Obama wins: Will he build keystone?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm aware of that, which is why I said "Any H2S," as opposed to "The H2S." IE, if there was any significant amount they'd take it out. It is also possible, although it wouldn't be first, that gas from the Alberta foothills could be exported off the west coast.

In any case, the point I was trying to make is that H2S is removed down to spec from gas before it goes into a transmission pipeline, so it shouldn't be an issue with respect to LNG projects.

No that's not possible at all. BC gas will either be exported or LNG will not happen. The export license granted to Apache from the NEB was for BC basins. Shell and Petronas are also using BC gas fields in their project approvals.

[Vulcan]

On CBC the US Ambassador said Obama hasn't denied the Keystone, he is waiting for Nebraska to decide on a route. The Ogallala Aquifer seems to be important for some reason.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...quifer-6531527

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

No that's not possible at all. BC gas will either be exported or LNG will not happen. The export license granted to Apache from the NEB was for BC basins. Shell and Petronas are also using BC gas fields in their project approvals.

The current projects don't have export licenses for that. There's no reason a hypothetical future project couldn't get such an export license. Obviously that only happens once a significant amount of BC gas is being exported and they need to reach into Alberta for supply. I didn't say likely or soon, I said possible.

[Tinordi]

BC's reserves dwarf Alberta's. Any new supply will come out of BC basins, they are not supply constrained.

[Daradon]

All I've heard from both sides of the border is that it will go through, he just didn't want to talk about it during the election (or approve it before then) because he didn't want to drive away certain voting blocks.

Doubtful such concerned hippies would go to the conservative side because of that, but...

[IntenseFan]

^ But then they might not have voted at all (or maybe for a third party guy) in a very close election where he needed every vote. Votes he didn't get would hurt almost as much as votes to the other guy.

Personally, although I suspect he will take major heat from the enviros, I think he must approve it. Energy independence for a major importer like the US is only half about opening up further US supply. You also have to open up supply from friendly countries where the supply can safely be shipped to the US. Also, he needs jobs, jobs, jobs unless he wants his legacy to be the President who racked up a national debt bigger than the entire wealth of the rest of the world.

Maybe this should be a poll.

Mods?

[CaptainCrunch]

The only hope for America to me is that Obama no longer has to be as beholden to his celebrity friends and the wackier elements of the environmental and left side of the spectrum.

He doesn't have to campaign to them, toady up to them, or fund raisse from them so it should allow him a little bit of freedom to do the right things and not the trendy things.

At least I hope we see a president that's a little more bendible, a little less celebrity factor and with a little more resolve then the Obama from the last term.

[Cowboy89]

^ Not being beholden to re-election has the potential to go the other way too. The impression I've gotten from his administration is that if his policies are implemented US oil demand would actually decrease so much so over 10 years that there wouldn't be a need for an additional pipelines from Canada, hence Keystone XL would be a white elephant. Of course reality would argue otherwise, in that the US demand is only down due to economic stagnation rather than true demand destruction, greater energy efficiency, or renewable displacement.

If viewed from the bluest colored glasses though the line from his speech of 'Free from dependancy of foriegn oil' could actually mean to include Canada in his head. That would ultimately entail much greater domestic production (Of which it's trending in that direction thanks to shale oil development), and massive demand replacement or destruction due to environmental policies.

[Tinordi]

Of course reality would argue otherwise, in that the US demand is only down due to economic stagnation rather than true demand destruction, greater energy efficiency, or renewable displacement.

This is actually not true. American VKTs were softening two years before 2008, and now with economic recovery back to 2006 levels, VKTs are still lower than in 2006. There's something fundamental going on with the American transport drivers, it isn't just economic growth related.

[IntenseFan]

I must admit I did not see what this guy is predicting as a possibility: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../2203943420001

Sun News is a bit alarmist at times of course. I would have though that the Free Trade Agreement would prohibit the US from a $40 per barrel tax (environmentally motivated or otherwise) on Canadian oil sent down the pipeline. However, I am no expert on the FTA.

Anyone in the know here?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

I must admit I did not see what this guy is predicting as a possibility: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/f.../2203943420001

Sun News is a bit alarmist at times of course. I would have though that the Free Trade Agreement would prohibit the US from a $40 per barrel tax (environmentally motivated or otherwise) on Canadian oil sent down the pipeline. However, I am no expert on the FTA.

Anyone in the know here?

I think that would go against the Free Trade deal. If that were imposed then its not worth shipping oil to the States anymore is it.

[burn_this_city]

I can't see it happening, the producers would simply shutter a lot of the production and force a price spike in the US. A country that consumes more than it produces, can't put a supplier over the barrel.

[Rathji]

I was under the impression that the US actually has started producing more than it uses, is that not correct?

edit: or am I thinking of natural gas?

[IntenseFan]

^ You are thinking nat gas.

I suspect the FTA would prohibit Canadian producers from intentionally causing a price per barrel spike in the US.

But there are major loopholes in NAFTA. Just wondering if a "green-tax" or "environmental tax" on Canadian oil in the pipeline would be one.

Of course he would have to get congressional approval of that in the first place, which the House Republicans would likely block.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

A country that consumes more than it produces, can't put a supplier over the barrel.

Pun intended?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I was under the impression that the US actually has started producing more than it uses, is that not correct?

edit: or am I thinking of natural gas?

It is projected that in 20 years the U.S. will be oil self sufficient.

Back on topic, rivetting political drama. I would place odds of approval at 50/50. The Keystone report by the State Department got much much more media pickup here in Canada for obvious reasons than in the U.S. While the narrative that surfaced here was that this report changes the game and assuaged all the depressed execs at the Petroleum Club, it got little play in the U.S. media outside of concerned channels.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It is projected that in 20 years the U.S. will be oil self sufficient.

So why not let a Canadian company spend it's own money hiring Americans to build a pipeline, which will only provide for a more efficient market in the meantime. If the US isn't buying the oil then it's only Canada who's suffering at that point in time.

The other side of it is if maybe those forecasts are too optimistic by extrapolating the recent oil shale growth and the recent post-recession demand destruction forward. If that plays out then the US might still be able to import oil from a more stable part of the world who has a greater propensity of applying actual regulations on their O&G industry than the other parts of the world it would be importing from otherwise.

The only practical reasons for blocking it are political theatrics.

[Tinordi]

Agreed that it's theatre. Would disagree with the implication that theatre doesn't matter. As we've seen, dedicated issue based core constituencies drive policy agendas in the U.S. Opponents did it to cap and trade legislation in 2009 now on the flip side, activitists are using Keystone as a lightning rod to galvanize further climate policy. Canada's left holding the bag mostly because we've done nothing on the climate issue and have left ourselves exposed to punitive measures.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Agreed that it's theatre. Would disagree with the implication that theatre doesn't matter. As we've seen, dedicated issue based core constituencies drive policy agendas in the U.S. Opponents did it to cap and trade legislation in 2009 now on the flip side, activitists are using Keystone as a lightning rod to galvanize further climate policy. Canada's left holding the bag mostly because we've done nothing on the climate issue and have left ourselves exposed to punitive measures.

Then if Obama's a real leader he will approve the pipeline on its actual merits of net benefit to the US in the short and medium term and then on the other side push for further climate policy which will essentially force Canada to deal with. It's a very negative message to send to to foreign businesses that the US will kill investment on the basis of political optics.

[burn_this_city]

I'm skeptical of the US ever being energy independent. There's a lot of marginal shale oil in places like Louisiana and California that's being included in those forecasts.