enables us to land gasoline in Mexico, for example, cheaper than Mexican refiners can produce it for," Gheit says.

It's part of the very surprising energy advantage the U.S. is developing thanks to techniques like fracking and horizontal drilling, which are producing once-unimaginable amounts of natural gas inside the U.S. But will the higher oil and gasoline prices stall the U.S. recovery? Yergin thinks they could.

"Every penny increase in the price of gasoline takes a billion dollars out of the pockets of consumers over a year," he says.

http://m.npr.org/news/front/147261788?page=3


New US Crude Offers No Relief At Pump

Updated: Tuesday, 21 Feb 2012, 6:46 PM CST
Published : Tuesday, 21 Feb 2012, 6:46 PM CST

GREG GROOGAN
Reporter




HOUSTON - We've been reporting it for weeks. Our country is producing way more crude oil than it has in years.

That's prompted some folks to offer a serious question: If it's illegal to export this new-found petroleum out of the US, and fuel demand in our nation has leveled off, why do gas prices at the pump seem to keep going up?

Energy analyst Art Gelber offers at least part of the answer.

"It's only illegal to export US crude. It's perfectly legal to export all types of US refined products, and it is a very vibrant market," explained Gelber.

That's right: America is shipping billions of dollars of refined fuel to countries all over the world. That means drivers here are competing with drivers across the globe for the same gallon of American made unleaded.

"Demand here has been pretty lackluster, but demand in countries like Brazil and Argentina continues to grow," said Stacey Hudson with the energy research unit of Raymond James.

"The export trend is strong and I don't see that slowing," Hudson added.

Before 2008, most of the gasoline made here was consumed here, but then American refiners received a giant competitive advantage when the price of the natural gas, which fuels their highly efficient plants, became dirt cheap, drastically lowering the cost of making gasoline and diesel.

"We are sending out more gasoline and diesel than we are actually taking in. That means the gasoline prices we pay at the pump are based more on global prices," said Hudson.

Which means regardless of how much oil we coax out of American ground, the price of a gallon at the pump will be linked to what the rest of the world is paying for a barrel of crude.

And for the short term, Gelber predicts the news for consumers is not good.

"It wouldn't surprise me if for a week or two something over $5.50 approaching $6 a gallon, in other parts of the country," said Gelber.

The latest government reports indicate US exports of gasoline and diesel are approaching 1 million barrels per day.

Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/120221-new-us-crude-offers-no-relief-at-pump#ixzz1nBiSz0zj

Monday, February 20, 2012

You don't just have to sit and take it at the Gas Pump

Gas Pump Activism

You do not have to take these gas prices in silence?

Copy these stickers, print out a few copies and put them, along with a roll of Scotch tape, into your car.

The next time you fill up, instead of watching in horror as the dollar amount on the pump races by as the gallons trickle into your tank, afix one of these to the pump.

Take care to not cover vital information regarding safety, etc. and don’t cover any advertising.

Then drive off with a smile on your face, knowing that when the next person drives up to the pump they’ll either agree with you and be pleased to know that they’re not alone, be better informed by your message or if it’s an Obamabot, you’ll have thrown water on their circuitry and ruined their day.















Friday, February 10, 2012

If it's half-time in America & the QB is losing then it is time for a change

When I pull-up to the gas pump, I always thank President Obama.

I have had the same car for 10 years and I remember when I paid 13.00 to fill it up.

Yesterday, 9 Feb 2012, I paid over 40.00.

No Keystone Pipeline. No drilling in the gulf. No new refineries. No wonder we pay more and more at the gas pump.

If it is half-time in America with this leader and he is losing, then its time to put-in a new quarterback.

We need someone who does not pick winners and losers from the Whitehouse using our taxpayer money. White House gives up more Solyndra docs. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/208653-amid-comtempt-threat-white-house-sends-gop-more-solyndra-docs

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

North Korea and Iran have been exchanging ballistic missile technology

Iran, N Korea 'trading missile technology'
Leaked UN report says countries exchanged ballistic missile technology in violation of UN sanctions.
14 May 2011 23:13
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/05/2011514223248385833.html

A leaked UN report says North Korea and Iran have been exchanging ballistic missile technology in violation of UN sanctions, according to the Reuters news agency.

"Prohibited ballistic missile-related items are suspected to have been transferred between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Islamic Republic of Iran on regular scheduled flights of Air Koryo and Iran Air," the report said on Saturday.

It said the illicit technology transfers had "trans-shipment through a neighbouring third country." That country was China, several diplomats told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

"For the shipment of cargo, like arms and related material, whose illicit nature would become apparent on any cursory physical inspection, (North) Korea seems to prefer chartered cargo flights," it said.

The report was submitted to the Security Council by a UN panel of experts, a group that monitors compliance with UN sanctions imposed on Pyongyang after it conducted two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009.

The UN sanctions included a ban on trade in nuclear and missile technology with North Korea, as well as an arms embargo. They also banned trade with a number of North Korean firms and called for asset freezes and travel bans on some North Korean individuals.

Several Security Council diplomats said China was unhappy about the report and might not agree to release it to the public. At the moment, only the 15 council members have official access to the document.

One of the independent experts on the panel is from China and diplomats said he never endorsed the report.

Beijing has prevented the publication of expert panel reports on North Korea and Sudan in the past. Earlier this week, Russia took similar steps to suppress an equally damning UN expert panel report on Iran.

The spokesman for China's UN mission was not available for comment.

Non-proliferation efforts

Further evidence of Iran's cooperation with North Korea on missile technology came during a military parade in October 2010, the report said, when North Korea displayed a new warhead for its Nodong missile.

The warhead had "a strong design similarity with the Iranian Shahab-3 triconic warhead."

The report said the possibility of exports of weapons-grade nuclear material from North Korea or nuclear technology to other countries remained a concern and presented "new challenges to international non-proliferation efforts."

US, Israeli and European governments have said that North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor that Israel destroyed in 2007. Damascus denies the charge, which is being investigated by the UN nuclear watchdog.

In its report, the panel said North Korea's uranium enrichment problem, which Pyongyang says is for civilian purposes, was "primarily for military purposes."

It added that North Korea "should be compelled to abandon its uranium enrichment programme and that all aspects of the programme should be placed under international monitoring."

Iranian regime now have Ballistic Missiles

Threat Alert

12/10/2011 - Iranian Regime Seeks North Korea's Help To Activate Ballistic Missiles

Breaking News: Iranian regime calls on North Korean missile experts to help with activation of their ballistic missiles. North Koreans stand in alert mode to activate six DF-31 ballistic missiles on Iranian soil.

After years of heavy concentration on the development of long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has practically failed to produce the weapon while incurring significant and irreversible costs. The first long-range missile contract took place with China providing IRGC with a fleet of eleven 3000-kilometer-range DF-3A missiles. However, in 2009 while entangled with growing tensions between Iran and the international community and the loss of legitimacy at home, just as with many of its military or non-military issues, IRGC entered into ‘special’ talks with China that led to an $11-billion-dollar contract for Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles and 40-ton DF-31 missiles with 7000-kilometer range and the capacity to carry nuclear warheads.

Based on the terms of the contract, China accepted the responsibility for designing certain missiles and the training of Iranian experts, as well as the transportation of fleet consisting of six Ballistic missiles, six activation units and forty explosive containers and the delivery of the ready-to-assemble components to the IRGC who will in turn montage them in their military industry. The explosive containers were meant for a time when the missile-building process had reached a point where the use of these explosives alone would be deemed sufficient.

The missiles were delivered in late 2010, yet much of IRGC’s attempts at operating the enormous fleet, proved to be an exercise in futility. Moreover, as the tensions over Iran’s nuclear program began to mount, the Chinese announced their inability to further aid Iran in its military activity “unless” the Iranians find a way of circumventing the sanctions and paying them several billion dollars.

It is noteworthy however, that these particular ballistic missiles, which were built in 1960’s in Russia, have consistently experienced technical problems-- specifically two major flaws. First of all, they were designed and built before the era of precision in satellite surveillance, and are only mobile up until their installation. Therefore, once installed on the launching platform ( which often takes three days to accomplish) they cannot be moved, and are hence easily and quickly detectable by satellite radars.

Secondly, it is their solid fuel and new components added over time which make the main trigger system incompatible with standard design and the missile’s electronic apparatus, which is the reason why countries such as Russia and China have systematically removed these missiles from their military system. It has been reported that to date at least six missile explosions similar to the recent incident in Tehran’s military base have occurred in China. Interestingly enough, China has long since corrected the technical problems in these missiles and moved on to the more modern and sophisticated continental-range missiles.

Based on reports by Green Experts of Iran, to repair the core technical problems with the fleet of missiles, a delegation of Chinese and North Korean experts traveled to Iran nine months ago and agreed that, in exchange for $7 billion, it will deliver to Iran the necessary hardware as well as the installation technology and training via North Koreans-- who are not bound by the same diplomatic and military obligations that restrict China-Iran relations. In addition, North Koreans and Iranian Revolutionary Guards agreed to set up a joint base in order to expand their mutual activities. The initial part of Iran-Korea contract is set to cost approximately $3 billion.

Based on the contract, North Korea has agreed to develop and enhance Iran’s fleet of missiles and, in collaboration with China, to provide services necessary to protect the missiles from possible attacks and possible replication and reproduction of them. They have also agreed to be present in Iran and activate the missiles at times of crisis. Following the recent explosions in Tehran’s military missile base, the mounting tensions between the international community and Iran, and the state of alert called for all military units, there was a meeting between the North Korean officials and commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards calling for the North Korean missile experts to be stationed in Iran and stand by ready to install and activate the DF-31 ballistic missiles in Iran, by December 10, 2011. CNN

First source: http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/Alert_threat.aspx?news_id=3717

Second source: CNN iReport

Iranian Regime Seeks North Korea's Help To Activate
Ballistic Missiles
By Utkanos
Posted December 10, 2011 Tehran, Iran

CNN PRODUCER NOTE: (The following is a translation of a report by Green Correspondents of Iran. A link to the Farsi-language original can be found below)

Breaking News: Iranian regime calls on North Korean missile experts to help with activation of their ballistic missiles.

North Koreans stand in alert mode to activate six DF-31 ballistic missiles on Iranian soil.

Source:http://www.greencorrespondents.com/2011/12/blog-post_8424.html

Monday, January 2, 2012

Keystone to provide jobs and stimulate economy

Independent Study Finds Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion to
Stimulate More Than $20 Billion in New Spending For U.S. Economy



Calgary, Alberta – June 17, 2010 – An independent economic study finds that construction of
the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline project should provide significant, positive
contributions to the U.S. economy valued at over $20 billion.

The Perryman Group study also states that the proposed pipeline project should improve U.S.
energy security with the ongoing benefit to the U.S. economy of a more stable source of
consistent energy supply over an extended period of time.

The study estimates that during construction, the $7 billion pipeline project is expected to
stimulate:
• More than $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy
• More than 118,000 person-years of employment
• An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans
• Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion
• More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route
The study further concluded that once the pipeline is operational, the states along the pipeline
route are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the operating life
of the pipeline.
The study also highlights the significant ongoing benefit to the U.S. economy of a more stable,
consistent and reliable supply of oil. When completed, the Keystone Pipeline System is
expected to provide five per cent of current U.S. petroleum-consumption needs and represent
nine per cent of U.S. petroleum imports. Once permitted and completed, the Keystone Gulf
Coast Expansion project will supply roughly half the amount of oil that the U.S. currently imports
from the Middle East or Venezuela.
The Perryman study conservatively estimated the permanent increase in stable oil supplies the
Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion pipeline creates will add more than 250,000 permanent jobs for
U.S. workers and add more than $100 billion in annual total expenditures to the U.S. economy.
These figures assume that oil prices remain stable at the “2007 average price per barrel of
$66.52.” On the other hand, “If high oil prices prevail, the effect of the increase in stable oil
supplies” is even more pronounced, adding as many as 553,000 permanent jobs and an annual
increase in total expenditures of $221 billion to the U.S. economy. (Note: for the high oil price
scenario, The Perryman Group “used prices equal to the peak cost per barrel reached during
the summer of 2008 of approximately $147.)
The project received approval in March 2010 from both the South Dakota Public Utility
Commission and the National Energy Board in Canada for the proposed Keystone expansion.
Construction is planned to begin in the first quarter of 2011 with deliveries of crude oil to the
U.S. Gulf Coast expected to start in the first quarter of 2013.
When completed, the expansion project will increase the commercial capacity of the Keystone
Pipeline System from 590,000 barrels per day to approximately 1.1 million barrels per day. The
$12 billion system is 83 percent subscribed with long-term, binding contracts that include
commitments of 910,000 barrels per day for an average term of approximately 18 years.
Commercial operation of the first phase of the Keystone system is expected to commence in the
summer of 2010.
The Keystone expansion project is a planned 1,959-mile (3,134-kilometre), 36-inch crude oil
pipeline stretching from Hardisty, Alberta and moving southeast through Saskatchewan,
Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. It will link up with a portion of the Keystone Pipeline that
will be built through Kansas to Cushing, Oklahoma and facilitate take away capacity from US
hubs located on the pipeline. The pipeline will then continue on through Oklahoma to a delivery
point near existing terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.
To view a map of the proposed pipeline route and obtain a copy of the study, please visit the
project web page at www.transcanada.com/keystone
With more than 50 years’ experience, TransCanada is a leader in the responsible development
and reliable operation of North American energy infrastructure including natural gas and oil
pipelines, power generation and gas storage facilities. TransCanada’s network of wholly owned
natural gas pipelines extends more than 60,000 kilometres (37,000 miles), tapping into virtually
all major gas supply basins in North America. TransCanada is one of the continent’s largest
providers of gas storage and related services with approximately 380 billion cubic feet of
storage capacity. A growing independent power producer, TransCanada owns, or has interests
in, over 11,700 megawatts of power generation in Canada and the United States. TransCanada
is developing one of North America’s largest oil delivery systems. TransCanada’s common
shares trade on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges under the symbol TRP. For more
information visit: www.transcanada.com
TransCanada Forward-Looking Information
This news release may contain certain information that is forward looking and is subject to
important risks and uncertainties. The words "anticipate", "expect", "believe", "may", "should",
"estimate", "project", "outlook", "forecast" or other similar words are used to identify such
forward-looking information. Forward-looking statements in this document are intended to
provide TransCanada securityholders and potential investors with information regarding
TransCanada and its subsidiaries, including management’s assessment of TransCanada’s and
its subsidiaries’ future financial and operations plans and outlook. Forward-looking statements
in this document may include, among others, statements regarding the anticipated business
prospects and financial performance of TransCanada and its subsidiaries, expectations or
projections about the future, and strategies and goals for growth and expansion. All forwardlooking
statements reflect TransCanada’s beliefs and assumptions based on information
available at the time the statements were made. Actual results or events may differ from those
predicted in these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results or events
to differ materially from current expectations include, among others, the ability of TransCanada
to successfully implement its strategic initiatives and whether such strategic initiatives will yield
the expected benefits, the operating performance of TransCanada’s pipeline and energy assets,
the availability and price of energy commodities, capacity payments, regulatory processes and
decisions, changes in environmental and other laws and regulations, competitive factors in the
pipeline and energy sectors, construction and completion of capital projects, labour, equipment
and material costs, access to capital markets, interest and currency exchange rates,
technological developments and the current economic conditions in North America. By its
nature, forward-looking information is subject to various risks and uncertainties, which could
cause TransCanada's actual results and experience to differ materially from the anticipated
results or expectations expressed. Additional information on these and other factors is available
in the reports filed by TransCanada with Canadian securities regulators and with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Readers are cautioned to not place undue
reliance on this forward-looking information, which is given as of the date it is expressed in this
news release or otherwise, and to not use future-oriented information or financial outlooks for
anything other than their intended purpose. TransCanada undertakes no obligation to update
publicly or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future
events or otherwise, except as required by law.
- 30 -
Media Enquiries: Cecily Dobson/Terry Cunha 403.920.7859 -- 800.608.7859
Investor & Analyst Enquiries: David Moneta/ Terry Hook 403.920.7911 -- 800.361.6522

Find the facts at: http://www.transcanada.com/5494.html

Approve Keystone for U.S. Energy Security

An independent economic study finds that construction of the
Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline project should provide
significant, positive contributions to U.S. energy security and the
U.S. economy valued at over $20 billion. The Perryman Group
study states that the proposed pipeline project should improve
U.S. energy security with the ongoing benefit to the U.S. economy
of a more stable source of consistent energy supply over an
extended period of time.
Creating Economic Growth
The study further concluded that once the pipeline is operational, the
states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional
$5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated operating life of
the pipeline. The $7 billion pipeline project is expected to directly
create more than 15,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and
construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the U.S., stimulating significant
additional economic activity.
Strengthening U.S. Energy Security
The study also highlights the significant ongoing benefit to the
U.S. economy of a more stable, consistent and reliable supply of
oil. When completed, the Keystone Pipeline System is expected
to provide five per cent of current U.S. petroleum-consumption
needs and represent nine per cent of U.S. petroleum imports. Once
permitted and completed, the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion
project will supply roughly half the amount of oil that the U.S.
currently imports from the Middle East or Venezuela.

Kansas
• $683 million in new spending for the Kansas economy
• More than 6,700 person years of employment
• Increased personal income by $376 million
• Additional state and local tax revenues of more than $17 million
• $486 million in increased Gross State Product
South Dakota
• $470 million in new spending for the South Dakota economy
• More than 5,100 person years of employment
• Increased personal income by $319 million
• Additional state and local tax revenues of more than $10 million
• $389 million in increased Gross State Product
More than $20 billion in new spending for the
U.S economy
More than 13,000 jobs during
construction of the pipeline
An increased $6.5 billion in the personal income
of Americans
www.transcanada.com
Montana
• $421 million in new spending for the
Montana economy
• More than 5,500 person years of employment
• Increased personal income by $286 million
• Additional state and local tax revenues of
more than $8.9 million
• $349 million in increased Gross State Product
Texas
• $2.3 billion in new spending for the
Texas economy
• More than 50,300 person years of employment
• Increased personal income of $1.6 billion
• Additional state and local tax revenues of
more than $48 million
• $1.9 billion in increased Gross State Product
Nebraska
• More than $465 million in new spending for
the Nebraska economy
• More than 7,500 person years of employment
• Increased personal income by $314 million
• Additional state and local tax revenues of
more than $11 million
• $390 million in increased Gross State Product
Oklahoma
• $1.2 billion in new spending for the Oklahoma economy
• More than 14,400 person years of employment
• Increased personal income by $874 million
• Additional state and local tax revenues of more than $25 million
• More than $1billion in increased Gross State Product