Good Week For Alberta Oil=Good Week For All Of Canada

[Anonymous]

Major announcements of new oil-by-rail terminals in Edmonton and Hardisty as well as TransCanada moving ahead wa ith it's Energy East project is great news for all Canadians, but very bad for Opec.

Plans to proceed with a 1.1 million barrel per day east-west oil pipeline should should ensure a better price for Alberta bitumen, Premier Alison Redford said Thursday.



And those spearheading the $12 billion Energy East project to carry crude to ports in Quebec and New Brunswick, Calgary-based TransCanada Pipeline, said it won't derail its push for its Keystone XL route to the U.S. Gulf coast.



A growing demand for crude will mean both pipelines will be relevant, said TransCanada's President Russ Girling.



"We need to find numerous outlets and transportation outlets," said Girling.



"The market needs both of these pipelines and probably more."



He called Thursday's announcement "an historic day for TransCanada, an historic day for the country."



In a statement, Redford said the project that will convert 3,000 km of existing natural gas pipeline to carry oil and build another 1,400 km of new route will help to amend the price discount for Alberta crude — the so-called bitument bubble.



"My government made a commitment to the project as part of our efforts to build new markets and get a fairer price for the oil resources Albertans own," said Redford.



Company officials said the route would enable refiners in the East to replace the 700,000 barrels a day of imported oil they now rely on.

Though TransCanada plans to begin using the pipeline in 2017-18 with the construction of a deep water port in St. John, N.B., Girling said much work is required to win over several provinces and numerous First Nations along its route.



"TransCanada fully fully respects their legal and constitutional rights, they'll be consulted extensively on their concerns," he said, adding the pipeline would be a model of environmental integrity.



The existing gas pipeline will safely carry bitumen, whose critics contend is far more corrosive than conventional oil, said TransCanada's President of oil pipelines, Alex Pourbaix.



Though he wasn't able to give a precise number, Girling said Energy East would create "thousands of jobs" — mainly in eastern Alberta, Quebec and New Brunswick where new section of pipe will be laid.



Seventy per cent of the route would be along converted natural gas pipeline, which would trade compressors for a series of up to 70 pumping stations.



Many of those, said Girling, would be built "on existing compressor stations to minimize our environmental footprint."



Originally, the project aimed to move 500,000 barrels of oil a day but widespread industry interest in it more than doubled its planned capacity, while increasing its pricetag, said Girling.



The province of Quebec has voiced concerns about the route, but Girling said he's confident TransCanada's presence in the province will pave the way for acceptance.



Energy East will increase Canada's energy sovereignty in an environmentally responsible way, said federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.



"Initiatives like this could allow Canadian refineries to process more potentially lower priced Canadian oil, enhancing Canada's energy security and making our country less reliant on foreign oil," he said.



Though exports will be enhanced by the pipeline, Girling said the domestic market will be its first priority.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/08/01/transcanada-announces-it-will-go-ahead-with-energy-east-pipeline">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/08/01/t ... t-pipeline">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/08/01/transcanada-announces-it-will-go-ahead-with-energy-east-pipeline

EDMONTON - With key pipeline proposals mired in controversy, the oilsands industry is turning to railways to ship crude.



Alberta's Gibson Energy has joined the rush to move crude out of the province by rail, with plans announced Tuesday for a major terminal at Hardisty. It is scheduled to begin shipments by March 2014, with two unit trains of 120 cars each heading south on Canadian Pacific rail lines each day.



The move follows Keyera and Kinder Morgan's announcement last week of a 40,000 bpd rail terminal in northeast Edmonton, and plans by Canexus to expand its Bruderheim terminal to 70,000 bpd. There are plans for a further expansion by Canexus.



"These alternatives will improve shipping options and maybe keep the differentials (between Canadian heavy oil and West Texas Intermediate) from getting too high," said Steven Paget, an analyst with First Energy Capital Corp. in Calgary.



"The economics are when one avenue of shipping is shut down (because of delays in building the Keystone XL and other projects) another one opens up. But certainly Keystone is the logical way to get crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast."



The announcement of these oil-by-rail projects, when combined with TransCanada's proposed Energy East pipeline to New Brunswick through Quebec, prompted Paget to call this a "summer of alternatives," after U.S. President Obama's recent derogatory comments about Keystone.



"It was the first time he has been really critical of Keystone after encouraging TransCanada to reapply. I think it is time Canada has to really look at alternatives," said Paget.



The new Gibson Hardisty terminal already has commitments from four major oil companies to ship a minimum of 100,000 bpd. Gibson will spend up to $70 million for a pipeline and pump stations to link the rail loading area to its oil storage terminal.



"USDG has pioneered the crude-by-rail concept in key markets across the U.S.," said Mike Day, USDG's vice-president. "The Hardisty rail terminal will give Canadian oil producers flexibility to obtain the best value for their product and refiners expanded access to price advantaged crude oil supplies."



Rick Wise, Gibson's senior vice-president of operations, said "our terminal is well connected to all the major pipelines coming into and leaving the Hardisty area. The development of the rail terminal provides our customers with more optionality to facilitate crude oil movements across North America."



While most of the crude from the new Hardisty terminal will flow south, shipments could be moving west by rail to Washington state refineries, or by barge down the west coast to Los Angeles and San Francisco, where large refineries now handle California's own heavy crude oil as well as imported heavy crude.



California has been identified as the best market for Alberta heavy crude after the Gulf Coast.



Perhaps the largest such project is the terminal proposed for the Port of Vancouver, Wash. — a 120,000 bpd unloading and marine terminal being built by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Co. That project could eventually expand to 360,000 bpd and the port could become the hub for distribution of North American crude oil along the West Coast.



"They would bring the oil in by rail and barge it to destinations such as Los Angeles," said Paget. "This is large scale, real pipeline scale through the U.S., giving options for both U.S. and Canadian shippers," he added.



"And they are discussing coil-heated rail cars, which sounds like a route for Canadian bitumen thus increasing the capacity."



Condensate necessary to make unheated bitumen flow in a pipeline takes up about 30 per cent of the space.



Canadian oilsands firms are keen to send some of their crude by rail. Cenovus Energy aims to ship 30,000 bpd by rail by next year, up from 5,000 bpd. Suncor plans to move up to 30,000 bpd of its crude by rail in the future, and Canadian Natural Resources is now shipping about 15,000 bpd.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/rail+terminal+planned+Hardisty/8754600/story.html">http://www.edmontonjournal.com/rail+ter ... story.html">http://www.edmontonjournal.com/rail+terminal+planned+Hardisty/8754600/story.html

[Odinson]

Now you are being the iron chink.



I don´t understand any of this shit. You always post these novels.



Could you squeeze it up for us normal people?

[Anonymous]

Now you are being the iron chink.



I don´t understand any of this shit. You always post these novels.



Could you squeeze it up for us normal people?

I would squeeze it up as good news for Canadian manufacturers and employees.

[Odinson]

I see.

[Anonymous]

As Richard Martineau rightly pointed out in the Journal de Montreal, the political left is very good in proposing expensive public projects while objecting to all the private ones that would create the wealth leftists are so eager to redistribute. The only pipeline they love is the one between taxpayers' wallets and the state's coffers. As taxpayers, we are the only natural resource they love to exploit without any kind of impact evaluation.

[Anonymous]

More encouraging news for Canada's export oil industry. However, as Obama is in the pockets of his big money "green" cronies I don't expect science will have any affect on his ultimate decision. Perhaps, Obama is considering a run for Venezuela's top office when his term expires in January 2017. I hope so, get this disaster the fuck out of North America.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new study has backed an earlier finding by the U.S. State Department that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline will have "no material impact" on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, a crucial factor the White House is expected to weigh when it decides whether to approve the project.



The report, produced by consulting and research firm IHS CERA Inc, after consultation with industry, policymakers and non-government organizations, found that without the pipeline, the use of alternate transportation routes would lead to oil sands production growth being higher or unchanged.



The conclusions were similar to those found in March by the State Department in its draft environmental impact review of the proposed 800,000 barrel per day pipeline.



TransCanada Corp's pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada's Alberta province and oil from the northern United States to Texas Gulf Coast refineries.



U.S. Senator John Hoeven, a Republican from North Dakota and a supporter of the pipeline, lauded the conclusions drawn by IHS CERA.



"We have yet another study confirming what experts, including the administration's own State Department, have been saying for years: the Keystone XL pipeline project will have no significant impact on the environment," said Hoeven.



In a June 25 speech focused on climate change, President Barack Obama said the impact the pipeline would have on future carbon emissions would be a major factor in determining whether to approve it.



The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in April found the State Department review of the environmental impact of the pipeline "insufficient."



According to IHS CERA, Venezuelan heavy crude oil would likely fill the void for Texas refineries if Keystone was not approved. The report contends that Venezuelan crude and Alberta tar sands oil have roughly the same carbon footprint.

[Anonymous]

Council of Canadians thinks foreign resources are safer and provide better energy security and jobs than Western Canadian crude. They know all this without scientifice facts from an independent study or even a proposal from TransCanada?? Perhaps Maude Barlow's friends should change their org's name to reflect their true allegiance..... Council of OPEC Stooges in Canada.



Strangely enough several green "charities" don't need science either to "know" foreign oil is better than it's Canadian competitor.

Within hours of the announcement of a proposed pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick, the Council of Canadians put out a press release vehemently opposing it.



"The pipeline is not safe, is unlikely to provide energy security for Atlantic Canadians or generate decent jobs," they declared.



That's an incredible analysis given that TransCanada, the company that wants to build the pipeline, hasn't even published a formal proposal yet. But the Council of Canadians isn't about facts — they're about feelings. And fundraising.



Just to take the first five words of that sentence, how could the council — political rabble-rousers, not scientists —know the pipeline wouldn't be safe?



An expert in metallurgy or corrosion would wait to see the pipeline specifications, or wait for an inspection. But that's the point: The council are entertainers and fearmongers, who specialize in political theatre. They do a good job of it — they raised nearly $5 million last year.

But our tolerance for the clownish behaviour of politicians is one of the ways Canada is ethically superior to our OPEC competitors who currently ship oil to Canada's Atlantic coast.



Profits in places like Saudi Arabia and Algeria go to fund the repression of dissidents.



In Canada, we take the country's biggest complainer, give him a free house and a six-figure salary, and call him "leader of the opposition."



But we do make some exceptions.



Some Canadians voluntarily give up their right to criticize the government in return for other privileges.



Like judges. According to the Canadian Judicial Council, "all partisan political activity must cease upon appointment" and judges must refrain from "taking part publicly in controversial political discussions."



It's not that judges don't have the same rights the rest of us do. It's that they agreed to limit themselves. A judge can always go political again — if he resigns from the court.



The same thing applies to Canada's charities.



Under the Income Tax Act, charities must focus on the public good — non-political things we all agree on, like hospitals or relieving poverty. Charities may not have a political purpose, and political activities, like promoting or opposing any law or policy, are strictly limited.



So you wouldn't expect the Sierra Club, a registered charity, to attack the pipeline. But they did.



"They're in for a fight," they boasted to The New York Times the day the pipeline was proposed. Environmental Defence, another Canadian charity, told the Times the pipeline "puts Canadians in harm's way for the benefit of the oil industry's bottom line."



Two more charities, Toronto's World Wildlife Fund and Montreal's Equiterre, issued a press release attacking the pipeline on economic and environmental grounds.



That's political. And each of these groups backs up their threats with ongoing campaigns.



Well, which is it? Are they charities, like an orphanage? Or political activists, like the Council of Canadians? They can't have it both ways.



In the 2012 federal budget, the Canada Revenue Agency was given an additional



$8 million to crack down on charities fraud, with a focus on environmental lobby groups. In the 18 months since then, not a single environmental lobby has had their charity status stripped.



The Conservatives like to point to the millions of dollars pouring into Canada each year from foreign competitors to attack our resource industries.



But in truth, the greatest source of funds is their own Charities Directorate — the silent financial partner in all these campaigns.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/12/charities-or-activists">http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/12/ch ... -activists">http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/12/charities-or-activists

[Romero]

Just to take the first five words of that sentence, how could the council — political rabble-rousers, not scientists —know the pipeline wouldn't be safe?

Because pipelines, even new pipelines, have proven to be unsafe. Alberta has had tens of thousands of pipeline spills in the last forty years.



http://www.seankheraj.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/numberofalbertaoilspills1975-2013.jpg">



http://globalnews.ca/news/571494/introduction-37-years-of-oil-spills-in-alberta/">//http://globalnews.ca/news/571494/introduction-37-years-of-oil-spills-in-alberta/



Here's a video of pipeline spills in the US since 1986:

How can the oil and gas industry claim pipelines are safe when there have been tens of thousands of spills? Any new pipeline will spill. It's only a matter of when.

Under the Income Tax Act, charities must focus on the public good — non-political things we all agree on, like hospitals or relieving poverty. Charities may not have a political purpose, and political activities, like promoting or opposing any law or policy, are strictly limited.



So you wouldn't expect the Sierra Club, a registered charity, to attack the pipeline. But they did.

It's no surprise that environmental groups and charities are going to oppose pipelines, considering that they've spilled tens of thousands of times. It can be considered political since politics are going to be involved, but trying to protect the environment is still trying to protect the environment.

[Anonymous]

Romero wrote:

Because pipelines, even new pipelines, have proven to be unsafe

US pipelines carried 474.6 billion gallons of crude and petroleum products in 2012 and reported 2.3 million gallons spilled, an effective rate of 0.0005 percent, according to the Association of Oil Pipelines.  



U.S. federal government statistics show that pipelines are 16 times safer than rail and 189 times safer than commercial motor vehicles in shipping crude oil comparing freight tons shipped. On a per kilometre basis, pipelines are 451 times safer. Last year nearly 10 billion barrels of crude and refined products shipped in the United States.  Of that 99.99999 per cent was shipped safely.



Per every billion kilometers traveled, trains have a fatality rate 12 times over air travel; by comparison, fatality rates for automobiles are 62 times greater than air travel. However, there have been about 2400 air crashes and about 17,500 deaths from aircraft crashes worldwide since 1999. Even though planes are safer than trains or commercial motor vehicles shouldn't the Council of Canadians be opposed to all air travel in Canada? Isn't it only "a matter of time" before an airplane crashes?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/ACRO_fatalities_1918-2009.svg/512px-ACRO_fatalities_1918-2009.svg.png">

[Anonymous]

Pipelines are a safer more natural way of transporting bulk liquids, but we will will at least ensure our product is getting to market.

Aug 14 (Reuters) - Midstream oil company TORQ Transloading Inc said on Wednesday it plans to build a $100 million crude-by-rail terminal in Kerrobert, Saskatchewan, that will be able to load 168,000 barrels per day of oil.



It is the latest, and largest, in a recent rush of Western Canadian crude-by-rail projects as producers seek alternatives to congested pipelines to transport their crude to U.S. refining markets.



The Kerrobert Rail Terminal, to be served by Canadian Pacific Railway, will load two 120-car unit trains per day that will each carry both light and heavy crude.



TORQ Chief Executive Jarrett Zielinski said the location of the terminal in the southeast end of the oil sands region means shippers will be able to save about $5 a barrel on transporting crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast and to the East Coast, compared with shipping crude by rail out of northern Alberta, the center of the oil sands region.



Gibson Energy Inc, another midstream oil services company investing in train terminals to ship crude, has said it costs $14-$17 per barrel to transport crude from Hardisty, Alberta, to the U.S. Gulf Coast.



"Kerrobert, Saskatchewan, is geographically as close to the heavy crude's natural destination markets as possible by rail, minimizing transportation costs relative to similar crude types to be shipped by rail originating further north and west in Alberta," Zielinski said.



Privately owned TORQ is negotiating pipeline connections to deliver crude to the terminal, which will also take deliveries by truck.



The project will include storage tanks with up to 50,000 barrels of capacity, including heated storage that can handle undiluted conventional heavy oil from the Lloydminster region on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, which is too viscous to flow through pipelines unless it is diluted with condensate.



An increasing number of Canadian producers are starting to transport heavy oil and raw bitumen in heated rail cars, to save on the cost of adding condensate.



The Kerrobert terminal has been designed to also accept inbound condensate deliveries by rail.



The practice of shipping crude oil by rail has come under heavy scrutiny since a tanker train blew up in a Quebec town last month, killing 47 people.



This week the rail regulator, the Canadian Transport Agency (CTA), said it would shut down the railway involved in the Quebec disaster because it does not have enough insurance to pay for clean-up costs and other damage.



A spokesman for CP Rail, which will serve the new Kerrobert terminal, said CP meets the requirements of the CTA, including having appropriate insurance.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/canada-crude-rail-idUSL2N0GF0Z520130814">http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... Z520130814">http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/canada-crude-rail-idUSL2N0GF0Z520130814

[Anonymous]

Producers are increasingly turning to crude-by-rail with CN and CP as pipeline expansions face delay after silly delay.

   CALGARY/HOUSTON, Aug 14(Reuters) - Canadian oil producers are jumping into the crude-by-rail

movement, on the heels of U.S.  producers, as output ramps up, even though pipeline capacity is

insufficient to move it to North American markets.

    Most shipments involve Canadian bitumen diluted with condensate so it will flow in a

pipeline or in a general purpose tank railcar. But, increasingly, Canadian producers and U.S.

refiners are seeking specially heated and insulated tank cars that use injected steam to heat

and liquefy the viscous bitumen, cutting out the cost and space taken up by diluents.

    Here is a rundown of Canadian rail projects, as well as U.S. projects aimed at bringing in

more Canadian crude by rail:

   

    ------------------

    CANADIAN TERMINAL PROJECTS

    ------------------

   

 COMPANY                 TYPE              LOCATION          CAPACITY        STARTUP

 Canexus                 Expansion of      Bruderheim (near  70,000 bpd                 Q3 2013

                         terminal          Edmonton),                        

                                           Alberta                          

                                                                             

 Gibson Energy Inc       New terminal      Hardisty,         140,000 bpd                Q1 2014

          and USDG                         Alberta                          

                                                                             

 Ceres Global            New terminal      Northgate,        70,000 bpd                 Q4 2013

                                           Saskatchewan                      

                                                                             

 Tundra Energy           Terminal for      Cromer, Manitoba  30,000 bpd x 2  Aug 2013 / Q1 2014

 Marketing Ltd and       Manitoba/N.Dakot                                    

 Enbridge Inc            a crude                                            

                                                                             

 Keyera Corp             New terminal      Edmonton,         40,000 bpd                 Q2 2014

 and Kinder Morgan                         Alberta                          

 Energy Partners LP                                                          

                                                                             

                                                                             

 TORQ Transloading Inc   New terminal      Kerrobert,        168,000 bpd                Q3 2014

                                           Saskatchewan  

https://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/research/public/Markets/CommoditiesNews?documentKey=1314-L2N0GF1XN-1">https://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/resear ... 2N0GF1XN-1">https://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/research/public/Markets/CommoditiesNews?documentKey=1314-L2N0GF1XN-1        

[Lance Leftardashian]

Things aren't so good for Alberta oil this week



January 14, 2015



The End of OPEC as We Have Known It is Here

By: George L. Perry



More...

Early last Fall, when oil prices had fallen by about $25 a barrel and it became clear the decline was more than a temporary blip, the big question was how far prices would fall.  And that would depend on whether and when Saudi Arabia and its OPEC partners would support the world oil price by cutting their own production. By this winter, we had an answer. The Saudis have made it clear, by what they have said and what they have not done, that they want the U.S. and others to cut production before they do any cutting of their own. This is the end of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries as we have known it, and it will keep the global oil market chaotic for some time.



On Tuesday, oil prices fell further after the United Arab Emirates' oil minister said OPEC would keep output unchanged. Markets will adjust to this new situation, but not very quickly. And most of the adjustments will have to come from lower oil production because consumption depends largely on the level of fuel efficiency of today's vehicles and planes, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. Thus, most of the adjustment will have to come from the supply side of the market, where low prices could force some high cost fields to shut down earlier than planned and cause many new drilling projects to be abandoned.  



Most of the world's new oil production has come from U.S. shale fields and Canadian tar sands — two main forms of "tight oil" that were made possible by new technologies that had revolutionized the industry. Both are relatively high-cost sources of oil, but with an important difference. The tar sands projects require huge initial investments in processing plants but have low marginal costs to operate afterward. Once established, their production is unlikely to change much. By contrast, shale fields produce most of their output in the first year, which makes their output highly responsive to oil prices. A disproportionate amount of any reduction in global supply is therefore likely to come from cuts in U.S. shale oil production.



That adjustment is already underway, and it will lower the projected path of oil production for later this year and beyond. But in the immediate future, U.S. production will continue to grow as wells started last year are completed. For now, production will continue to exceed demand and inventories of oil and oil products, which are already at historically high levels, will rise further. So it is easy to make the case that prices are headed still lower in the near term.



Looking a few quarters ahead, the prospects begin to change. On the demand side, lower oil prices will weaken the incentives for a more fuel efficient capital stock.  The high fuel prices of the past several years had moved the airlines to order more fuel-efficient planes and tilted consumers to more fuel-efficient cars. But by late last year, airlines were cancelling new plane orders and car sales of SUVs and light trucks soared. These effects will be modest. They will not undue the environmental movement toward fuel efficiency, but will delay some change.  Barring some unexpected disruption in supplies from noneconomic developments, the main adjustment to the imbalance in the global oil market will have to come from cuts in the world's oil production. Prices should recover from this winter's slide, which reflect the continuing increase in North American production. But to discourage enough high-cost production for the longer run will require prices to stay substantially below the $100 level that prevailed through last summer.



If prices stay low, the implications on the world economy and geopolitics will be large and diverse, even if, over the next several years, oil prices recover from present levels to the $60 to $70 a barrel range, that would still maintain a decline of well over $1 trillion a year from last summer's level of oil revenues – and oil users' costs.  



Some of the effects are welcome, others not. For Russia, whose budget depends heavily on oil revenues, the decline in oil prices is a financial disaster. The ruble's foreign exchange value has already been cut in half. Terrorists in the Middle East arm themselves with revenue from oil. In the U.S., the development of shale fields has often been funded with credits that are held by banks and high-yield bond funds. Many of these credits could default.  Alongside these complications, some of which are good and some not, the unambiguous positive effect of lower oil prices will be for the boost they provide to the purchasing power of the world's consumers at a time when such stimulus is badly needed.

[Anonymous]

Nice little article "Lance", but there's a couple of problems. It's full of lies and it's already outdated. Shale oil is tight oil, but Canadian heavy is NOT. They are both unconventional though. BTW, as soon as I read someone call Western Canadian heavy "tarsands" I know it is NOT worth reading anything more of of what they have to say and this clown was no different.



While Canada's conventional and shale oil will see modest declines this year our oilsands production is expected to increase by about 350,000 bbls/day as money has been invested and there is no turning back now.



Brent futures trading is already well above today's prices so the markets feel the end is in sight. The global over supply is NOT overwhelming ffs. We are are talking about 1.6% of global demand. Something say a supply disruption in Libya or demand picks up because of low prices could quickly shrink back to an equilibrium.



He did get one thing right though, Western Canadian heavy is less affected by temporary downturns than conventional oil. Other than that, he's full of shit.