Oilsands has other takers,

[styky]

Oilsands has other takers, says Baird

Jenna McMurray, Calgary Sun

First posted: Friday, September 09, 2011 06:34 PM MDT
Canada will ship its oilsands exports elsewhere if the U.S. turns down the Keystone XL pipeline, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said in Calgary yesterday.



And Canada will continue the pace of oilsands development if the controversial pipeline project is rejected by Washington, added Baird.

“If the Americans choose to decline the promise that Keystone XL represents, there are many, many other countries and many, many other markets for our oil,” said Baird at a luncheon presented by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

“New emerging economic forces in the Asia-Pacific region offer tremendous opportunities of all kinds for Canadian companies.”

Despite what he called “publicity stunts” by Hollywood actors including Daryl Hannah protesting the construction of the pipeline, Baird said he wants a decision on its approval to be based on facts.

He said Alberta’s oilsands will not disappear with the rejection of the pipeline.

“This resource is going to be developed whether it’s Keystone or not and so it is important that they understand that in the decision,” said Baird.

“The decision before the U.S. administration is on the pipeline, not on the production.”

Baird said Canada can help the U.S. reach energy independence faster than other more volatile suppliers can.

“Canada’s oil is secure. Our supply is stable. We can meet the needs of our American friends and both countries would benefit,” he said.

“Do they want to buy it from someone like Gadhafi or someone like Canada?”

At the event, Baird also touched on the situation in Libya, strides being made between the U.S. and Canada in terms of border security, and strengthening Canada’s relationship with China, which is now the country’s second largest trading partner.

He said though the government’s top priority remains the economy, it’s also important to promote Canadian values including “freedom, democracy and the rule of law.”

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/09/09/oi ... says-baird

[Edward Kennedy]

...problem has always been follywood rodent fart sucking lieberals who know dick about anythign except acting...

[RedDog]

The end product is still going to ship because there's a world market for it. Pipelines are simply safer and more cost effective in moving the product. The irony is that the "green" agenda appear to prefer thousands of transport trucks and rail cars on the move instead. They contradict themselves.

[styky]

He said though the government's top priority remains the economy, it's also important to promote Canadian values including "freedom, democracy and the rule of law."

Really
Then how do they explain the "lawful access" bill

[Edward Kennedy]

There is no rule of law here...note Caledonia, hrc fascists, crybaby, chief blair and his fascist actions during the summit. Notice it is all lieberally caused and perpetrated.

[styky]

Lamphier: Oilsands enter spotlight as U.S. searches for secure energy


By Gary Lamphier, edmontonjournal.com September 10, 2011 7:02 PM
EDMONTON - On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Eric Newell was jarred from his slumber by a ringing telephone.

Newell had checked into a Chicago hotel the night before, with plans to attend his son’s wedding a few days later.

“Get up dad, and turn on the TV,” his son instructed. Newell, then CEO of Syncrude Canada, the country’s largest oil producer, wearily complied.

Like millions of others, he was stunned by what he saw — images of two jet planes slamming into the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center. Within hours the buildings collapsed, killing nearly 3,000 people.

“We watched everything,” says Newell, who retired from Syncrude in 2003. “And then we watched Chicago turn into a ghost town. By noon all the downtown offices were closed,” he recalls.

“In the U.S., (9/11) had a huge impact. When the twin towers and the Pentagon were attacked, it showed how vulnerable everybody really is.”

The 9/11 attacks launched America’s decade-long War on Terror. But what’s less well understood is that 9/11 was part of a perfect storm that triggered profound economic impacts.

For starters, it deepened a U.S. recession that began six months earlier, in the wake of the tech wreck. And although the U.S. economy began to bounce back by 2002, the cost of fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, helped fuel a disastrous growth of U.S. government debt.

A decade later, America’s federal debt totals a staggering $14.7 trillion US, up about 150 per cent since 9/11, and Washington expects to run huge budget deficits for years to come.

The growing U.S. economic vulnerability was laid bare during the brutal 2008-2009 recession. And although there has been a fitful recovery since, America remains a deeply wounded behemoth, while China’s economy and geopolitical clout has soared.

The 9/11 attacks also indirectly influenced the evolution of the Canadian economy over the past 10 years, and the resurgence of the once-derided loonie — Canada’s petrodollar.

In tandem with a series of other events, 9/11 also helped to precipitate the biggest investment boom in Alberta’s history, as tectonic shifts in global energy markets worked to the province’s benefit.

Between March of 2002 and July of 2008, the price of light sweet crude soared some 600 per cent on the New York Mercantile Exchange, from about $21 US a barrel to more than $147.

The rally was driven by soaring Asian demand, the growing challenge of replacing reserves, heightened fears about the reliability of energy supplies from the Middle East, and a sagging greenback, which drove crude prices and the loonie higher.

Those factors in turn made Alberta’s oilsands a magnet for capital. The result: hundreds of billions of dollars flowed into the oilsands, as energy producers jockeyed for a stake in what is now recognized as the planet’s third-largest pool of crude oil, behind Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

A decade after 9/11, oilsands production has roughly tripled to about 1.7 million barrels a day, and it’s on track to exceed three million barrels a day by 2020.

With oil prices currently running in the $90 a barrel range — nearly three times the recessionary lows of early 2009 — about $30 billion (Cdn) is expected to be invested in the oilsands this year, about half of it on new projects.

As a result, Canada is now the top exporter of crude oil to the U.S., and many economists expect Alberta to lead the nation in growth — along with resource-rich Saskatchewan — for years to come.

“There’s no question that 9/11 and the War on Terror . . . indirectly were catalysts for accelerated investment in the oilsands,” says Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at Calgary-based ARC Financial, and author of the best-selling book, The End of Energy Obesity.

“To say it was exclusively due to 9/11 is not correct because 9/11 and the decade that ensued overlapped with the rise of China and the demand surge for energy, particularly oil. So in a sense there was a demand-side and a supply-side perfect storm. But 9/11 was a major contributor,” he asserts.

Robert Johnston, who heads the global energy and natural resources group at Washington, D.C.-based Eurasia Group, a consulting firm that specializes in assessing geopolitical risks, agrees.

“If you remember, 9/11 was followed (in 2002) by the strike at PDVSA (Venezuela’s state-owned oil company), the rise of Hugo Chavez and changing perceptions about the reliability of Venezuelan heavy oil supply to the U.S.,” he says.

At the same time, supply disruptions in key oil-producing nations like Iraq and Nigeria created even tighter market conditions. And as war raged in Iraq, terrorists launched attacks against oil infrastructure targets in Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s largest producer.

Thus, in a world of rising instability and surging energy demand, the allure of Alberta’s oilsands grew dramatically. Between 2004 and 2007, new multi-billion-dollar oilsands projects were unveiled on a regular basis. And although many projects were delayed by the 2008-2009 recession, activity in the Fort McMurray region has rebounded sharply since.

“We take Saudi oil security a little bit more for granted now. But back in 2003-2004 during the (early days of the) Iraq War, with terrorist attacks against Saudi Aramco’s (the state oil company’s) infrastructure and personnel, that was a big catalyst in the oil price rally we had,” says Johnston.

“And equally so, that drove the shift of global capital in the energy sector toward unconventional resources, of which Alberta has the biggest. So absolutely, I would say (9/11) directly contributed to that.”

If Chavez had not gained power in Venezuela in the late 1990s, ushering in an era of virulent anti-Americanism, Alberta’s oilsands may not have gained so much prominence, he argues.

“Without Chavez, what probably would have happened after 9/11 is there would have been a doubling down of investment in Venezuela. So the projects that are being developed now in the Orinoco (oilsands belt) would have probably happened a lot sooner,” says Johnston.

“But looking back, it was a real perfect storm for Alberta, that the Persian Gulf suppliers and the Venezuelan suppliers (came into question). And then of course you had the Yukos crisis in Russia, which created a big chilling effect on that market too.”

Yukos, which accounted for a big chunk of Russia’s oil output a decade ago, was charged with tax evasion and declared bankrupt by a Russian court in 2006. Its former CEO, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was imprisoned.

Critics believe the charges were politically motivated, but the Yukos episode showed how dangerous it can be for Western energy firms to invest in Russia, the world’s largest oil producer.

Royal Dutch Shell learned that lesson in 2007, when Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned natural gas giant, seized control of the Anglo-Dutch multinational’s $22 billion (U.S.) Sakhalin Island project, then the world’s largest integrated oil and gas project.

Once again, it underlined the relative attractiveness of investing in a stable jurisdiction like Alberta. It also showed how tough it is for the world’s oil giants to replace their reserves.

“What’s happened in the last 10 years is that you’ve had so many places where (investment) opportunities have been cut off, including Venezuela and Russia,” says John Kingston, global director of news for Platts, a New York-based energy news service.

“So you could say investment in the oilsands is partly driven by security concerns. But even in Venezuela, where companies were forced to accept some really onerous terms, a lot of them chose to stick around,” he notes.

“So I think certainly the security and stability of Canada would make it even more attractive. But oil companies are willing to swallow a lot to look for oil, wherever it might be.”

That principle extends to the major oil companies of China, South Korea, Thailand and other Asian countries. They’ve joined the stampede to Alberta’s oilsands in a big way over the past couple of years, investing $9.2 billion last year alone.

“Again, I wouldn’t say that’s directly related to 9/11, but they did start (to focus on) this idea of energy security,” says Greg Stringham, vice-president, oilsands and markets, for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

“They were primarily reliant on the Middle East for crude, and now they’re seriously investing in Canada’s oil resources.”
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/9-1 ... story.html

[Winston Smith]

That principle extends to the major oil companies of China, South Korea, Thailand and other Asian countries. They’ve joined the stampede to Alberta’s oilsands in a big way over the past couple of years, investing $9.2 billion last year alone.

I wish people would start looking at China as the enemy. That is how they view us.

[styky]

Canada looks to diversify oil export markets
By Margo McDiarmid, Environment Unit, CBC News
Posted: Sep 13, 2011 4:15 PM ET
Last Updated: Sep 13, 2011 4:11 PM ET
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver says a big priority for his government is finding new places to sell Canadian oil other than the U.S.

Oliver is in California to attend the APEC Transportation and Energy conference, but he told reporters on a conference call that at the top of his agenda is talking about new markets.

"We export 97 per cent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that," he said.

Oliver and other Canadian federal ministers have been urging the U.S. government to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would carry crude from the Alberta oilsands south to the Texas Gulf Coast for refining. The massive project has faced opposition from some U.S. states and environmentalists.

U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to announce a decision on Keystone XL soon........................http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ports.html

[Free_Reign]

Haven't been able to fathom why oilsands refining can't be done in Alberta and transport the finished product to U.S. destinations. That's what would be done from Texas where Keystone pipeline would terminate.

[Edward Kennedy]

Haven't been able to fathom why oilsands refining can't be done in Alberta and transport the finished product to U.S. destinations. That's what would be done from Texas where Keystone pipeline would terminate.

Yup

[RedDog]

Haven't been able to fathom why oilsands refining can't be done in Alberta and transport the finished product to U.S. destinations. That's what would be done from Texas where Keystone pipeline would terminate.

I agree and that's what Peter Lougheed said today... except that HE didn't initiate it when he was in a position to do so. Fancy talk on the lecture circuit now. I too would refine here - BUT the processed product still has to be transported to outside markets somehow.

[dpwozney]

Oliver and other Canadian federal ministers have been urging the U.S. government to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would carry crude from the Alberta oilsands south to the Texas Gulf Coast for refining.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would also carry heavy oil, or bitumen, from Alberta south to the U.S.A. for upgrading as well. There is a difference between refining and upgrading.

One problem with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is that the cost of pipelining non-upgraded high-viscosity bitumen, or heavy oil, from Alberta is much higher than the cost of pipelining upgraded low-viscosity light oil.

Another problem is that upgraders in the U.S.A., that use delayed coking technology, could end up producing large quantities of solid sulphur, high-sulphur petroleum coke, etc., as waste or unmarketable products near major population centers.

Upgrading raw bitumen, which results in sulphur dioxide emissions, would also not be all that great for the local environment in the U.S.A.

“A number of major oil companies have stated that the Keystone XL Pipeline is not needed, including British Petroleum, Imperial Oil, Suncor, and Nexen (Nexen says not needed until 2020)”, according to Plains Justice (in this pdf document), citing “NEB Reasons for Decision, OH-1-2009, March 2010”.

[dpwozney]

Haven't been able to fathom why oilsands refining can't be done in Alberta and transport the finished product to U.S. destinations.

If there are existing refineries in the U.S.A. that can refine oil, from oil sands, into gasoline, why build new refineries if you don't have to and if it is an unnecessary additional cost? New oil refineries do not necessarily have to be built, but new oil upgraders do have to be built.

Also, transporting gasoline is more risky than transporting oil because gasoline is explosive.

[dpwozney]

There is a difference between refining and upgrading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upgrader
“An upgrader is a facility that upgrades bitumen (extra heavy oil) into synthetic crude oil. Upgrader plants are typically located close to oil sands production, for example, the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada or the Orinoco tar sands in Venezuela.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
"An oil refinery or petroleum refinery is an industrial process plant where crude oil is processed and refined into more useful petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas.[1][2]"

[Free_Reign]

Upgrading seems like a logical step to do in Alberta since the oil has to be heated to separate it from the sand. Heard that such heating is being done with a nuclear reactor with no turbine, a logical process given such an energy intensive operation and with uranium readily available from Saskatchewan.

Since the oil is already heated after the separation process from the sand, refining oil locally is the next logical step rather than letting the oil cool while transporting to some distant refinery that would have to reheat the oil. Not to mention the cost of a pipeline & real estate for the pipeline.

Transporting finished gasoline from Alberta can't be any more risky than transporting finished gasoline from Texas.