Market Currents
Amid the campaign by Canadian officials to boost U.S. support for the Keystone pipeline (TRP),...
-
Tuesday, February 26, 6:24 PM ETAmid the campaign by Canadian officials to boost U.S. support for the Keystone pipeline (TRP), Gary Doer, Canada’s ambassador to Washington poses this question for the U.S.: “Do you want your oil from Hugo Chavez or do you want it from Canada?”
Other date
Latest Energy & Materials Articles
This news story has 23 comments:
I agree with safariman, it's a darn good question. Since oil is fungible, this has always been a dilemma. When John D. Rockefeller was running Standard Oil, my grandpappy asked: "In what sense is oil purchased from John D. "mine" and oil purchased from Russia "theirs?" It depends on the price I have to pay.
All kidding aside, the Canuck makes a great point--whatever you may think of our neighbors to the North, they are a lot more reliable than our neighbors to the South.
Number 2 reason - no on ramp for ND and MT crude.
Canada certainly could build refineries or 'upgraders' and sell the product on the world spot markets. The Canadian ambassader just said relations would deteriorate between the countries and there would be no retalliation if KXL is not approved. Do you really believe that? Bear in mind Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the USA and no port has the capacity to replace Canadaian oil.
The odds of a pipeline break are minimal. I agree that the pipeline should have never been planned to go through the sandhills in Nebraska, but other than that, the fact that this has become such a political issue is a great example of how the lack of energy policy in this country costs the US jobs. Do you really want the administration telling companies that want to invest in America "No thanks, just build in Canada?"
There are more reasons but I'll leave it for everyone to mull over for a while.
"There are a number of reasons to pipe crude to Texas From Canada."
I got it! The Venezuelans will need supply once their economy collapses.
Folks. This has nothing to do with oil, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Buffett, the Department of State or the left-handed snail-darting lizard of the environmentally-sensitive flats of Nebraska.
It's a power-grab by greens and they seem to be winning this one.
Now, Buffett is not "crying silently all the way to the bank." Reuters is reporting that he is "trying to figure out how to get a camel through the eye of a needle." As for David Suzuki, who the heck is he?
Just an off the wall idea: If they can make natural gas liquid why can't they make oil solid and transport as bricks?
Texas has plenty of oil. They have more refineries than any other US state, true, but there are refinieries in many other states besides Texas. There are also refineries in most of the Canadian provinces.
Because the South already has oil, once the petroleum is refined you are right back to the shipping costs problem. Oil is heavy. It takes energy to transport energy. Having the refined oil as close as possible to a potential market is just as much a factor as reducing the cost of getting it into production.
If the intended market is South America, I don't see how that helps the US consumer at the pump.
Your argument against building a pipeline is "why dont companies build new refineries." The integrated oil companies in the oil sands do not want to build refineries, they want to ship the oil to market, where it can be sold for a higher price. Different grades of oil sell for various discounts to WTI based on numerous factors, with location being on of them. The ability to sell oil into global markets means you can realize a higher price.
Shipping oil via pipeline is cheaper than by truck or train, so the pipeline is the optimal means of transportation for the producers. There are already refined products pipelines to transport gasoline, and there are new pipelines being built as we speak. No one wants refineries built close to their house, which is part of the reason the US has not had a major refinery built here in decades.
There isnt going to be one magic answer to where the oil should go. But it has to be connected to the world market to get the highest price for it, and the best way to connect it to the world market is the Keystone Pipeline. If it wasnt, the oil producers would not have signed the capacity agreements TRP needed to build the project.
The news item posed the question " oil from Canada or oil from Venezuela"? This is a canard if the oil is not intended for the US at all. A smoke screen. To put it impolitely, a ruse.