There are few decisions by U.S. President Barack Obama that will evoke more disparate reactions in Canada than his rejection the Keystone Pipeline proposal.
Opponents of ANY tar sands oil extraction activity will celebrate along with environmental activists who oppose ANY pipelines, whether through the U.S. to Texas for refining or through the Coastal range to Canada’s Pacific for export by tanker. Keystone supporters will mourn, briefly, before looking at some other way to get around the Obama administration’s negative ruling.
And then, there’s the “To hell with the U.S., let’s teach them a lesson and ship our oil to China … that’ll show ‘em!”.
I must admit, the latter was my initial response to Obama’s announcement But I’ve been thinking….
It WOULD feel good to tell the Americans to shove off: you don’t want our oil, then it’s YOU who will suffer and we’ll just sell it to the Commies … probably at premium prices,too!
And frankly, much to the chagrin of many of those who read this blog, I have no aversion to a pipeline to the coast …. IF every reasonable precaution is taken to make it as environmentally safe as possible.
The knee-jerk naysayers may hate it, but I’ll bet they all love all those petroleum products/by-products they use every day and in more ways then they even imagine. And not only oil product consumers, but those enjoying the thousands of jobs … directly and indirectly … that come from serving and servicing the tar sands’ extraction industry, its needs, equipment, services, staffing and shipping want to get that oil out… via the coast, if necessary.
And yet, I don’t believe Canada should now rush to the “China solution”.
Let’s face it: almost everything we see unfolding politically in the US right now … and for the next 10 months… is almost TOTALLY election-related. Obama didn’t like the way the Republicans sttached the Keystone 60-day deadline approval rider to the Bill that extended middle-class tax cuts: that’s WHY he rejected the project.
Wait until AFTER the November election and, if Obama gets his second term, I’d bet he’ll find some way of giving the go-ahead to the project with some sort of face-saving alterations. And if Obama, loses the Keystone project will get the go-ahead from the Republicans before White House stationery is changed!
So why rush to signing some very long-term huge commitment to China?
That would no doubt anger the Americans (stop cheering the idea!), interfere in the US election campaign .. and probably hurt Canada’s trade relations with the US in the long run, regardless of who captures the White House in November. And we saw during the softwood lumber dspute how nasty the Americans can be, even when court ruling after court ruling came out in Canada’s favour.
And according to Stats Canada, Canadian exports in 2011 (to the end of Nov) to China totalled $19 Billion … and to the US, more than $300 Billion. So would it really be a good thing for Canada to antagonize its largest trading partner? Answer that, not from the heart, but as if YOUR job depended on it.
Patience must triumph over passion.
Prime Minister Harper had already warned Canada would not become a “captive supplier” to the US, and he is right. Canada should sell SOME of its oil to China, but we will not benefit in the long term by entering into huge long-term contracts with China for the bulk of our oil/natural gas.
This is a good time, however, for Harper to squeeze Obama for better access by Canadian companies/suppliers to public infrastructure projects south of the border … which have become more and more protectionist under the Democrats …. in return for a Canadian go-slow policy on oil market alternatives.
That would be the smartest way to proceed.
But wouldn’t it be nice to see at least some sort of signing ceremony featuring Canada and Chinese energy corporations or our governments signing a new trade agreement for oil … and shaking hands enthusiastically in front of the two countries’ flags.
We’d probably even make the US Evening News … without a hockey stick in sight.
Harv Oberfeld
32 responses so far ↓
1 r // Jan 23, 2012 at 12:25 am
I wonder why few ask why not process oil here.?
(Response: Good question…read my response to Gini. Theye do seem ugly, and smelly, and dangerous …but otherwise?
h.o.
2 ron wilton // Jan 23, 2012 at 12:59 am
Either way, KXL or Enbridge Northern Gateway, will cost BC’rs significantly more at the pump than what we are paying under the present regime.
The reason oil companies using these prospective lines is simply to achieve a higher market price offshore for their product than they curently squeeze out of North American markets.
Once either of these lines are operational, the oil companies will not sell to the North American market for less than they get offshore.
Even if the difference per barrel is only 10 %, that could easily translate into 25 cents per liter or more at our local gas bar.
That additional financial burden would have a further dampering effect on Canada and BC’s economy which would not be offset by any domestic benefits that either BC or Canada might derive from either one.
Bc’rs are damned either way, but the KXL would at least spare us the threats to our people and province that Northern Gateway portends.
3 ron wilton // Jan 23, 2012 at 1:05 am
Also, let’s banish the pretext that KXL is an ‘energy security’ benefit to th U.S.
The U.S. will get lots of jobs from refining the KXL product, but the refined material will not be used in the U.S.
http://priceofoil.org/2011/08/31/report-exporting-energy-security-keystone-xl-exposed/
4 Gini // Jan 23, 2012 at 1:10 am
Harvey, I must ask why, in your whole blog, you never once mentioned the possibility of Canada refining its own crude instead of piping it to refineries in the US, to be refined and sold to other countries?
And why build a pipeline across environmentally-sensitive country, carrying crude to be shipped in super-tankers (over 2 football fields long) through some of the most dangerous waterways on the B.C. coast?
I’ve heard all the arguments from the oil industry but I’m still not convinced that Canadians should be buying oil from other countries when we have our own sources.
Do we have more than we need? Of course, but then why can’t we at least supply all of our provinces and territories, and ship the surplus (refined) to the US, much like they ship it to us now, after they’ve refined it, of course.
So it costs money to build refineries……..it costs money to build pipelines, too. It costs even more to clean up after all the inevitable spills. Who pays for that? The devastation caused by the Exxon Valdez spill is still an environmental disaster after more than 20 years.
Enbridge has a terrible record when it comes to leaking pipes and oil spills. We can’t stand idly by and watch and wait for the disaster that we know will eventually take place somewhere along Douglas Channel or on the way out to Queen Charlotte Sound, or beyond. No amount of money will be able to compensate for what we’ll lose in fish and wildlife.
Enbridge had better have a Plan B, because Plan A is not going to happen.
(Response: I think having the oil refined here would be great…but anyone who has tried to build a refinery anywhere these days will tell you they’re less welcome than a downtown coal mine. No one seems to want them …anywhere in their area. If you know of a place that would welcome one…and is economically viable …please let the oil industry know. h.o)
5 Hans Goldberg // Jan 23, 2012 at 2:06 am
First of all, this whole ethical and unethical oil is just semantics. Gasoline produced from corn is just as unethical and on top of it, it is hard on motors. The tar sands oil is a sludge, a corrosive sludge, to try and pump that through pipelines is just asking for trouble. Therefore the mined bitumen should be upgraded to Texas light, and then pumped through pipelines.
To run a pipeline to Kitimat just does not make sense to me, because a spill could not be contained. The environmental damage would be so huge, so unimaginable and so devastating, it is beyond imagination. On top of it, tanker traffic in the coastal waters is also a recipe for disaster.
Why is nobody considering a pipeline to the Hudson Bay, no mountains there.
6 Henri // Jan 23, 2012 at 2:57 am
Why did you use the environmental moniker slang “tar sands”? When rightly it is oil sands ? Tar comes from a totally different source, don’t take my word for it research as to the origins of tar.
In regards to your comment of ” wouldn’t it be nice to see at least some sort of signing ceremony featuring Canada and Chinese energy corporations or our governments signing a new trade agreement for oil”
I think such an agreement is likely , realizing though this oil may have to be shipped out of the port of Vancouver using the same pipe line which has been carrying oil to Vancouver for approximately 40 years now . This pipe line capacity could easily be doubled even tripled if need be , I believe there is no way the Northern gateway oil pipeline will ever be allowed.
(Response: Wikipedia says the words tar sands and oil sands refer to the same thing. Why not take your argument to them …and let me know their response. h.o)
7 egress // Jan 23, 2012 at 2:58 am
Keystone XL is oil for export, not to feed the insatiable US.
NONE of the KXL oil will be used in the US.
That is why raw oil (and jobs) are being exported; to feed US export markets. If the oil were to be processed in Canada it would be to far away from its intended market for refiners to respond to market demand/fluctuations.
8 SB // Jan 23, 2012 at 3:08 am
If we allow tankers on this coast it had better fill BC bank accounts , i see no good reason to accept such risk in order to make foreign companies richer .
I would prefer refining in Canada we can ship refined products as easily as raw crude and its easier to clean up if an accident occurs , either jobs and taxable incomes in BC or no way .
9 Henri // Jan 23, 2012 at 4:55 am
Harvs responce to comment no 6 (Wikipedia says the words tar sands and oil sands refer to the same thing. Why not take your argument to them …and let me know their response. h.o)
———————-
Responce as requested by Harve
The name tar sands was applied to bituminous sands in the late 19th and early 20th century. People who saw the bituminous sands during this period were familiar with the large amounts of tar residue produced in urban areas as a by-product of the manufacture of coal gas for urban heating and lighting.[10] The word “tar” to describe these natural bitumen deposits is really a misnomer, since, chemically speaking, tar is a man-made substance produced by the destructive distillation of organic material, usually coal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
(Response: Thanks. I think people realize what we’re talking about. The bigger point of the current discussion is how to get the product out…not what we should call it. h.o)
10 13 // Jan 23, 2012 at 6:58 am
Harvey, after I read your post I was almost afraid to read the responses. I thought for sure you would be roasted alive for stating that you could support both pipelines. I figured you would be chastised lambasted and demonized.
Gladly most responders so far seem to want Canada to refine our own oil. What a novel idea. What a good idea.
We would still need pipelines to move the gas but it would create real jobs.
I agree that Keystone will be built as soon as the election is over. The Americans are far more motivated and have far fewer obstacles than we do in beautiful (broke) BC. Thats the only other hang up I have for the pipeline to Kitimat. We need to get a piece of the pie beyond the construction jobs. Royalties. Ill bet you still get roasted .
(Response: Sometimes when I write…I know there will be vehement “pushback” , and that’s ok. Really gets a good discussion going. And just trying tyo keep it real, may lead some people to realize our immediate reaction is not the wisest. As for a refinery, maybe public opinion is changing and I agree one here would be a job-creating independence-building good idea, but try to find a community where the politicans and the public want it in large enough numbers. h.o)
11 Canadian Malcontent // Jan 23, 2012 at 7:11 am
The knee-jerk naysayers may hate it, but I’ll bet they all love all those petroleum products/by-products they use every day and in more ways then they even imagine
===========
All of which can be made with hemp..
12 Gary // Jan 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm
This sludge should be refined right where they take it from the ground. We need to start exporting finished products instead of raw materials.
13 D. M. Johnston // Jan 23, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Why get the tar sands oil out in the first place?
We are living in an age of peak oil and global warming and the Alberta tar sands oil should be kept for a domestic reserve and/or refined in Canada.
For too long, federal/provincial politicians (paid puppets of foreign corporate interests) have been selling off Canada for every buck they can get and its time to create a Canadian energy policy the ensures Canada’s independence from import petroleum products.
But there is a sinister aspect of the tar sands project, where the poisonous residue of the tar sands are polluting local rivers and aquifers and in time create an “ethnic cleansing” of all those (mostly first nations peoples) who depend on local rivers and lakes and underground water.
Canada and Canadian politicians have alway been myopic to the greater world picture and rather have profits today (mostly for their cronies), rather than save for tomorrow.
Aesop’s fable about the grasshopper and the ants, come to mind.
14 Henri // Jan 23, 2012 at 7:37 pm
h.o ,comment no 9
The bigger point of the current discussion is how to get the product out…not what we should call it. ——————————–
In comment No 6 I did comment in regards to “the product” but you zeroed in on my tar sand vs oil sand comment and disregard the balance of what I had stated.
( Ho, wouldn’t it be nice to see at least some sort of signing ceremony featuring Canada and Chinese energy corporations or our governments signing a new trade agreement for oil”)
Henri, I think such an agreement is likely , realizing though this oil may have to be shipped out of the port of Vancouver using the same pipe line which has been carrying oil to Vancouver for approximately 40 years now . This pipe line capacity could easily be doubled even tripled if need be , I believe there is no way the Northern gateway oil pipeline will ever be allowed.
15 cherylb // Jan 23, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Since Ontario and Quebec import most of their oil why wouldn’t they build a pipeline east to supply them? Buying “ethical oil” seems to be important to Ottawa. Sell it to Canadians. I don’t understand why both the province and the feds are so intent on selling raw resources to foreign countries so we can purchase them back at highly inflated prices.
By the way, Enbridge has a crappy record of pipeline spills. John Stanway, Communications Director for the Northern Gateway admitted today in the Vancouver Sun that they experienced 14 “significant events” in the past 10 years, with 4 in 2007 and 3 in 2010 alone. Too risky in my opinion. Once it happens……And they aren’t too quick to protect the health of citizens in the area, or to do a proper clean-up job. Just ask John Bolenbaugh and the citizens of Battle and Talmadge Creek. They’ve posted all over You Tube.
16 G.J.W. // Jan 23, 2012 at 11:21 pm
There is a Vancouver company working with Vanadium. It is used to strengthen steel. They found Vanadium an excellent storage for renewable energy. China has a lot of Vanadium, they fully intend to use Vanadium for their renewable energy.
A terrible thought. If we get rid of oil, what will country’s have to fight over? Food and clean drinking water I guess. Or maybe nuclear weapons. I can’t imagine this world with no wars.
17 Henri // Jan 24, 2012 at 12:32 am
reply for G.J.W. comment No 16
You asked,
If we get rid of oil, what will country’s have to fight over?
———————
The root of all evil “Religion” will still be with us unfortunately
18 r // Jan 24, 2012 at 4:20 am
http://www.thecanadian.org/item/1289-should-bc-have-a-referendum-on-enbridge?
19 John's Aghast // Jan 24, 2012 at 7:29 am
Gosh! I don’t know where to start! We are proposing to export (at great environmental risk) as much as we import (at environmental risk?) Why not eliminate the risk and use what we import here?
What ‘community’ is against refining the gunk locally? Why not create a community that is dedicated to refining? And accomodating ‘homeless’ people as a sideline.
And if YOU can’t figure it out, I have a couple of grandkids that will – about 50 years from now. This stuff doesn’t have a ‘best before date’. It’ll still be good when they have a chance to exercise a more sensible mentality!
(Response: Looks like opposition to building a large oil refinery right here …in Alberta…is much less now than it was a few years ago. Here that, Harper? h.o)
20 e.a.f. // Jan 24, 2012 at 9:20 am
The oil should be left in the ground for future generations to use, Canadian generations. There is no need to export bitamen oil to China or the U.S.A. The current rate of export is sufficient.
Canada should refine the oil here. Then we can talk about exporting to the U.S.A. & China. We need the jobs just as much as the Americans.
if there is a spill and there will be, the impact will be there for years and ruin our beautiful country and for what, so international companies can make larger profits? The tar sands has created jobs but it isn’t what drives our economy. We don’t actually sell it to other countries, they already own it by owing the companies which export it. All Alberta receives is royalties and they are amongst the lowest in the world.
The jobs will not be that many. As the oil exports increase so will the value of the Canadian $, which will make it more difficult for the manufacturing sector to export. We only have to look at Holland when they were growing rich off of natural gas sales. It negatively impacted their manufacturing sector, which provided more jobs than their natural gas industry. Norway has avoided the problem by seperating the sales of gas from the rest of the country’s revenue.
China is simply trying to expand its sources for natural resources. Once they have it all organized they can then play one country off the other to lower the prices.
We like to say we are all enviornmental and refuse the use of plastic bags but I still have to see the same types of programs aimed at electronics which use a great deal of resources and are hard to recycle.
Like really, who needs a bigger t.v. every yr. It is bad for the enviornment and bad for people’s pocket books.
if the government was truly interested in oil use reduction they would start by placing high tariffs on all the imported plastic we buy. Most of it is stuff we don’t even need. Just lo0k at the amount of plastic toys children have today. Does it make them healthier, happier? Most likely not. In 20 yrs. those kids will wish their parents had purchased fewer plastic toys and did more for the enviornment.
21 BG // Jan 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm
I agree, we need to have patience.
The US rejected the Keystone pipeline because the pipeline company wants to run it over a sensitive aquifer. The pipeline company just needs to make a small re-route it and it will be approved. The pipeline company bullied too many people and tried to cheap out – now it’s costing them.
Instead of running a pipeline to the west coast across the rocky mountains and winding through valleys along rivers, build it to Ontario. It’s flat the whole way and no oil tankers will be involved – in fact fewer tankers will be needed to bring oil to the east coast from overseas.
A pipeline to Eastern Canada is the real solution, why do our politicians ignore it? Harper is in somebodies pocket.
(Response: I suspect Harper is just sounding tough… China may get some of our oil,but most of it will end up in the US..eventually, by some route. But he should use the delay to get guarantees for access by other Canadian products to the US: after all, we are supposed to have a free trade deal. And government-financed projects should not be able to abrogate that deal with Buy American exclusionary rules. h.o)
22 ron wilton // Jan 24, 2012 at 10:31 pm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79228736/Whistleblower-s-Open-Letter-to-Canadians
23 Gini // Jan 24, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Getting back to refining the ‘sludge’ in Canada, I’d love to hear how a refinery can cause more pollution than an oil tanker going aground in northern B.C. or a pipeline leaking bitumen into rivers and ground water? Does air pollution trump all other forms of pollution? (It WAS air pollution you meant, was it not?)
I’m not a NIMBY sort of person. If they want to put a refinery in my backyard, be my guest. Just keep our resources and jobs in Canada, and leave our fish and wildlife alone.
BTW, I’d also like to know more about ‘Canadian Malcontent’s hemp proposal.
24 Mo // Jan 25, 2012 at 5:26 am
“As for a refinery, maybe public opinion is changing and I agree one here would be a job-creating independence-building good idea, but try to find a community where the politicans and the public want it in large enough numbers.”
THAT has NEVER been explored. But it should!
Unless Harper brands that option has FUNDED by COMMUNISTS.
What a pathetic human being!
25 ron wilton // Jan 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm
I have not been able to find any ‘updated’ information on the CNR/Alberta gov. refinery.
Has it been shelved, is it still a go, does anybody know?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/us-alberta-refinery-idUSTRE71F4L620110216
26 ron wilton // Jan 25, 2012 at 4:07 pm
The propaganda war is shifting into high gear.
I find this poll very difficult to believe.
http://abacusdata.ca/2012/01/25/canadian-public-opinion-on-northern-gateway-and-keystone-xl-pipelines/
27 Bruce A // Jan 25, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Ron
Is that another poll paid for by Endbridge? I find it hard to believe that 40 some % of BCers support the pipeline. It’s not a scientific poll – but EVERYBODY I have spoken to about it are against it.
28 larben // Jan 26, 2012 at 2:36 am
Harv, I agree with you on the ability and the need to build a pipeline to the coast, and as you say, there are a lot that lack the confidence or good sense to do so. Even one of the biggest brawling bloggers on the local scene whines on about the “pristine” country that would be threatened. Well, as has been said, it was all “pristine” at one time. And the adjective “pristine” may sound sacred, but it is all subjective.
(Response: Everyone makes HUGE use of petroleum products …but too many want others to take ALL the risks in getting at it, getting it to refineries and getting it to market. h.o)
29 imahangttiam // Jan 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Put more refineries in Alberta, where they generally love the oil industry, and then send the less corrosive and easier to pump (thereby wasting less energy) upgraded oil across to eastern Canada, so we can stop sending our wealth to middle eastern Oil dictatorships. In one broad stroke, we can have more jobs for Canadians, our natural wealth stays in the country, and we have absolute energy security (which nowadays is a big part of national sovereignty). If we want to sell any SURPLUS to the US, it goes out as upgraded product.
Harper should be for this because it is good for all of Canada. But no, because it doesn’t lead to immorally huge profits for his foreign backers.
In addition to being an incredible waste of energy and risk to the environment, promoting the export of our unrefined oil sands to China or the US before ending our own imports of overseas oil is tantamount to treason.
30 Judi Sommer // Feb 2, 2012 at 7:44 am
Hi Harvey,
As we all step back to catch our breath from rhetoric from both sides of this issue, I hope we can have a closer look at the laws and political powers that will ultimately decide this. Consultation among stake-holders is all well and good but does Harper have the ultimate Federal authority and legal right to plow through any opposition to impose this despite opposition from First Nations and other groups? I am concerned about his comments that seem to indicate that this will ultimately go through and that he is frustrated by any roadblocks he may face. Hope all this makes sense. How does policy measure against the various laws thatmay impede this?
31 Dedy // Feb 10, 2012 at 10:38 am
#15: There’s a Canadian cpnaomy that’s currently selling a home refueling appliance for Compressed Natural Gas automobiles. . Honda had plans to come out with one of their own. I’m not sure what happened to it.ReplyLike or Dislike: 0 0
32 Hardeep // Feb 11, 2012 at 4:59 am
Yes, great news for the erovninment. We need a sustainable society with full electric vehicle charged with renewable energy.
Leave a Comment
CAPTCHA Code is needed.