Monday, November 28, 2011

Following Delay of the Keystone XL Pipeline to U.S, China is Anxious to Tap Into Canada's Tar Sands Oil

It shouldn't be any surprise that following Obama's decision to delay the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until after the 2012 election, and in the process kill 20,000 "shovel-ready" U.S. jobs, Canada is now looking westward to China as an alternative destination for Alberta's vast tar-sands oil (output is expected to double by the end of the decade).  Here are two recent reports:

1. Reuters -- "China is set to embrace Canada's offer of more crude oil, heating up competition with the United States as the world's top two oil consumers jostle to secure supplies and meet ravenous demand. Canada's plan to ship crude to Asia got a boost after Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his nation would step up efforts to supply the region after the United States delayed a decision on a pipeline supply link."


2.  Wall Street Journal -- "Canadian politicians and energy executives are ratcheting up support for several big infrastructure projects aimed at redirecting the country's growing oil output to thirsty Asian markets—a move seen as crucial in preventing a looming bottleneck of crude.

The push has taken on fresh urgency after Washington this month pushed back approval of a pipeline envisioned to boost oil exports from Canada to the U.S. Canadian officials lobbied hard for the line, TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL, which would run from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast."

46 Comments:

At 11/28/2011 2:57 PM, Blogger Paul said...

The push has taken on fresh urgency after Washington this month pushed back approval of a pipeline envisioned to boost oil exports from Canada to the U.S.

Meanwhile, this idiot goes around the country chanting "we can't wait!" urging Congress to pass his stupid $443 billion "jobs" bill.

 
At 11/28/2011 3:23 PM, Blogger Moe said...

20,000 jobs, that'll make up for MF Global collapse - what else you got?

 
At 11/28/2011 3:31 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

naw..there's something fishy here.

why does Canada need a pipeline all the way across the US and isn't that pretty much what they'd have to do in Canada to get that oil to a Canadian coast for China?

Seems like all Canada would need would be a pipeline to the U.S. Border where existing US pipelines already exist.

so what's REALLY going on here?

why does Canada need a pipeline to Texas?

 
At 11/28/2011 3:59 PM, Blogger rjs said...

they're also planning a pipeline to lake superior, to ship the oil on tankers to great lakes refineries, and plan to ship oil from vancouver to west coast refiners...

oil is a fungible commodity; what does it matter if alaskan oil is shipped to japan, & we buy the equivalent from venezuela?

 
At 11/28/2011 4:12 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" oil is a fungible commodity; what does it matter if alaskan oil is shipped to japan, & we buy the equivalent from venezuela? "

indeed!

I'm still not understanding WHY the Canadians NEED a pipeline all the way across the US.

How is the oil in North Dakota getting refined?

 
At 11/28/2011 4:16 PM, Blogger rjs said...

I'm still not understanding WHY the Canadians NEED a pipeline all the way across the US.

eventually, to export it from new orleans...

How is the oil in North Dakota getting refined?

by train to midwest & cushing...willison sweet was $65 at the wellhead recently..

 
At 11/28/2011 4:17 PM, Blogger Tom said...

Obama is sold out to greenies. Their concerns are more important than US energy security. I can't wait for the roasting he will get in the upcoming campaign.

 
At 11/28/2011 4:19 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" I can't wait for the roasting he will get in the upcoming campaign. "

against Gingrich?

:-)

the Republicans are a MESS!

Obama would LOVE to run against Gingrich!

 
At 11/28/2011 6:20 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Larry G.,

Obama would LOVE to run against Gingrich!
_____________________

Yeah, Obama would beat Gingrich.

 
At 11/28/2011 6:27 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Larry G @ 3:31

"there's something fishy here"

__________

Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm no expert on pipelines. But a lot more than 20K jobs would be created over the course of time, if indirect effects are included.

It's Obama's attitude that I dislike. If there are jobs to be created in the private sector, he will tend to oppose it. The only jobs that he wants are the ones that require the creation of new Federal debt to pay for them.

 
At 11/28/2011 8:07 PM, Blogger Kevin said...

The one thing I would say goes against pipelines is that they have bad safety records. Sure, new pipelines ought to be safer, but the NIMBY protesters have a point here.

 
At 11/28/2011 8:15 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

it's 3 times further to the Gulf of Mexico than the Pacific Coast from the oil fields....

why do they want to build 3 times as much pipeline?

 
At 11/28/2011 9:07 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Kevin: "The one thing I would say goes against pipelines is that they have bad safety records. Sure, new pipelines ought to be safer, but the NIMBY protesters have a point here."

Are you sure? How does their safety record compare to other methods of oil transport? Do you have any data to support your claim?

 
At 11/28/2011 9:15 PM, Blogger Breaker Morant said...

Larry G>>>it's 3 times further to the Gulf of Mexico than the Pacific Coast from the oil fields....

why do they want to build 3 times as much pipeline?<<<

Because there is a lot of oil infrastructure-ie refineries-in the Gulf of Mexico region. Simply put-It is where you send oil.
Pacific Coast ending of pipeline would only be an export point.

Larry G>>>Seems like all Canada would need would be a pipeline to the U.S. Border where existing US pipelines already exist.<<<

So do you believe there is a large supply of empty pipelines that end right at the US border?
Do some research on how full the current pipelines coming out of Canada (and North Dakota) are at present.

 
At 11/28/2011 9:19 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

So do you believe there is a large supply of empty pipelines that end right at the US border?
Do some research on how full the current pipelines coming out of Canada (and North Dakota) are at present. "

I strongly suspect there is a fairly extensive existing pipeline network already in place.

and in terms of where refineries are.... or are not... look at the Alaskan pipeline that ends at Valdez and then gets transported by tankers to the world market and not the Gulf Coast of the US.

why can't the Canadians do the same thing with their oil as we did with the Prudhole Bay oil?

 
At 11/28/2011 9:28 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

point of fact.. the Keystone pipeline is almost 3 times longer than the trans Alaska pipeline.

why don't the Canadians do the same thing we did with the Prudhole Bay oil?

I'm just asking questions here... but there does seem to be some inconsistencies in the stated rationale...

pipelines are not cheap.

they usually don't make them any longer than they have to be.

why is this one 3 times longer than it could be?

there are already 9 oil refineries in Alberta:

Strathcona Refinery, Edmonton, (Imperial Oil), 187,000 bbl/d (29,700 m3/d)
Scotford Refinery, Scotford, (Shell Canada), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
Edmonton, (Suncor Energy), 135,000 bbl/d (21,500 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009).
Bitumen Upgraders (turn bitumen into synthetic crude, which then must be further refined)
Scotford Upgrader, Scotford, (AOSP - Shell Canada 60%, Chevron Corporation 20%, Marathon Oil 20%), 250,000 bpd (located next to Shell Refinery) raw bitumen
Horizon Oil Sands, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Natural Resources Limited), 110,000 bbl/d (17,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Long Lake[disambiguation needed ], Fort McMurray, (OPTI Canada Inc. 35% and Nexen Inc. 65%), 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Syncrude, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Imperial Oil, Suncor, Nexen, Conoco Phillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Suncor, Fort McMurray, (Suncor), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen

why would Canada not expand their existing ones and keep those jobs for it's own citizens?

 
At 11/28/2011 10:02 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

Do you think it's a conspiracy? Perhaps Halliburton will make money on the pipes.

Whatever the reason, Obama's decision to stand with the environmental nutjobs is reason #4032 why he is the worst President in history and anyone who voted for him should sit the next election out.

 
At 11/28/2011 10:05 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

no I do not think it is a conspiracy but I do think the real reasons are not stated.

and I do not believe a great number of jobs are at stake either...

this is just another anti-Obama proxy.....nothing more...IMHO.

but I do think if private interests in Canada want a pipeline in the US, we are due a legitimate justification for it when it really does not make good economic sense on the face of it.

 
At 11/29/2011 12:58 AM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

Sheesh! Where, oh where to begin??? Some of the comments here are straight out of the "twilight zone"!

First "Why the Canadians want to build a pipeline?"???? Hello?

Trans Canada Corp is a multinational company, listed on the NYSE, that operates about 40,000 miles of pipeline in North America. It delivers oil and gas to Boston, New York, Chicago, Houston, as well as California and Nevada.

http://www.transcanada.com/pipelines.html

The oil sands represent the second largest pool of oil reserves in the world... after Saudi Arabia. There is a long list of international oil companies that have stakes in the oil sands (like Exxon and Chevron, Conoco Phillips, BP, Total, etc etc etc). That is who makes the investment decisions (in the billions of dollars)... not "Canadians".

More pipeline capacity is required to get it out of Alberta. The Gulf refineries are already equipped to refine heavy crude as they handle Venezuelan and Mexican crude now, both heavy oils. Mexican production is on a steady decline. Maybe some think that Chavez is a nice guy and could use more money, I dunno. Those Nigerians and Sudanese are real nice people too....really should keep buying from them.

A pipeline to the Pacific (Gateway) will require crossing two mountain ranges (Rockies and Coast Mountains) covered in thick forests and requires crossing hundreds of major fast moving rivers, not to mention that a whole lot of the route will require blasting (there's a reason they're called "The Rockies"). Compared to the above going across the plains with a trencher is a cakewalk. It's flat and it's dirt...can't put it any simpler than that.

That's all the real stuff... that makes sense...but if some still like to think that it's "Canadians"(?) that want to build "their"(?) pipeline to ship "canadian"(?) oil to the Gulf...well maybe then it's because "Canadians" have seen what happens when the US get thirsty for oil...so they'd rather just ship it to the US from the get go and pass on the fireworks later....but hey, it's going to go SOMEWHERE... no complaining allowed later down the road.

 
At 11/29/2011 2:52 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...

One more reason to recognize China as an enemy to be stopped, and nothing else. If Harper wants to sell Canada's sovereignty to such a country, the consequence should be that the US starts pulling back on favors it has promised to Canada. Stop only when China backs down.


China is not the friend that some think they are/should be. Nor should they be allowed any inroads with the US or any of our allies.

 
At 11/29/2011 7:55 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

I think any multi-national company that seeks eminent domain for private sector gain - owes a higher level of disclosure as to why they need a pipeline 3 times longer than the Trans-Alaska pipeline.

there are 9 existing oil refineries already in Alberta - why is there a need to build a 2400 mile pipeline in another country using eminent domain to other (also existing) refineries?

it does not seem to make economic sense and if it were a totally private sector operation that needed no govt help in condemning land then I would say - no problem... go for it.

but when private investors seek the power and authority of the govt to enable/secure their investments then a higher level of disclosure is required IMHO.

 
At 11/29/2011 9:13 AM, Blogger Paul said...

"..this is just another anti-Obama proxy.....nothing more...IMHO."

What nonsense. All Obama had to do is approve the pipeline.

 
At 11/29/2011 9:28 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" All Obama had to do is approve the pipeline. "

are you saying that Obama should have said that US would grant those private investors the right to use imminent domain to secure their investment?

are you in favor of that?

 
At 11/29/2011 10:09 AM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

Larry G...How do you think the 55,000 miles of existing main oil pipelines in the US were built?

Eminent domain is a last resort. TransCanada Corp. has already secured 91% of the route through Nebraska WITHOUT using eminent domain through private negotiations (deals) with landowners. "Condemning land"? Come on, you can plant daisies, or whatever, on it when it's done.

Oils sands production is set to double in eight years. Do you think that those refineries in Canada are just sitting idle now?

Sounds like you and Sethstorm sould have a sitdown and make up your minds.

You don't want the oil, Sethstorm wants to go to war over it.

Thanks to Sethstorm for a good laugh though..."pulling back on favors it has promised Canada"?? Like what? Promising not to open any banks here? LOL....Elaborate please.

"China should not be allowed any inroads with the US or any of our allies." Speak for yourself and yourself only. You don't sound like an ally right now.

 
At 11/29/2011 10:16 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

if there are already existing refineries in Alberta then why send oil 2400 miles to other refineries?

most of the existing pipelines serve existing markets.

what market will this new pipeline serve?

in terms of eminent domain.. these are private investors seeking to secure a profitable venture.

why should govt grant them eminent domain even for one acre?

 
At 11/29/2011 10:23 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"against Gingrich?"...

Yeah larry g, Newt even said the Bat Eared Bolshevik (h/t NEPatriots12) could use a teleprompter in a debate against him too...

We all know how just how well the gaffe-o-matic clown does without his trusty teleprompter...

 
At 11/29/2011 10:30 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" We all know how just how well the gaffe-o-matic clown does without his trusty teleprompter."

ha ha ha.. compared to who?

Gingrich?

:-)

Obama will destroy Gingrich in any debate..with or without teleprompters....

 
At 11/29/2011 10:39 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Obama will destroy Gingrich in any debate..with or without teleprompters..."...

On what alternate plane of reality are your refering to larry g because its obviously not this one?

Mind you I'm not even a Gingrich fan....

 
At 11/29/2011 10:39 AM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

Q:"what market will this new pipeline serve?"

A: Replacing the crude that is currently being imported by tanker from Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia...

I guess that "security of supply" thing was just a fad... a good reason to fire up the B52s.

There's enough oil in the oil sands for a hundred years. Somebody will use it. It's your call.

 
At 11/29/2011 10:58 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

nice video Juandos... now what does Newt say about GW and how would he "explain" that in a debate just between him and Obama?

 
At 11/29/2011 10:59 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: "security"

well.. if the investors of the pipeline made that promise... I'd favor the pipeline...

how's that?

 
At 11/29/2011 2:47 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

"..are you saying that Obama should have said that US would grant those private investors the right to use imminent domain to secure their investment?:

The imminent domain issue could be addressed moving forward. That's not why Obama kicked the can down the road to placate his nutjob base.

 
At 11/29/2011 2:50 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"
Obama will destroy Gingrich in any debate..with or without teleprompters...."

You're out of your mind. Obama, a mediocre intellect and speaker, now has a horrific job record to defend. He won't get by on empty hopeandchange blather this time, and he won't have an opponent that will lay down for him. Gingrich would eat him alive in a debate. I don't know if that will be enough to deny Obama another term, however.

 
At 11/29/2011 3:26 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

so ....Gingrich is the correct choice to go up against Obama?

 
At 11/29/2011 6:17 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

Larry G...

"well.. if the investors of the pipeline made that promise... I'd favor the pipeline...how's that?"

so you think the investors are going to spend 7 Billion on the pipe and not fill it?(??)

I'm not sure you understand how this works. TransCanada Corp is in the pipeline business only, it does not own the oil, it contracts to the owners to move it. You don't "trust" Big Oil?;););)

Do you really think Exxon, Conoco, Chevron, BP...are going to pay to export this oil OUT of the Gulf? and then pay again to have more expensive oil shipped in from Saudi Arabia to feed their own refineries?(??)

None of this makes any sense... but hey, should the unthinkable actually happen, just slap an export tariff on oil. End of story.

 
At 11/29/2011 6:21 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

like I said.. if the promise was made that it all would remain in the US... I'm on board.

without that promise.. no deal.

 
At 11/29/2011 9:47 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

why does Canada need a pipeline all the way across the US and isn't that pretty much what they'd have to do in Canada to get that oil to a Canadian coast for China?

The distance from Alberta to the BC coast is quite short. The problem is the energy cost of lifting the oil over the mountains and the dangers from rock slides. Of course, it is also possible to move the oil east to the big market in Southern Ontario and NY State. A new refinery or two to handle the new supply would be nice.

 
At 11/29/2011 9:49 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Yeah, Obama would beat Gingrich.

Actually, it would make no difference. No matter who wins the bet against the US economy recovering would be a no-brainer and the hard asset people will clean up.

 
At 11/29/2011 11:24 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

Well Larry G, your beef then is with "your";) oil companies... not TransCanada Corp...because their contract with the owners would be to deliver the oil to the Gulf...what the oil companies do with it is up to them.

You want them to "promise" not to resell it? Under any circumstance?

Isn't that meddling in free markets by the government (who would have to draft/enforce any "agreement") that everybody around here rants about all the time?

Make up your minds.

I'll tell you one thing, if an oil comapany came up to me and proposed to run a pipeline in my front yard, that I seldom use anyway, offered to pay me for the trouble and return my front yard in equal or better shape than they found it....and then pay me rent every year that covered my property taxes...I'd be cheering.

 
At 11/30/2011 6:35 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

we don't allow any/all foreign investment much less...normally take US citizens land for a foreign company unless there are very good reasons.

the stated reasons for the pipeline don't add up IMHO.

for instance, there are more than a dozen existing oil refineries in Alberta or nearby.

the path to the Pacific is 1/3 the distance and in terms of mountains - the trans Alaska pipeline crosses even more challenging mountains - and many rivers.

in short, I think if we are going to use the power of govt to take private property to give to private investors.. there needs to be a very good reason and the onus is on the private investors to make the case.

 
At 11/30/2011 9:31 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

we don't allow any/all foreign investment much less...normally take US citizens land for a foreign company unless there are very good reasons.

But that is simply not true. The courts in the US have trampled on the property rights of individuals and allowed expropriation of property. And the 'foreign' designation would not be an issue because the land would go to the American subsidiary of the pipeline company.

the stated reasons for the pipeline don't add up IMHO.

But you are not exactly the brightest light on the porch and incapable of credibly evaluating any 'reasons.' While clueless people like you get to state their opinion only other clueless people pay much attention to it.

 
At 11/30/2011 11:38 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

If not mistaken.. many states have passed "Kelo" laws that deny taking property unless it is for a public purpose.

and in terms of "understanding"...

could you explain why it makes sense to build a pipeline almost 3 times the distance of the trans-Alaska pipeline when there are no less than 9 refineries within 500 miles or less of the oil?

see.. I was ASKING that question and you did what?

basically the same thing you are doing on that other thread that you have argued for over 400 posts.

you're just a nasty, argumentative arrogant fool if you ask me..

not bright. not smart. just a smart ass.

 
At 12/01/2011 1:41 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"could you explain why it makes sense to build a pipeline almost 3 times the distance of the trans-Alaska pipeline when there are no less than 9 refineries within 500 miles or less of the oil?"

T or C has explained it to you very nicely. He hasn't realized yet how limited your reading skills and comprehension are.

 
At 12/01/2011 7:04 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

thanks, Beavis

 
At 12/01/2011 8:07 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

interesting that Beavis and Butthead here... the resident anti-govt guys both apparently support eminent domain for the pipeline.

eh?

But it seems to me that if investors for a profit-seeking venture are seeking eminent domain on the basis that their private sector venture serves a public need - they need to demonstrate exactly how their project can only work with eminent domain.

that gets us to the point about why they can't use local refineries and/or run a pipeline that is equivalent to the trans-Alaska pipeline.

in terms of "deep" thinking ... isn't it surprising that folks who claim to be libertarians and especially in the case of Beavis and Butthead here (aka ROn and Van)... rabid anti-govt types.. they defend the use of govt to condemn private property for a private purpose.

 
At 12/17/2011 3:59 PM, Blogger Joker said...

For anybody out there asking why pipeline is necessary. There is one answer: Koch Family Foundations

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home