Trudeau convinced that pipeline strategy must be top priority
[ http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... p-priority ]
John Ivison | April 11, 2016 | Last Updated: Apr 12 1:50 PM ET
The prime minister has been convinced by his finance minister, Bill Morneau, and other influential voices around the cabinet table that the pipelines have to be built to achieve the ambitious economic growth targets his government has set.
But the problem for the Liberals is that this conviction has to be conveyed subtly to a public that has decidedly mixed views on oilsands expansion and pipelines.
The prime minister has never been an advocate of a Canadian future without oil. He supported the Keystone XL pipeline, and explicitly stated that no country that found 170 billion barrels of oil would leave it in the ground.
But people with knowledge of the matter suggest he has recently issued instructions that a pipeline strategy has to be top priority.
The government will make the ultimate decision on whether to approve the proposals, starting with Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain application, on which cabinet is expected to rule by Christmas.
Opposition to pipelines is greatest in B.C., where a December 2014 Angus Reid Institute poll suggested only 46 per cent supported the Trans Mountain expansion, and in Quebec, where only one in two Quebecers back Energy East. But there is broad support in the oil-producing provinces and Atlantic Canada, where the Liberals hold every seat.
MORE:
[ http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... p-priority ]
Related
Canada can build pipelines and wind turbines to ‘gain public confidence,’ natural resources minister says - April 6, 2016
[ http://business.financialpost.com/news/ ... =2b5d-68bc ]
Majority of Canadians support all three major pipelines up for debate, but Quebec and B.C. remain opposed: poll - March 17, 2016
[ http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... posed-poll ]
Canada needs an east-west pipeline, and Trudeau should say so - March 3, 2016
[ http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... uld-say-so ]
Trudeau convinced - pipeline strategy must be top priority
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Trudeau convinced - pipeline strategy must be top priority
by Oscar » Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:33 pm
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Trudeau convinced - pipeline strategy must be top priori
by Oscar » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:40 am
How Canada made the Koch brothers rich
[ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/05 ... thers-rich ]
By Bruce Livesey in News | May 5th 2015
Author's note: Until this past February, I worked as a contracted television producer for Global TV and its current affairs program, 16x9. Last fall, I was commissioned to do a story for the program about the Koch brothers, their holdings in Alberta’s oil sands and their interest in getting the Keystone XL pipeline built. In January, two days before the 22-minute documentary was about to air on 16x9, Global's senior management pulled the story. After Jesse Brown's Canadaland published a story about its sudden disappearance, [ http://canadalandshow.com/article/globa ... xpos%C3%A9 ] Global fired me, although I was not quoted in that story or had any involvement with it. What you're about to read includes some of the material that has not yet been permitted to be shown on Global.
- - - -
QUOTE: ““They’ve (Koch brothers) made untold millions from that refinery from Canadian oil, for many decades now,” says Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center in Washington, DC. At times it’s refined as much as one quarter of the 1.3 million barrels of oil exported from Canada to the US per day.”
- - - - -
QUOTE: “Greenpeace’s most recent research shows that since 1997, the Kochs have spent a total of US$79-million to groups that deny climate change science.”
- - - - - - -
EXCERPT:
And then there is the Keystone XL pipeline, which would connect the oil sands to the Gulf of Mexico. Koch Industries claims they have no financial stake in, or party to the design and construction of Keystone – even producing a YouTube video to this effect. And it’s true the company has booked no capacity on the pipeline, should it ever be built.
These denials ring a little hollow to some: after all, the tar sands are the world’s third largest source of oil and the Kochs control at least 1.1 million acres of it. “The Koch brothers are very interested in the Keystone XL pipeline going through,” insists Mike Casey of NextGen Climate. “They'll tell you that they're not, but the reality is that they understand that it’s a key piece of enabling infrastructure for tar sands development. Without a major pipeline, the tar sands do not get developed.”
Indeed, the oil industry is desperate to build pipelines for two reasons: cost and capacity. “Pipelines are going to replace rail over the long term and will be a cheaper option for these (oil sands) projects,” explains Sam La Bell, an oil analyst with Veritas Investment Research, a Bay Street equity research firm. “From that point of view, it will probably cost you from $8 to $12 a barrel on a pipeline, whereas you will pay up to $20 a barrel for rail. It’s the cheaper option.”
In fact, the financial industry has pointed to the cost difference as being critical. In a 2013 Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) report on Keystone, they said if it does not go ahead “oil sands projects slated for start-up in the 2014-16 timeframe are likely to proceed at a much slower pace or be deferred.” A Goldman Sachs report the same year said if Keystone was not approved, supply to the U.S. of oil sands fuel begins to level off.
Moreover, transporting bitumen by rail has its limits. “With rail capacity, we will be at capacity by 2017 and 2018,” says La Bell. “So, in other words, all of the takeaway capacity – rail and pipelines – would be used up by that point. Beyond 2017 we need longer term options to pan out” – in other words, pipelines like Keystone.
In short, Koch will be hampered in exploiting their oil sands holdings if Keystone and other pipelines are not approved. As Casey says: “They're not holding 1.1 million acres of tar sands for conservation purposes.”
Which is one reason the Kochs have perhaps invested so heavily in backing the pro-Keystone Republican Party.
In 2012, for example, Koch-affiliated organizations raised US$404-million during the US election cycle. This past US midterm, they spent US$290-million to help Republicans win control of the Senate. The Republicans’ first order of business was to introduce a bill in the Senate on Keystone, which was passed in January (Obama vetoed it).
This winter, it was revealed that the Kochs and their billionaire friends plan to spent US$889-million on the 2016 election cycle – or more than double what the Republican National Committee spent in 2012.
“I think they are doubling down on their efforts to change the balance of power in the U.S.,” says Schulman. “They are funding really their own political party.”
The National Observer contacted a Koch Industries spokesperson multiple times for comment on the issues raises in this article. The company did not respond.
Meanwhile, as the Koch brothers continue to make headlines over their political ambitions, the evidence suggests that behind their veil of secrecy lies a plan to continue profiting from Canada’s oil.
As Mike Casey says: “These are business people and they invest politically to advance a business agenda and financial agenda, and they're not in the tar sands because they like the look of the landscape.”
[ http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/05 ... thers-rich ]
By Bruce Livesey in News | May 5th 2015
Author's note: Until this past February, I worked as a contracted television producer for Global TV and its current affairs program, 16x9. Last fall, I was commissioned to do a story for the program about the Koch brothers, their holdings in Alberta’s oil sands and their interest in getting the Keystone XL pipeline built. In January, two days before the 22-minute documentary was about to air on 16x9, Global's senior management pulled the story. After Jesse Brown's Canadaland published a story about its sudden disappearance, [ http://canadalandshow.com/article/globa ... xpos%C3%A9 ] Global fired me, although I was not quoted in that story or had any involvement with it. What you're about to read includes some of the material that has not yet been permitted to be shown on Global.
- - - -
QUOTE: ““They’ve (Koch brothers) made untold millions from that refinery from Canadian oil, for many decades now,” says Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center in Washington, DC. At times it’s refined as much as one quarter of the 1.3 million barrels of oil exported from Canada to the US per day.”
- - - - -
QUOTE: “Greenpeace’s most recent research shows that since 1997, the Kochs have spent a total of US$79-million to groups that deny climate change science.”
- - - - - - -
EXCERPT:
And then there is the Keystone XL pipeline, which would connect the oil sands to the Gulf of Mexico. Koch Industries claims they have no financial stake in, or party to the design and construction of Keystone – even producing a YouTube video to this effect. And it’s true the company has booked no capacity on the pipeline, should it ever be built.
These denials ring a little hollow to some: after all, the tar sands are the world’s third largest source of oil and the Kochs control at least 1.1 million acres of it. “The Koch brothers are very interested in the Keystone XL pipeline going through,” insists Mike Casey of NextGen Climate. “They'll tell you that they're not, but the reality is that they understand that it’s a key piece of enabling infrastructure for tar sands development. Without a major pipeline, the tar sands do not get developed.”
Indeed, the oil industry is desperate to build pipelines for two reasons: cost and capacity. “Pipelines are going to replace rail over the long term and will be a cheaper option for these (oil sands) projects,” explains Sam La Bell, an oil analyst with Veritas Investment Research, a Bay Street equity research firm. “From that point of view, it will probably cost you from $8 to $12 a barrel on a pipeline, whereas you will pay up to $20 a barrel for rail. It’s the cheaper option.”
In fact, the financial industry has pointed to the cost difference as being critical. In a 2013 Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) report on Keystone, they said if it does not go ahead “oil sands projects slated for start-up in the 2014-16 timeframe are likely to proceed at a much slower pace or be deferred.” A Goldman Sachs report the same year said if Keystone was not approved, supply to the U.S. of oil sands fuel begins to level off.
Moreover, transporting bitumen by rail has its limits. “With rail capacity, we will be at capacity by 2017 and 2018,” says La Bell. “So, in other words, all of the takeaway capacity – rail and pipelines – would be used up by that point. Beyond 2017 we need longer term options to pan out” – in other words, pipelines like Keystone.
In short, Koch will be hampered in exploiting their oil sands holdings if Keystone and other pipelines are not approved. As Casey says: “They're not holding 1.1 million acres of tar sands for conservation purposes.”
Which is one reason the Kochs have perhaps invested so heavily in backing the pro-Keystone Republican Party.
In 2012, for example, Koch-affiliated organizations raised US$404-million during the US election cycle. This past US midterm, they spent US$290-million to help Republicans win control of the Senate. The Republicans’ first order of business was to introduce a bill in the Senate on Keystone, which was passed in January (Obama vetoed it).
This winter, it was revealed that the Kochs and their billionaire friends plan to spent US$889-million on the 2016 election cycle – or more than double what the Republican National Committee spent in 2012.
“I think they are doubling down on their efforts to change the balance of power in the U.S.,” says Schulman. “They are funding really their own political party.”
The National Observer contacted a Koch Industries spokesperson multiple times for comment on the issues raises in this article. The company did not respond.
Meanwhile, as the Koch brothers continue to make headlines over their political ambitions, the evidence suggests that behind their veil of secrecy lies a plan to continue profiting from Canada’s oil.
As Mike Casey says: “These are business people and they invest politically to advance a business agenda and financial agenda, and they're not in the tar sands because they like the look of the landscape.”
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Trudeau convinced - pipeline strategy must be top priori
by Oscar » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:30 am
Build a dozen pipelines, Alberta. It won’t help.
[ http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/11/build-a- ... wont-help/ ]
Ross Belot Author Posted on April 11, 2016/
- - -
QUOTE: “There are no new markets. There is no need for Energy East — not now, not years from now.”
- - - - -
“I won’t let up,” Alberta Premier Rachel Notley told delegates to the NDP’s national convention last week. “We must get to ‘yes’ on a pipeline.” She repeated that message Saturday, asking the convention to support “pipelines to tidewater that allow us to diversify our markets.”
In doing so, Premier Notley just became the latest Canadian politician to play games with pipelines. She’s telling Albertans a pipeline to tidewater can cure what ails the industry. It won’t — it can’t — because the problem a pipeline to tidewater was intended to address doesn’t exist anymore.
Alberta’s problem is twofold: Its oilsands have been buried by fracked American oil that is both higher-value and cheaper to produce, while longer-term they face marginalization in a world committed to weaning itself off carbon.
So another pipeline isn’t needed; oilsands production won’t be expanding much in the foreseeable future, if it all. Alberta needs to figure out how to make the most of the infrastructure it has in place. Money spent on a pipeline right now would be money wasted. But Notley can’t say that aloud — not while also delivering the bad news on her province’s finances and fighting back against the implications of the so-called Leap Manifesto. [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3529980 ]
When it comes to playing political games with pipelines, nobody’s on a level with Barack Obama. While wrapping himself in a ‘green’ flag, the U.S. president also managed to keep alternatives to Keystone XL, such as rail, on the back burner by appearing to waffle on what he was going to do. As spreads blew out on Canadian crude due to a lack of pipeline capacity, the result was billions of dollars in windfall profits for the U.S. Midwest refiners who were connected by pipeline.
American refineries — like the massive 320,000-barrel-per-day Flint Hills Pine Bend refinery in Minnesota, owned by the Koch brothers — made $10 million a month for every $1 per barrel discount that was in place. And back a few years ago, those discounts were much larger than $1 per barrel. In December 2013 the WTI/Western Canada Select spread blew out to almost $40 per barrel while the U.S. Gulf Coast heavy spread was only $8.5 per barrel.
The U.S. Midwest imports over 2 million barrels per day of crude from Canada by pipeline; in terms of economic benefits, not having Keystone XL was worth over a billion dollars per month to the U.S. industry at times. And the uncertainty Obama created was key to maintaining those prices for as long as possible — by delaying the development of alternatives.
But that was then. By the fall of 2015 those spreads had vanished — because pipelines other than Keystone XL continued to be built, expanded and reversed across North America (for example, Enbridge’s Southern Access expansion 640 KBD, Seaway 950 KBD and the Line 9 re-reversal). Rail transport of crude has dropped dramatically everywhere because it’s not economic and there’s available pipeline capacity. Canadian oil is at tidewater and is getting there by pipeline.
So when Obama finally killed Keystone XL last fall, it was an easy call. No American refiners needed it. Even Canadian producers didn’t seem to need it. Its cancellation had great symbolic meaning for the environmental movement, but little real-world impact.
“As long as I’m president of the United States,” Obama said as he officially pulled the plug on Keystone XL, “America is going to hold ourselves to the same high standards to which we hold the rest of the world.” [ https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... l-pipeline ] Now, if Obama really wanted to have an impact on carbon emissions, he would have shut down the 500,000 barrels per day of California heavy crude — which is ‘dirtier’ than oilsands bitumen. He didn’t; he didn’t even mention it.
The climate change lobby 350.org doesn’t mention it either [ http://350.org/ ]; it’s based in Oakland, just a few hours drive from those ‘dirty’ steam-injected wells. 350.org also played political games with Keystone XL, using it as a lightning rod to motivate its supporters even as it knew that blocking the project would not result in a single tonne of carbon being kept from the atmosphere.
Which brings us back to Premier Notley’s problem. We already have oilsands material at tidewater. The National Energy Board’s lower price forecast (which is much higher than today’s actual price) offers a forceful argument that there won’t be a big enough increase in oilsands production to justify the million-barrel-a-day Energy East line, even by 2040.
- - - - SNIP - - -
Alberta’s already has made a $5 billion commitment to Energy East. [ http://business.financialpost.com/news/ ... =bc4e-15b3 ] We don’t need the feds jumping in too.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.
- - - -
Author: Ross Belot
Ross Belot is a retired senior manager with one of Canada’s largest energy companies. In over 30 years in the energy sector he has gained an in-depth understanding of the economics of global and Canadian crude oil, refining and petroleum products economics and logistics. He has published essays, short fiction and poetry and works in photography and documentary film. He is currently enrolled at St Mary’s College of California’s Master of Fine Arts program. View all posts by Ross Belot
[ http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/11/build-a- ... wont-help/ ]
Ross Belot Author Posted on April 11, 2016/
- - -
QUOTE: “There are no new markets. There is no need for Energy East — not now, not years from now.”
- - - - -
“I won’t let up,” Alberta Premier Rachel Notley told delegates to the NDP’s national convention last week. “We must get to ‘yes’ on a pipeline.” She repeated that message Saturday, asking the convention to support “pipelines to tidewater that allow us to diversify our markets.”
In doing so, Premier Notley just became the latest Canadian politician to play games with pipelines. She’s telling Albertans a pipeline to tidewater can cure what ails the industry. It won’t — it can’t — because the problem a pipeline to tidewater was intended to address doesn’t exist anymore.
Alberta’s problem is twofold: Its oilsands have been buried by fracked American oil that is both higher-value and cheaper to produce, while longer-term they face marginalization in a world committed to weaning itself off carbon.
So another pipeline isn’t needed; oilsands production won’t be expanding much in the foreseeable future, if it all. Alberta needs to figure out how to make the most of the infrastructure it has in place. Money spent on a pipeline right now would be money wasted. But Notley can’t say that aloud — not while also delivering the bad news on her province’s finances and fighting back against the implications of the so-called Leap Manifesto. [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3529980 ]
When it comes to playing political games with pipelines, nobody’s on a level with Barack Obama. While wrapping himself in a ‘green’ flag, the U.S. president also managed to keep alternatives to Keystone XL, such as rail, on the back burner by appearing to waffle on what he was going to do. As spreads blew out on Canadian crude due to a lack of pipeline capacity, the result was billions of dollars in windfall profits for the U.S. Midwest refiners who were connected by pipeline.
American refineries — like the massive 320,000-barrel-per-day Flint Hills Pine Bend refinery in Minnesota, owned by the Koch brothers — made $10 million a month for every $1 per barrel discount that was in place. And back a few years ago, those discounts were much larger than $1 per barrel. In December 2013 the WTI/Western Canada Select spread blew out to almost $40 per barrel while the U.S. Gulf Coast heavy spread was only $8.5 per barrel.
The U.S. Midwest imports over 2 million barrels per day of crude from Canada by pipeline; in terms of economic benefits, not having Keystone XL was worth over a billion dollars per month to the U.S. industry at times. And the uncertainty Obama created was key to maintaining those prices for as long as possible — by delaying the development of alternatives.
But that was then. By the fall of 2015 those spreads had vanished — because pipelines other than Keystone XL continued to be built, expanded and reversed across North America (for example, Enbridge’s Southern Access expansion 640 KBD, Seaway 950 KBD and the Line 9 re-reversal). Rail transport of crude has dropped dramatically everywhere because it’s not economic and there’s available pipeline capacity. Canadian oil is at tidewater and is getting there by pipeline.
So when Obama finally killed Keystone XL last fall, it was an easy call. No American refiners needed it. Even Canadian producers didn’t seem to need it. Its cancellation had great symbolic meaning for the environmental movement, but little real-world impact.
“As long as I’m president of the United States,” Obama said as he officially pulled the plug on Keystone XL, “America is going to hold ourselves to the same high standards to which we hold the rest of the world.” [ https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... l-pipeline ] Now, if Obama really wanted to have an impact on carbon emissions, he would have shut down the 500,000 barrels per day of California heavy crude — which is ‘dirtier’ than oilsands bitumen. He didn’t; he didn’t even mention it.
The climate change lobby 350.org doesn’t mention it either [ http://350.org/ ]; it’s based in Oakland, just a few hours drive from those ‘dirty’ steam-injected wells. 350.org also played political games with Keystone XL, using it as a lightning rod to motivate its supporters even as it knew that blocking the project would not result in a single tonne of carbon being kept from the atmosphere.
Which brings us back to Premier Notley’s problem. We already have oilsands material at tidewater. The National Energy Board’s lower price forecast (which is much higher than today’s actual price) offers a forceful argument that there won’t be a big enough increase in oilsands production to justify the million-barrel-a-day Energy East line, even by 2040.
- - - - SNIP - - -
Alberta’s already has made a $5 billion commitment to Energy East. [ http://business.financialpost.com/news/ ... =bc4e-15b3 ] We don’t need the feds jumping in too.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.
- - - -
Author: Ross Belot
Ross Belot is a retired senior manager with one of Canada’s largest energy companies. In over 30 years in the energy sector he has gained an in-depth understanding of the economics of global and Canadian crude oil, refining and petroleum products economics and logistics. He has published essays, short fiction and poetry and works in photography and documentary film. He is currently enrolled at St Mary’s College of California’s Master of Fine Arts program. View all posts by Ross Belot
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests