Refining Community Logo

TransCanada: Oil Sands Exports Will Go To Asia If Blocked In US

Home Forums Refining Community Oilsands TransCanada: Oil Sands Exports Will Go To Asia If Blocked In US

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Charles Randall 8 years ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #2600

    Mrityunjay Singh
    Participant

    by Edward Welsch Dow Jones Newswires June 30, 2010
    CALGARY (Dow Jones)

    TransCanada Corp. (TRP) struck back at environmentalists and some lawmakers vying to stop its effort to expand shipments of crude from Canada’s oil sands to the U.S., saying development of the emissions-intensive oil source will expand regardless of where the crude ends up.

    Oil sands’ supporters say that since about 80% of emissions are created when oil is burned by consumers rather than when it’s produced, oil sands is unfairly criticized for its effect on overall emissions.

    Calgary-based TransCanada, Canada’s largest oil and natural-gas pipeline company, is seeking regulatory approval to expand an oil pipeline from Canada’s oil-sands region down to the refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, more than doubling the flow to 1.1 million barrels a day from 435,000 by the time it’s completed in 2013.

    But the $12 billion project has come under fire by environmentalists and some U.S. Democratic lawmakers who object to the higher greenhouse-gas emissions and ecological damage caused by oil-sands development. Last week, a group of 49 Democratic members of the House of Representatives signed a letter urging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to reject TransCanada’s request for a presidential permit allowing it to build the pipeline across the U.S.-Canadian border.

    The State Department will finish taking public comment on the project on Friday and issue a final environmental-impact statement on the pipeline expansion this fall. The results of this will determine whether TransCanada gets the presidential permit. Keystone is TransCanada’s largest single growth project, and its first venture in oil transportation, at a time when oil prices are strong and natural gas demand is lagging.

    Robert Jones, a TransCanada executive in charge of the Keystone project, said during a conference call Tuesday that the fate of the Keystone expansion will have “no impact on oil sands production,” because if the U.S. blocks the flow of more oil sands south, it will just go overseas through one of the pipelines proposed to bring oil to China and other Asian markets.

    “There are two projects under consideration to take oil sands to the West Coast,” Jones said, referring to plans by rival pipeline companies Enbridge Inc. (ENB) and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (KMP), to build lines linking the Alberta oil sands to a marine terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia. “Whether they are successful or not depends upon whether the U.S. continues to be an accessible market for oil sands production,” he said.

    Enbridge’s proposed C$5.5B Northern Gateway project envisages an underground pipeline exporting up to 525,000 barrels a day of oil-sands crude through Kitimat, while Kinder Morgan is proposing an expansion of its Trans Mountain line through the Canadian Rockies that could transport more than 300,000 barrels a day. However, both West Coast projects face their own home-grown opposition from people worried about the possibility of oil-tanker spills.

    Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the U.S., sending an average of 1.88 million barrels a day to the U.S. in March. About half of the Canadian crude shipped to the U.S. is derived from the oil sands. Oil-sands production is expected to more than double over the next 10 years, to more than 3 million barrels a day, making it one of the few major sources of growing production in the world.

    A letter to Secretary of State Clinton by Congressman Peter Welch (D., Vt.) asking her to reject the Keystone expansion until completion of further “lifecycle” tests of oil-sands greenhouse-gas emissions was co-signed by 48 other Democratic members of Congress.

    Oil-sands production can generate about three times as much carbon dioxide as conventional oil production. However, oil sands’ supporters say that since about 80% of emissions are created when oil is burned by consumers rather than when it’s produced, oil sands is unfairly criticized for its effect on overall emissions.

    Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

    From http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=23197

  • #5556

    Charles Randall
    Participant

    It appears the Democratic Congress & Environmentalist are still “Stuck on Stupid” choosing to re-route one example of secure oil supplies from US ali into Asia. This is a Nimbi move that accomplishes nothing but loss US competitive advantage & security, and follows the example of US Jones Act in hampering US from benefiting from regional assets & products and forces exports.
     
    Regards

  • #5552

    Paul Orlowski
    Participant

    Alberta pays to get oilsands message to Washington

    A good neighbour lends you a cup of sugar.
    A great neighbour supplies you with 1.4 million barrels of oil per day.

    That was the opening remark in Alberta Premier, Ed Stelmach’s Washington Post ad.

    EDMONTON Albertas premier delivered his pro-oilsands message to a Washington Post audience Friday morning through a $55,800 half-page ad in the paper, instead of an opinion piece as originally intended.

    Premier Ed Stelmachs office learned Thursday afternoon that the high profile U.S. newspaper rejected the letter for its opinion pages, said spokesman Jerry Bellikka.

    We decided this is a message we needed to get out anyway, so we booked an ad, Bellikka said.

    The defense of the oilsands industry, which appeared today on A4 which is the fourth page of the Posts front section, comes after 50 U.S. congressmen made a case for the $12-billion Keystone XL pipeline expansions should be put on hold. The pipeline is expected to run from Hardisty, Alta., to Monchy, Sask., before heading into the U.S. Midwest. The U.S. politicians argued it would double consumption of Alberta crude and pay no heed to the potential impact on climate change.

    The Posts assistant editorial page editor Autumn Brewington said Friday the paper receives between 60 and 100 unsolicited opinion pieces a day, in addition to its 17 regular columnists.

    You can see from reading the piece, it does make a lot of interesting points, Brewington said of Stelmachs submission. But it focuses more on Canada Day than making a new point about energy usage.

    The paper ran two pages of opinion pieces Friday. They ranged from Thurgood Marshall Jr. reflecting on Elena Kagans nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court and the legacy of his father, who was the first African-American Supreme Court justice, to a piece arguing that the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will not lead to significant economic losses on a national scale.

    Another piece, from the founder of a venture capital firm, makes the case it is important to move toward cleaner technologies without getting hung up on a specific price for carbon.

    The money for the premiers ad came from the provinces public affairs bureau budget.

    Because of the discussions going on in Washington, we felt it was important to get out factual information about Albertas energy supply to the United States, what we are doing to deal with environmental issues in oilsands and just talk about the relationships between Alberta and the U.S., Bellikka said. Most Americans, and probably most Canadians, dont know we are the largest supplier of petroleum to the United States, bigger than Saudi Arabia, bigger than Venezuela.

    Stelmachs ad opens with the comment: A good neighbour lends you a cup of sugar. A great neighbour supplies you with 1.4 million barrels of oil per day.

    sodonnell@thejournal.canwest.com

    -With files from Trish Audette

    Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

  • #4568

    Anonymous

    Oilsands could service Ontario and Eastern Canada. 
     
    You are not alone if you think it’s odd that Canada–the world’s ninth largest exporter of crude oil and petroleum products and the main supplier of oil imports to the United States–is itself a longtime oil importer, importing more than 40 percent of its oil needs this year.

    The situation results from historical pipeline development which has left Canada without a major east-west pipeline to bring the huge surplus of oil produced in the western provinces–now primarily from tar sands–to the eastern part of the country. The country’s provinces from Ontario eastward currently import a little more than 60 percent of their oil needs from overseas. That may be set to change.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Refining Community