Seeking Alpha

Amid the campaign by Canadian officials to boost U.S. support for the Keystone pipeline (TRP),...

Amid 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?
Comments (23)
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9480) | Send Message
     
    The pipeline is going to be opened...despite what the nuts from the left and the right say....
    26 Feb 2013, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • safariman
    , contributor
    Comments (37) | Send Message
     
    Darn good question!
    26 Feb 2013, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    "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?'”

     

    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.
    26 Feb 2013, 07:09 PM Reply Like
  • alan.greenscam
    , contributor
    Comments (353) | Send Message
     
    with a simple answer..... buy from Chavez, in fact import gasoline as well, even that would be cheaper than what we pay here in this over priced scam continent ......
    27 Feb 2013, 05:46 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2500) | Send Message
     
    Refined products are more expensive in Central and South America, thats why US refined products exports reach post WW2 highs last year.
    27 Feb 2013, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    Why not just put the refinery where the oil is? Is there some reason for piping it?
    26 Feb 2013, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (189) | Send Message
     
    Number 1 reason -- Duplication of north american refinery capacity. To refine the KXL product in Canada and send it to the USA would add about 15% to refinery capacity. All refiners would fall into financial ruin. (no refiners left is not good for the consumer)

     

    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.
    26 Feb 2013, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2500) | Send Message
     
    Because then you have a bunch of refined products that need to be transported via pipeline to a coast for export. They need to get the product to market, and the middle of the great white north is not the market that is willing to pay the highest price.
    26 Feb 2013, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    Yes but. Number of miles, pipeline to coast/number of miles, pipeline to Texas = fractioon less than 1, so why put farmland and ranchland at risk? A pipeline break in Alaska is an ecological disaster but a break iin Kansas is an economic disaster.
    26 Feb 2013, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2500) | Send Message
     
    Yes, but they have to get right of ways for the land, and capacity commitments from producers for decades, and run the pipeline to somewhere where there are facilities to load it into tankers. There's also a mountain range to the west of Alberta before you get to the coast or Alaska, plus indigenous people protesting pipelines going west through Canada, which add to costs.

     

    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?"
    26 Feb 2013, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (665) | Send Message
     
    yeah there is a reason for piping it. They're gonna pipe it all the way to the gulf load it a tanker and sell it to the highest bidder. Their fellow Canadians to the west don't want it either! Go around the Aquifer and then build the damn thing!
    26 Feb 2013, 11:48 PM Reply Like
  • Matt Jonza
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
     
    canadians are nicer, eh?
    26 Feb 2013, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    There are a number of reasons to pipe crude to Texas From Canada. The refineries capable of handling the product already exist. To build new ones would cause those refineies to continue to import from offshore or at, least some, to shut down. An existing distribution system for the refined products from existing refineries is in place. If new refineries are built in Canada the whole distribution system for refined products in the USA would have to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. There would be a huge disruption in the USA of the current work-force including a loss of jobs.
    There are more reasons but I'll leave it for everyone to mull over for a while.
    26 Feb 2013, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    Mulled it over long enough.

     

    "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.
    26 Feb 2013, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • bakermre
    , contributor
    Comments (81) | Send Message
     
    You have all missed the point. Oil is NOW moving south, in volume, by rail; like Burlington Northern, owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. Guess what? On July 14, 2010, Obama and Warren met ("privately") at the White House and struck a deal that has begun to leak out, like a broken R.R. oil tanker accident. (20 times more frequent in volume of spilled oil than a safer pipeline): "Stop the XL and get your left wing radicals to picket Washington and Ottawa". I'll come out and support your tax the rich campaign and we can both let David Suzuki condemn Canada for it's dirty oil. Oh, yes, did you know Suzuki admitted on CBC Canada T. V. that his group "welcomes" support from sources funded by Chavez and Saudi oil interests? No wonder these major suppliers of really dirty oil to USA markets (and Eastern Canada) never get one word of protest?? Buffett is crying silently all the way to the Bank. With friends like these, Canada needs no enemies!
    26 Feb 2013, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    Mr. bakerme. You have a good rant going. I don't think for a moment that Warren Buffett had to meet "privately" with Obama at the White House--after all, Buffett's in charge of our "Jobs Summit" and he's in regular touch with Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel and actively engaged in...things...and... uh... development...and, well...maybe you're on to something. We have a real crisis going. Has anyone spotted Emmanuel?

     

    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?
    26 Feb 2013, 10:16 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (665) | Send Message
     
    Bakermre.....actually I think that cock and bull story is half baked!
    26 Feb 2013, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • acenimo
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Yep. Canada should process the crude and sell the finished products to the US. Isn't that what The US does? Sell the refined products. Maybe if Trudeau becomes the new Liberal leader and joins up withe NDP. Remember Pierre and the NEP?
    27 Feb 2013, 05:36 AM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    It just seems like the long way round to me, literally. I can see where the mountains might be a problem laterally, but I can't see why you have to go completely transcontinental. Texas isn't a major user either, from there the product still has to go to the East or West Coast or overseas.

     

    Just an off the wall idea: If they can make natural gas liquid why can't they make oil solid and transport as bricks?
    27 Feb 2013, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2500) | Send Message
     
    It takes a multibillion dollar facility to chill NG to -270 degrees F to turn it into LNG, and another multibillion dollar facility to turn it back into a gas. Even if the technology existed to freeze oil into bricks, I'm sure its nowhere near cost competitive. Texas has the refineries and the infrastructure, and they already have the right of ways for the southern leg of the Keystone Pipeline, from Cushing to the Gulf Coast. The goal is to get the oil to an ocean. West is closest but the mountains make it impractical, the east is too far, the north is frozen, and the south has the flattest land, and has the southernmost section on its way to being complete. Trying to stop the pipeline is trying to stop economic progress.
    27 Feb 2013, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    I'm unconvinced. I don't see this as solely a green issue, I see it as the interests of a Canadian company clashing with those of American consumers.

     

    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.
    28 Feb 2013, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2500) | Send Message
     
    There's no clash between Canadian company's and American consumers, its a clash between a Canadian company and the US Federal Government. The pipeline will likely not cause any material benefit to the US consumer, since refineries in Texas will still be able to get cheaper crude from the Eagle Ford, for example.

     

    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.
    28 Feb 2013, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • techwonk
    , contributor
    Comments (285) | Send Message
     
    I get that the pipeline is cheaper. I also get that there are choices other than Texas. It's not a question of building a new refinery at all, it's a question of where to place the pipeline to connect to a refinery and ultimately to a market.

     

    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.
    28 Feb 2013, 01:26 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|