Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China

    The Obama administration is foot-dragging on approving a pipeline to deliver abundant Canadian oil to the United States at the same time the Chinese are investing in a pipeline that could send that oil to China.

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee last week passed a bill requiring President Barack Obama to speed up a decision on approving the pipeline. The bill was introduced by Nebraska Republican Rep. Lee Terry, who maintains that the Obama administration has been too slow in making a final decision, the Montreal Gazette reports.

    The Canadian province of Alberta has the world’s third-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and more than Russia or Iran. Daily production from oil sands is expected to rise from 1.5 million barrels today to 3.7 million in 2025.

    Delivering the oil will mean building two pipelines, one south to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast and the other west toward the Pacific, where it can be exported to China.

    If the United States doesn’t approve its pipeline promptly due to environmental concerns, “Canada might increasingly look to China, thinking America doesn’t want a big stake in what environmentalists call ‘dirty oil,’ which they say increases greenhouse gas emissions,” according to a report from The Associated Press.

    Sinopec, a Chinese-controlled company, has invested $5.5 billion in the planned pipeline to the Pacific coast.

    Sinopec has also paid $4.6 billion for a stake in Syncrude, Canada’s largest oil-sands project, and PetroChina, Asia’s largest oil and gas company, bought a $1.7 billion stake in Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.

    According to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, American government officials have expressed concerns about the Pacific pipeline delivering oil to China that might have otherwise gone to the United States.

    Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told Newsmax in an interview last week that the pipeline project could create 100,000 jobs and said: “Why is it that we’re not working with Canada, which will be producing more than 3 or 4 million barrels a day from oil sand, and we’ve stalled on the application to build a pipeline?

    “If we continue to say we may not be interested, Canada is going to turn around and build that pipeline not to the United States but instead to Vancouver, and they’re going to be selling it off to China.”

    Environmentalist groups have urged Obama to reject the pipeline project. They assert that extracting oil from oil sands requires huge amounts of energy and water, increases emissions and threatens rivers and forests.

    But Michael A. Levi, senior fellow for energy and the environment at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, maintains that environmentalists are exaggerating the dangers of oil sand extraction.

    “A lot of people have been convinced that this is the cutting edge of the climate change fight,” he said. “In the end this is the equivalent to half a percent of U.S. Emissions.”

    And a report commissioned by the Obama administration suggests that the pipeline to Texas, along with a reduction in overall U.S. oil demand, “could essentially eliminate Middle East crude imports long term.”

    The State Department, which must approve the pipeline, has promised a decision by the end of the year, although Republicans wants it sooner.

    And Upton told Newsmax that the bill his committee passed last week “is expected on the House floor as early as next month.”

    David Goldwyn, a former State Department energy official who left this year to work as a consultant, said he believes the pipeline will ultimately be approved, according to the AP.

    “I think it would be a huge waste of a great opportunity to provide supply security,” he said. “We don’t often get the choice of where we can get our oil from. In this case we get to choose Canada. That’s an opportunity we shouldn’t miss.”

    And Russell Girling, CEO of TransCanada, the company that would build the pipeline, says opponents of the project are in fact set on targeting Canadian oil sands.

    “The real issue here is those opposed to the Canadian oil sands believe that by delaying or denying this permit somehow they will slow down the development of Canadian oil sands,” he told the Business News Network.

    “That’s an unrealistic expectation — the Canadian oil sands will get developed, irrespective of this pipeline.”
    Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China

  • #2
    Pipe line to Texas gulf coast? Good lord. Is there not anything closer? The Dakotas/Wyoming would make much more sense even if a couple of new refineries, God forbid, had to be built. Building the vast majority of our refineries along the gulf coast is stupid and now we have yet another good reason to build a few elsewhere. Letting China get a single drop of Canadian oil would be one of the biggest blunders we could make.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

    Comment


    • #3
      If you wanna make the US less dpeendant on middle-eastern oil than the pipeline would be a very good idea.

      The reason that the pipeline heads for texas is because asides from refineries, there's also a lot of other infrastructure and planning that goes into a new location for massive oil processing. The logistical networks and related industries are already in place in Texas.
      "Football is war."

      -Rinus Michels

      Comment


      • #4
        North Dakota is currently experiencing what will be a long term boom as the extraction of the Bakken shale has begun in ernest. The infrastructure and related industries are being built and increased as we speak. Surrounding states will soon fall into line and since it is 1000 miles closer to the Canadian oil than Texas it makes more sense to pipe the Canadian oil there for refining. There are no hurricanes in North Dakota either so a devastating hurricane wont be so detrimental to the supply. Spreading out the refineries across the nation makes the supply vastly safer in case of any threat, natural or man made, to refineries in any one locality. North Dakota, Spurred by Energy and Ag Boom, Has 3.2 Percent Unemployment - Yahoo! Finance
        Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

        Comment


        • #5
          I see.

          Well, given that situation, I would opt for Dakota as well.

          But maybe still building a pipeline to connect the Dakota and Texas oil industries would be beneficial?
          "Football is war."

          -Rinus Michels

          Comment


          • #6
            You can bet Texans are looking at job creation along with currently excess refining capacity. Why send those jobs to perfectly efficient Dakotan Swedes and Norwegians when the gulf coast and all its issues can be served?
            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by S2 View Post
              You can bet Texans are looking at job creation along with currently excess refining capacity. Why send those jobs to perfectly efficient Dakotan Swedes and Norwegians when the gulf coast and all its issues can be served?
              Dakotan Swedes? What tribe is that? Besides, once we cede Texas, California Arizona and New Mexico to Mexico, we are going to need that refining capacity.
              Seriously though, the Dakotas have the space and are much more centralized geographically for distribution. They could also use the people, er, the hard working kind that are looking for a job.
              Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

              Comment


              • #8
                You can argue about the length of the pipeline if there is some oil left by the time feds agree to build it.
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Julie View Post
                  Wow.

                  I had no idea Canada's oil was Obama's to lose!

                  And here I thought Canada was an independent country, capable of making its own decisions.

                  Silly me.
                  Trust me?
                  I'm an economist!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DOR View Post
                    Wow.

                    I had no idea Canada's oil was Obama's to lose!

                    And here I thought Canada was an independent country, capable of making its own decisions.

                    Silly me.
                    I feel it is in our best interest to be purchasing as much oil from our neighbor than the Middle East.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China
                      I read that as "Obama is mismanaging our foreign crude oil purchases, and losing Canada as a seller to the Chinese."

                      Nowhere in there do I see an insinuation that we own Canadian oil.
                      Last edited by Chogy; 08 Jul 11,, 13:47. Reason: spelling

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yall do know that Canada is the #1 supplier of oil to the US? We need to keep it that way. If Canada pipelines a vast amount of it's oil to China, we will have to look to the Middle East as our #1 supplier. Do we want to do that?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          DOR Reply

                          "Wow.

                          I had no idea Canada's oil was Obama's to lose!

                          And here I thought Canada was an independent country, capable of making its own decisions.

                          Silly me."


                          Silly isn't the correct word. You're flaming. Deliberate distortion and obfuscation are frowned upon. Clean up your act.
                          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Sorry.

                            Apparently sarcasm isn't as easily identified as I thought.
                            Trust me?
                            I'm an economist!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              DOR Reply

                              "...Apparently sarcasm isn't as easily identified as I thought."

                              THAT's an excuse? Trust that it was easily-identified. You're a smart guy. You absolutely knew the context of your comment. It was a provocation without a shred of meaningful content and intended to flame.

                              Tighten the screws and start delivering on that superb education you once received.

                              This topic holds a hefty range of interesting angles. None were broached by you.
                              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X