Submit your comments on this article | |||
Great White North | |||
Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone | |||
2012-01-20 | |||
![]() Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama "Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports," according to details provided by Harper's office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country's "financial security." The "decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market," Oliver told reporters in Ottawa. Currently, 99 percent of Canada's crude exports go to the U.S., a figure that Harper wants to reduce in his bid to make Canada a "superpower" in global energy markets. Canada accounts for more than 90 percent of all proven reserves outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, according to data compiled in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Most of Canada's crude is produced from oil-sands deposits in the landlocked province of Alberta, where output is expected to double over the next eight years, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "I am sure that if the oil sands production is not used in the United States, they will be used in other countries," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said in an interview before a speech at Imperial College in London today. Harper "expressed his profound disappointment with the news," according to the statement, which added that Obama told Harper the rejection was not based on the project's merit and that the company is free to re-apply. Canada this month began hearings on a proposed pipeline by Enbridge Inc. to move crude from Alberta's oil sands to British Columbia's coast, where it could be shipped to Asian markets. Environmentalists and Canadian opposition lawmakers welcomed the Obama administration's decision. Megan Leslie, a lawmaker for the opposition New Democratic Party, said the Keystone pipeline project was harmful to Canada's energy security. "What I'm opposed to is continuing the unchecked expansion of the oil sands," Leslie said by telephone.
"We have to have processes in Canada that come to a decision in a reasonable amount of time, and processes that cannot be hijacked," Harper said at a press conference Jan. 6 in Edmonton.
Canadian policy makers said they remain optimistic TransCanada will eventually be able to proceed. Alberta Premier Alison Redford said in a press conference in Edmonton that it is still "entirely possible" the pipeline will be built and said it was good news that TransCanada planned to apply again.
"We strongly believe that Keystone's in the best interests of both countries," he said. "We'll continue to be an active supporter of the project." | |||
Posted by:Steve White |
#4 What am I missing? The staggering scope of the oil sands. Within 4 years, production will vault Canada into the top 5 in world production. Canadian Oil is completely landlocked. Even if we built enough refineries, there would still be an issue of getting the oil to a refinery and on to the consumer, about 4mil barrels per day. The sheer volume of oil makes pipelines (multiple) necessary. That 4mil is in addition the existing 1mil bpd that is currently pumped by pipeline from Alberta to the US. Keystone will eventually be built, as the Bakken Field in North Dakota requires it as well. But that pipe will still only handle 1mil bpd. So oil will be flowing to the west coast as well, and on to China and Asia. Besides, oil shipped to Asia will find a better price than that shipped to Texas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24tszlBGj40 |
Posted by: manversgwtw 2012-01-20 18:11 |
#3 What am I missing? Refineries are very expensive to build from scratch. That kind of money is hard to borrow nowadays, what with the debt overhang & the worldwide need to prop up Vampire Squids. It probably just makes more economic sense for Canadians to sell their crude petro products as-is. |
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-01-20 15:01 |
#2 Why doesn't Canada build a refinery so they can ship smaller amounts of gasoline rather than crude? Why let Texas (or China) have those jobs? You might get a lot of Americans crossing the border to go to work and their paychecks can be taxed? What am I missing? |
Posted by: rjschwarz 2012-01-20 14:35 |
#1 Thanks Obama and the Greens for continuing to fuck up our economy and put our national safety at risk. Can we declare them domestic enemies and purge them now? |
Posted by: DarthVader 2012-01-20 11:40 |