Alberta to U.S.: Use the oil sands or lose them

COMMENT: Some of the tone of this article is offensive. Don Martin disparages the emerging US desire to put some climate change/environmental filters on the fuel it buys - "the delusional swagger that [Americans] can be picky about which oil is good enough to buy". That really is rude!

But the line that leaps out is this one: "the cost and complications of a new west-bound pipeline may be prohibitive for the private sector to go it alone."

First time it has been suggested that Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline be subsidized into existence. We've commented before on subsidies, and the fact that many large energy pipeline projects would (or will) not exist without subsidies (link) But Gateway to this point has always been Enbridge exploring a profiteering opportunity. Uh-oh.

The federal and provincial governments have been pushing cash at First Nations to gain their consent for energy projects (link), and the amount of cash that might get pushed at FNs for Gateway could be stunning.

Nevertheless, I don't think that's quite what Martin is getting at in this article. Is there is an appetite for a more direct subsidy for Gateway in either the federal or provincial government? Martin suggests that Environment Minister Jim Prentice might be a likely champion of such a subsidy - Environment Minister??!!

Don Martin
National Post
August 31, 2009

OTTAWA -- To lift a quip from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Arctic sovereignty policy and apply it to the American view of Alberta’s oil sands: use it or lose it.

The Chinese government pushed its shovel deep into Canada’s energy motherlode on Monday when it announced a $2-billion stake in a five-billion-barrel reserve of “dirty oil” that Americans increasingly find unworthy of fuelling their vehicles.

The 60% claim by PetroChina in two projects owned by Athabasca Oil Sands Corp., while small compared to the great gobs of capital pouring into oil sands expansion and extraction, are the global giant’s largest investment in Canadian energy yet.

And China usually buys into product it aims to consume.

Sources in Washington predict politicians there will not be pleased at having a massive supply of secure energy on their northern doorstep slipping under Chinese ownership.

Well, too bad.

Under the greenish Obama administration, “oil sands” is becoming a dirty word as Americans take on the delusional swagger that they can be picky about which oil is good enough to buy in a recession when supply is temporarily ahead of demand.

Canadian oil sands exports are increasingly encountering U.S. political resistance at federal, state and municipal levels as low-carbon fuel standards move through the legislative process to erect barricades against an energy with an extraction problem.

But it is delusional because there is no post-refining difference between conventional and non-conventional oil and banning it in one state or city merely moves it to another, with no corresponding reduction in carbon emissions.

Yet the difference between the American and Chinese views of oilsand imports suggests that Canada is nearing a moment of decision.

It can be forever held captive to the whims of U.S. refineries, which import 60% of oilsand production or about 780,000 barrels a day. Or it can create a battle of demand between the two energy-consuming superpowers that will soon find there is not enough oil to satisfy their combined thirsts.

That will require Canada, whose pipelines now head only north and south, to punch a hole in the Rockies and open up a crude flow to the west coast, from where oil could head overseas.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice is no fan of a single-buyer market for exported bitumen, which actually sells at a discount in the U.S. compared to Middle East oil despite coming from a friendly neighbour. He’d like competition injected into the system.

“Doesn’t it help Canada’s exporter to have alternative market choices?,” he noted in a recent interview. “We need transportation mechanisms to ship it to the West Coast. Refineries in the U.S. have limited capacity and we don’t have anywhere else to sell it. Having the capacity to ship it to the West Coast would keep everybody honest, so I think it’s good policy.”

That’s so obvious as to be rhetorical, but the cost and complications of a new west-bound pipeline may be prohibitive for the private sector to go it alone.

The proposed Enbridge Inc. Northern Gateway pipeline, which was been on ice for several years, is being thawed for reconsideration.

That’s at least five years off and the project faces numerous environmental, aboriginal land claim and geographical hurdles, which is probably why they weren’t talking it yesterday — although they weren’t ruling it out in the longer term either.

But to understand China’s strategic investment interest, keep in mind that 2009 will likely go down as the first year when car sales in the Communist country beat the United States, making it the world’s largest car-buying nation.

At the risk of stating the obvious, cars consume gasoline, gasoline comes from oil and the world’s largest deposits of oil, albeit locked in tar, straddle northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

If America doesn’t want to use it on environmental grounds, they’re only one pipeline away from losing it to someone else.

Posted by Arthur Caldicott on 01 Sep 2009