Reprieve on the Canada – China oil connection?

posted at 8:30 am on November 26, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

As we reported previously, the president’s prevarication and procrastination on the Keystone XL pipeline has some Canadians itching to begin doing business with China, though the government would rather keep the resources closer to home and deal with the United States. Though no credit goes to the White House, Barack Obama may find himself falling into a bit of good luck on the story. (Well… good luck for us, but not so much for Canada.) In order to get their oil sands petroleum to a port where China could load it on to tankers, a new pipeline to the western coast (known as the Northern Gateway) needs to be constructed. As the Vancouver Sun reports, that’s very much easier said than done.

The $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline linking Alberta’s vast oilsands wealth to Asian markets via a northern B.C. port won’t likely meet its 2017 target to begin shipments – if it gets off the ground at all, retired B.C. Conservative Senator Pat Carney said Thursday.

Carney, who held both the energy and trade portfolios under the Tory government of Brian Mulroney in the 1980s, said Enbridge Inc.’s megaproject faces challenges relating to economics, environmental concerns, well-organized protests backed by Hollywood stars, and aboriginal land claims issues…

“You can’t just bulldoze your way from the oilsands to the coast,” said Carney, who as energy minister dismantled the controversial National Energy Program after Mulroney took power in 1984.

“I can certainly say that if it’s built at all, it’ll be on a much longer time frame than they contemplate.”

My contacts with the industry have repeatedly indicated that social pressures won’t wind up being the driving factor here. Canada has been fairly consistent in ignoring the media intrusion of celebrity busybodies. Further, while dealing with the First Nations is critical for any development in the region, they have enjoyed tremendous success getting the tribes involved, bringing economic opportunity to their communities and providing buy-in where the locals can share in the profits, as well as giving them significant input in terms of managing environmental concerns.

One of the chief barriers is simply the terrain. Driving a pass to the port in Kitimat – the proposed location for tanker access – will involved pushing their way through some incredibly harsh, barren and occasionally mountainous wilderness terrain. (map) Certainly the technology exists to do it, but it’s not something to be undertaken lightly.

This doesn’t mean the project is dead, but the delay could potentially serve our interests. As the Wall Street Journal notes, there is still very strong support inside the Canadian government for a deal on the Keystone XL pipeline being given the green light. (Implied in that analysis is the possibility that if the Northern Gateway deal remains mired, things might look a bit more promising to the south of their borders if there were, shall we say, somebody else making the calls in Washington in 2013. *cough cough*) Either way, it looks like we may have a bit more time to wrestle with the problem than was initially feared.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Jazz,
Once again you have failed to understand that not all crude oil is equal. It is doubtful that China has the complex refineries required to process this type of “synthetic” crude as anything other than blending with high API (very light) crude oil. It takes a very complex refinery to utilize this crude as a main feedstock.

Kermit on November 26, 2011 at 8:47 AM

Why do we care so much if China is buying some oil from North America rather than other sources?

DarkCurrent on November 26, 2011 at 8:49 AM

“You can’t just bulldoze your way from the oilsands to the coast,” said Carney,

Does this guy understand engineering at all?

TugboatPhil on November 26, 2011 at 8:50 AM

“… shall we say, somebody else making the calls in Washington in 2013. *cough cough*)”

When Obama took office, gas prices were only around $1.80…

… We can’t have THAT now, can we?

/

Seven Percent Solution on November 26, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Why do we care so much if China is buying some oil from North America rather than other sources?

DarkCurrent on November 26, 2011 at 8:49 AM

I don’t think it’s the fact that China is buying it … it’s the fact that our Marxist government is stopping us from buying it.

darwin on November 26, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Pay double for gas since 2008 and the local oil goes to the ChiComs…

Alinsky would be S-O-O-O-O-O proud…

Khun Joe on November 26, 2011 at 8:56 AM

The writer is merely reducing the argument to an absurdity. I’m sure, based on his previous positions in government, he understands engineering very well, or else he wouldn’t have said that. To the proponents of the western pipeline, it is easier to talk about it than do it (easier said than done). Do you understand engineering?

Old Country Boy on November 26, 2011 at 8:59 AM

The pipeline seems like such a no brainer that even Obama would understand the benefit to the US then again ……

ldbgcoleman on November 26, 2011 at 9:23 AM

They’d be better off taking the pipeline to Prince Rupert and open water to the Queen Charlotte Island Passage. Risking the tricky navagaiton route around Gil Island is asking for disaster.

Friendly21 on November 26, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Greenie weenies suggest buying local. I did for years before the greenie weenies came along. Why import crude from the Arabs when our neighbors have an oil spill ontop of sand thast needs clean up???

seven on November 26, 2011 at 9:33 AM

IDK about other oil companies. But if you want to buy ‘local’ gas, buy Tesoro. At least up here on the Norther Plains chances are the gas you get from them is from N. America.

Badger40 on November 26, 2011 at 9:37 AM

“”"”"”Pay double for gas since 2008 and the local oil goes to the ChiComs…

Alinsky would be S-O-O-O-O-O proud…

Khun Joe on November 26, 2011 at 8:56 AM”"”"”"

Well said Joe.

JustJP on November 26, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Once again you have failed to understand that not all crude oil is equal.

Kermit on November 26, 2011 at 8:47 AM

From reading his articles, I have come to the conclusion that he is well aware of the different grades of crude. I have been out of the field for many years but still follow it. Venezuelan crude has to be refined in the US because the refineries on the gulf coast are set up for it. That is why we still get crude from there. One of China’s many projects it to build, or modify, refineries over there to give Venezuela a new market. The technology exists to refine the Canadian oil sands and China has it. They can have the refineries before the oil is ready to ship there.

cozmo on November 26, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Please, please, Canada, give us until November 2012. We’ll be good, we promise.

RebeccaH on November 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM

“You can’t just bulldoze your way from the oilsands to the coast,” said Carney.

After the Great Wall, this should be a piece of cake.

/s

petefrt on November 26, 2011 at 10:29 AM

I did wonder how they were going to get it through the mountainous region? Are they planning on drilling through mountains it’s doesn’t seem feasible to lay the pipe across the top of mountainous terrain. Say they managed to jimmy rig something like that, how accessible would it be to get to for maintenance? Depending on the time of year winter season is harsh up in Alberta if they had a problem with the pipe, how would they get to it to fix it?

It looks like putting a pipeline through the U.S. was always their plan “Exploit” the U.S. They send the pipeline through our country, and it comes out at the gulf of Mexico, they still can sell it to China by off loading it on tankers. Donald Trump is right the international community is treating the U.S. like chumps.

I wish team Obama had taken as much time to think over Solyndra.

Dr Evil on November 26, 2011 at 11:10 AM

The global supply will still be the same, right? This seems to be an issue of slowing down the process and perhaps terminating potential American jobs.

MeatHeadinCA on November 26, 2011 at 11:12 AM

cozmo on November 26, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Keystone XL really is for one thing, 11 refineries capable of refining Venezuelan crude. No other refineries along the Gulf Coast can utilize this crude.

A few U.S. refineries had to have substantial upgrades to process it economically, Marathon in Detroit & ConocoPhillips in Wood River (IL). Also, ConocoPhillips in Borger (TX Panhandle) has a pipeline from Cushing just for Canadian Syncrude which comes down the original Keystone pipeline. It was also configured for it as well.

That is not to say that China could not one day process Heavy Syncrude, but they only have simple refineries at present. It takes a very complex one to process it economically beyond being used as a blending stock.

For instance, Citgo’s Lake Charles refinery started importing Venezuela crude as its main feedstock before PDVSA bought it. It began purchasing it due it being the largest petcoke producer in the U.S. back in the early 1980′s. It has had to add an addition high pressure hydrotreater just to treat the coker feed. I know about that because I had entered into discussion with Citgo to purchase a high pressure hydrotreater to them from a cancelled project for Koch (now Flint Hills) in Corpus Christi back in the early 90′s along with two hydrotreater reactors from a cancelled Shell Oil project for it’s Wilmington refinery as a result of the closing of that refinery (which I dismantled). Citgo did not desire a parallel reactor train due these reactors were not large enough for a single train.

Kermit on November 26, 2011 at 11:14 AM

My point is that Jazz likely has exploration, production and pipeline sources for info, but not refining sources.

Partial info is a dangerous thing to have. I’ve lost my a$$ financially, in the past, by missing a small but key piece of data which totally and utterly made the majority of data useless.

Kermit on November 26, 2011 at 11:18 AM

As I’ve suggest, when not outright saying, this Keystone XL delay is more about ignorance of the Zero Admin, or placating Venezuela, than anything else.

Kermit on November 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

What’s to stop someone clever from building a refinery in N. Dakota or somewhere close to the oil sands? No U.S. pipeline, or at least much, much shorter, and they can deliver the gasoline by truck from there.

TexasDan on November 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

There has been a proposed refinery there for a number of years, but getting the air emissions permits has been a problem for decades. Just ask Williams Energy about their proposed refinery in AZ which a pipeline from CA to utilize Alaskan crude. They likely spent more in legal fees fighting challenges than they would have in construction costs!

Kermit on November 26, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Here was the proposed refinery for South Dakota…

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/Projects/Project.aspx?project_id=15

They have not obtained permits yet.

Kermit on November 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM

If we can just get through 2012 without an Iranian nuclear attack, 50 more green company bailout blowouts, a Supreme Court positive ruling on Obamacare, an EU meltdown, or some other catastrophe we don’t yet know about, we can get rid of the socialist president and his little trained minions. Once that happens, we can get the Federal Reserve to call in all those extra dollars, then the banks will start lending for new business, we can get the pipeline going, let the housing market level itself, etc. It will really be crappy for a while, but eventually I foresee an American Renaissance. People want to get to work and succeed in this country and everyone just seems to be waiting for Obama to leave so that we can get on with it.

gordo on November 26, 2011 at 11:53 AM

What’s to stop someone clever from building a refinery in N. Dakota or somewhere close to the oil sands? No U.S. pipeline, or at least much, much shorter, and they can deliver the gasoline by truck from there.

TexasDan on November 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

The state of ND has been looking into building a state owned refinery here.
Still not sure how that’s progressing.
But I seriously doubt anything will really happen anytime soon bcs of enviros.
ND is still trying to fight Minnesota’s dumba$$ emissions laws. We export electricity to them & most of it’s from coal I guess. And they say they won’t take electricity from coal.
The EPA was trying to cut emissions for ND bcs the scenic view of the badlands, Teddy R. Nat. Park, was obscured. No kidding on that one.

Badger40 on November 26, 2011 at 12:00 PM

It is embarrassing to see how little many of those making comments know about North American geography and existing pipeline infrastructure. First of all, there are already pipelines from Alberta to the west coast. Second of all, a pipeline does not necessarily have to go through mountains to get from Alberta to the west coast. Rest assured that, if the Canadians want to get another pipeline to the west coast, they have the experience and know-how to do it! Shame on my fellow pinheaded Americans making comments to the contrary!

John Adams on November 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Those of you advocating building refineries closer to the Canadaian border (ND, SD, etc.) are missing one salient point. Albertans are also advocating a similar strategy – but on the Canadian side of the border . After all, why should we keep offering you guys a chance to share in our success and increase the value of our products if all you’re going to do is jerk us around?
Oh, and Pat Carney (retired Senator and Energy Minister from the late-80s) may have been built like a linebacker, but she was legally entitled to use the Ladies’ restrooms.

Another Sean on November 26, 2011 at 1:35 PM

What’s to stop someone clever from building a refinery in N. Dakota or somewhere close to the oil sands? No U.S. pipeline, or at least much, much shorter, and they can deliver the gasoline by truck from there.

TexasDan on November 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

The EPA of course!

these dern tree huggin NASA rejects fail to realize most ANY well built pipeline has about the same environmental impact as stretching a single strand of kite string across your back yard.

And as for how to pipeline across the Rockies? Follow the interstates Natch!

Katfish on November 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM

They have not obtained permits yet.<<<MAJOR KEY phrase theree!

Kermit on November 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Katfish on November 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM

There are a lot of stories around here that go “we better do x or China will do it!”. The other day, Allahpundit was explaining how we need to give Pakistan billions of dollars or China will do it. What do they call that, “bogeyman” or something?

Buddahpundit on November 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM

There are a lot of stories around here that go “we better do x or China will do it!”. The other day, Allahpundit was explaining how we need to give Pakistan billions of dollars or China will do it. What do they call that, “bogeyman” or something?

Buddahpundit on November 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM

It’s an election year we are getting fed big fat “Fear Burgers”. Scare tactics, nothing new to the American electoral campaigning process. They have really worn out the fear button by pushing it so often.

Dr Evil on November 26, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Does this guy understand engineering at all?

TugboatPhil on November 26, 2011 at 8:50 AM

If you don’t grasp her point, you might keep thinking about it rather than suggest she’s stupid. Because she’s clearly not stupid and seems to have quite a bit of experience and knowledge on the subject.

Jaibones on November 26, 2011 at 3:17 PM

My stepdad welded on the Alaska Pipeline. America used to perform engineering miracles. This would be private industry putting people to work.

What does she understand that I don’t?

TugboatPhil on November 26, 2011 at 4:50 PM

When did politicians start understanding precipitators and scrubbers, their construction and their by products?

mixplix on November 26, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Why do we care so much if China is buying some oil from North America rather than other sources?

DarkCurrent on November 26, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Two reasons: Cost and environmental concerns.

First and foremost (to me), cost. The cost of oil is global, but the cost of transportation adds to that. Buying our oil transported by pipeline from Canada is cheaper than using tankers to ship it over from the Middle East, Venezuela, etc.

And I like cheaper. Sending a boat halfway around the globe isn’t free after all.

For the environmentalists; they block a pipeline here, get a pipeline elsewhere, and get the refining done under the environmental controls of China instead of the US; as well as extra tanker shipping of oil across the Pacific, and extras tankers bringing us the oil we could have had here.

Now maybe this is useful; but only if the pipeline is more secure in Canada than it would be in the center of America (is going over mountains better than going through farmland?)

And also if the Chinese Environmental controls are sufficiently better than those in the US to justify the extra environmental damage and risk of shipping it across the oceans, twice.

I don’t see that being a net positive environmental outcome.

Well, that or the environmentalists opposed to this need to admit they don’t give a rat’s behind about the “Global Environment” and are instead just NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) Environmentalists with no concern outside their local area…

And that doesn’t seem to match their claims either, does it?

Without the pipeline oil/gas costs will be higher due to increased transportation; and the global environmental effects will be worse (refining in China + transport of that oil out + transport of the oil we’ll use in); while the Canada vs US pipeline environmental effects is likely near a wash.

NIMBY is the only reason to oppose the pipeline that I can see… but maybe I’m missing something.

gekkobear on November 26, 2011 at 5:21 PM

There are plenty of options available to the Canadians to develop a pipeline from northern Alberta to Vancouver. Gaining rights of way is the least of them. There are already existing pipeline and railroad rights of way, that don’t require any land acquisition, just digging.

Canada’s decision is whether they prefer to do business with the Chinese or the USA, and is it worth waiting for a favorable US decision. In the meantime Alberta oil can be moved to the US border and railed down to Cushing as is being done withnewly developed North Dakota oil. It is more expensive to do that, but it is an inerim solution that works.

If things hot up in the mid-east and the Straits of Hormuz are closed, then you will see fast action by this administration. It is an election year coming up. Those of us old enough remember the Arab oil embargo of the early 1970′s remember Democrats blocking the Alaskan Pipeline. When the price of gas skyrocketed from the embargo, resistance to the pipeline faded.

It’s the same actors with different faces now. They never seem to learn.

Corky Boyd on November 27, 2011 at 10:16 AM